 I have a question to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices completely. As you interfere with the broadcasting system even when they are switched asylum, no apologies have been received. Item 1 is consideration of four negative instruments, where the instruments are. I will take a deep breath because they are long. Right interpretation and translation is criminal proceeding, Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014 and 1995, and the Firmen's pension scheme, amendment number 2, Scotland Order SSI 2014-108, Firefighters' Conversations Scheme Scotland amendment in order 2014, SSI 2014-109 and Firefighters' Pensions Scheme Scotland amendment order number two order 2014 SSI 2014-110. The purpose of the first instrument is to give suspected or accused persons who require it, the statutory right to interpretation in police custody and during police questioning, and also in criminal proceedings before a court. The instrument comes into force on 19 May. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 22 April 2014 and agreed that it did not need to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument on any grounds within its remit. Do members have any comments in relation to the statutory instrument? Are members content to make no recommendation in respect of this instrument? The purpose of the other three instruments is to provide retained firefighters with equal treatment and comparable rights as whole-time firefighters following new employment legislation in 2000. The instruments come into force on 23 May 2014. The DPLR committee considered SSI 2014 a Bleak 108 at its meeting on 13 May 2014 and agreed that it did not need to draw the attention of the Parliament to the instrument. Do members have any comments in relation to that instrument? Are you there? Thank you. Have you any comments? No? Thank you. Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? The DPLR committee agreed to draw SSI 2014 one-on-nighth attention of the Parliament as it contains a minor drafting error—oh, that old one—namely that the word his was included in paragraph 11C of the schedule in error. Somebody must have been dreaming. The word should have been omitted, as otherwise the order is drafted in gender neutral terms. Here we say to that. Do members have any comments in relation to this instrument? John. Simply to say, convener, I think that we should welcome it. The bulk of the landmass of Scotland is covered by retained firefighters and the fact that they have parity with their full-time equivalents, I think, is to be welcomed. Could that apply in the highlands and islands by any chance? It could indeed. Indeed, good. I'm glad to hear that, and in the borders. Let's not all pitch in with our patches. We have no comments in relation to that other than that rather good comment by John. Members are content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument. The DPLR committee agreed to draw SSI 2014 one-on-no to the attention of the Parliament as paragraph 1A4 of the schedule is defectively drafted. There are also other minor drafting errors. In responding to those issues, the Scottish Government accepted the points raised by the DPLR committee as agreed to lay an amending instrument that will correctly identify errors with the present instrument prior to its commencement on 23 May 2014. Do members have any comments in relation to that instrument? I don't know if you're still alive. I can't hear a thing. Thank you very much. Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? Thank you very much. Item 2 is consideration of the act of sedent fitness for judicial office tribunal rules 2014 SSI 2014-99. This instrument is not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The DPLR committee considered the instrument 22 April 2014 and agreed to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament due to defective drafting. In three areas, and because the menu of rule 6-2A could be clearer, the need in my primary teacher, Ms Campbell, I tell you should never have allowed this. The Lord President's private office intends to lay a corrective instrument that rectifies those errors. The relevant extra DPLR committee's report is reproduced in page 2 of paper. Do members have any comments in relation to this instrument? Thank you. Are members content to note the instrument and address the conclusions of the DPLR committee report? Thank you very much. We now move on to our annual report covering our work during the parliamentary year from 11 May to 10 May 2014. Is available for members' consideration. Do you have any comments in relation to the draft annual report? I hope that I don't want minor drafting errors. No, they are not going to that. It could be shifted to another committee. There is no doubt about that. I wonder if, in relation to paragraph 20, when we talk about the legislative consent memorandum that we could make reference to our frustrations about the time frame within which we were expected to deliver it. Can we just put that in then? The committee would... I think we can get the gist. The committee would draw attention to the fact that they are not pleased, whatever the wording will be, in particular with some that are of extreme relevance. We did not have time to do much with them. To other minor ones, I wonder if, in paragraph 23, in relation to the EU engagement, we could just make a passing reference to the negative implications of the opting out, because that is what we heard from the Lord Advocate, Police Scotland and the Minister, and indeed I think the House of Lords. Are you happy with that, everybody? Yes? Okay, anything else, John? The very final one is on paragraph 31, where in the second sentence it says, the actor placed eight territorial police forces in Scotland with one national force. While it is not incorrect, I think that we need to see and this central services as well. Right. Well done, John. That bacon roll does not have work. Anybody else? The report covers work to the 10th of May. Just for general information, Karen Bradley's visit was cancelled last week. Have we got any update as to what is planned? No, we haven't. Are we following this up in any fashion? Is the carrier pigeon off, is it? Okay, so we are chasing that up, because that was a disappointment. It may not be her fault, of course, so anything else? We are content, right? So with these, are you content to agree the annual report for publication? Thank you very much. Now, we have no meeting next week. Our next meeting is 3 June. That meeting will take evidence on the Taylor review and consider petitions. And that's the end of today's business.