 I welcome you to the 10th and the last meeting in 2016 of the Justice Committee. Save your tears from later, you still got work to do. Can I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices? I have apologies from Margaret MacDougall and Gil Paterson. Item 1, the decision on taking business in private. I am asking you to consider items 5, 6 and 7 in private. Item 5 is consideration of the committee's draft report on family law Scotland Act 2006, and item 6 and 7 is consideration of the committee's sub-committee legacy papers. Are you agreed? Item 2 is the first item of business and is consideration of correspondence in relation to the committee's EU priorities. You could even write to consider the latest response from the Minister for Community and Safety and Legal Affairs, which is attached in full at annex 8 of paper 1. Roddy, as our EU report, you wished to say anything about the response. To be honest, convener, I think that it is this old self-expansory. I haven't really got anything to add to it. Any other comments? Right, so we just note the response. Correct? I'd like to know if there's life. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Elaine. You came to my rescue. Item 2 is consideration of free negative instruments. The first is the Act of Sederent Pays of Sheriff Officers 2016. This instrument substitutes a new table of fees for the table in schedule 1 to the Act of Sederent Pays of Sheriff Officers 2002. The new fee levels are 1.3 per cent higher than the existing fees. The DPLR committee agreed to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament, because the preamble to the instrument is incorrect. The Lord President's private office has indicated that it has requested a correction slip from the statutory instrument registrar. I didn't even know we had such a person, but there you are to correct these errors. Do members have any comments on the instrument? No. I'm ever content to make no recommendation in relation to that instrument. The second instrument is the Act of Sederent Pays of Messengers Arms 2016. It substitutes a new table of fees for the table of fees in schedule 1 to the Act of Sederent Pays of Messengers arms number 2002. Again, the fee levels of the new table of fees represents an increase of 1.3 per cent of the existing fees. The DPLR committee agreed to draw the attention of the Parliament, because the preamble to the instrument is incorrect. Again, the Lord President's private office has indicated that it has requested a correction slip from the statutory instrument registrar to remove these errors. Do members have any comments on the instrument? No. I'm ever content to make no recommendations. The third instrument is the Prisons and Young Offenders Institute in Scotland amendment rules 2016. That makes largely technical amendments to clarify points in the prison rules. The prison rules make provision for the regulation and management of prisons and young offenders institutions and for various matters concerning detainees in these institutions, such as their classification, treatment, discipline, employment and control. The DPLR committee did not draw the attention of the Parliament on any grounds within its remit. Do you have any comments in relation to the instrument? If I could just ask a point of clarification, paragraph 9, page 7 says that the definition of powerful activity detailed in rule 84.2 is being amended to provide flexibility and a wide discretion over which activities the governor can provide for prisons. Have we any more details on what that is? I wouldn't like there to be any munition of work, vocational training and education, which we know are in short supply. No, but you've put it on the record, so I think that that's something you may or no, because the committee did, as we did in our inquiry, look at what was meant by purposeful activity. It wasn't just simply ticking boxes, but it should really have meaning, so I think that's on the record. I'd like to comment about paragraph 8 in the policy objectives. That relates to rule 68. The appropriate level of authorisation for a police constable to interview a prisoner has been moved from chief constable to chief inspector. I think that that's very pragmatic and I'd just like to comment. I hope that that's a direction of travel that will continue with other matters that will be devolved to appropriate level. Thank you. That's also on the record, isn't it, Christian? I would like to comment particularly on the policy objective number five on that flexibility and I welcome all those flexibility regarding faith. I think that that's very very welcome to understand that prisoners will change during their time in incarceration and are really welcome at that amendment. Any other comments? Thank you very much. I'm members content to make no recommendations in relation to this instrument. Next item of business, item four, is consideration of committee's draft annual report. It's intended to be largely factual and statistical, kind of a workbook of the past year. I intend to go through it page by page. I know. If you have any comment to make, please tell me which paragraph on the page it relates to and what change you would like to make. I hope that we can agree to support this meeting but if you need it, Clare Swell will capture any comments. I love that word, capture. I feel like a net. And forward to revised draft to members by close of play today. I'm going to go through page by page, not paragraph by paragraph. If you want me to stop, you just look at me nicely and I'll stop and we'll go over it. I'm on to page, um, page two, page three. John. Paragraph 10, the last line after the word union, should it not have in brackets FBU, close brackets? Yes. So you're just putting that in to explain why we've got FBU later. Strictly speaking, it should be FBU Scotland as well. FBU Scotland. That's it. Thank you very much. Next page, which is page four. Christian. On 12, at the end of 12, it was inhibited of single police and fire service to recover that. Can we make it made clear that it was from the UK government? Well, that is reserved. I don't think we need to do that to recover either, you know, to hear about it, but what do you want to do? From the UK government? Is that right? What do you mean is that right? Well, it's customs and exercise. I mean, it's just... Well, the correspondence, at the moment, the correspondence we've had has been with the UK government with regard to the recovery of that. Yeah, but obviously it's just the UK government legislation. So customs and exercise is part of the UK government. So it's the inability of the single police and fire service to recover that from the UK government. Can we put that in? I don't like it. Right, I want to stop. We're just to recover that period. Period. I'm not having a firefight. Now you see why this is not worthwhile in public, because we have all these discussions about a comma. We are in public. Page 4. Page 5. You're still in page 4. What are you on now? I found it strange when I was on 13 on women offenders. We didn't speak about Pullman at all, that part of the... We didn't know about Pullman. We didn't know about... Wasn't told about Pullman? No, we weren't. They were told during... It's two days later. Could you speak through the chair just not have a little conversation with each other, please? Sorry, convener. We weren't told. It was an announcement after the cabinet secretary came before the committee. So that is accurate. Legacy report, this must be what the committee has dealt with, not extraneous matter. You're looking at me in a quizzical fashion. I find it strange that this committee heard about it, so therefore it should be a general report. Well, we didn't actually hear it. This committee heard about it? No, no, no. Christian, the announcement came out, came out after the cabinet secretary had been before the committee, a day or two later, if I recall. Wasn't to the committee... Cabinet secretary didn't talk about Pullman to the committee afterwards? No. In recision? Nope. I should have come more prepared and having some of the transcript, because I find it strange, but he had not said it. You accept what we're saying. Thank you very much. That's that page. Page 5, 16. Let me have a look at that. What do you want to do? The second-last line where it says independent councillor in inverted commas, now that almost looks as if we don't think that the councillor is independent. Nope. That's fine. I'm happy to take out the inverted commas. I think you're right. Anything else? 17. 17. We didn't say that we gave the... Which line are you on, Christian? The third line, Europe's response to the migration crisis. Are we not saying that we delegated that to another committee? We pass that on to another committee. Trying to remember that. Yeah, we didn't formally ask the European Committee to do it. I think we did. Maybe you can help me out here, Roddy. I don't know whether you want to just insert the European Committee, also looted migration, just to slip that in. Right, we can put that in somewhere. Okay, that's that dealt with. Anything else on page 5? Right, we're fine. You're ready. I've just turned over and I can see you're ready at the stump 6. I just think, convener, thank you. In relation to the very last sentence in paragraph 20, it might be helpful to clarify that that debate took place in the chamber. Yes? Well, if it's a debate it is, but I maybe have to dot the i's and cross the t's here. Okay? Anything else? That's it concluded. Thank you very much. Now go into private session. I do that. You put your little switch mic on. I want to thank you all, actually, because this is the fourth committee I've chaired. Now, I didn't say this, not saying this, just to carry a favour, because there's no point now, but you've been a terrific committee. I think we've worked really hard, you've had an awful lot of work to do. You've been a delight to chair, and I don't want any response to your bit that we've thought about by chairing, and it's not an open session, but actually that, and I also want to thank our clerks and Spice. I think we've had a really heavy five years. Some of you have been, I can't remember who's been the whole five-year course on this committee. Three at least have been on it, so you know what we've had to deal with. And I think we're coming to our legacy paper, but I do think there is an issue for the Justice Committee being overwhelmed with legislation, and we've been deprived of the opportunity quite often to be able to foray out and to do some inquiries, but we'll come to that later, but thank you all very much. That's on the record now, and before you see anything unkind about me, we're in private session.