 I'm good morning, and I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's 12th meeting of 2015. I'll ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices. No apologies have been received item 1. I ask the committee to agree to consider a draft stage 1 report on human trafficking and exploitation of Scotland-built under item 4 in private. Item 2, public petitions. We were considering seven public petitions. I'll go through each in turn and ask members for views of what, if any action, they'd like to take. p1-2-8-0 o'r Ffadal Accidents inquiries into Scotland. We previously agreed to consider this petition in the context of the inquiries into Fadal Accidents and sudden deaths, etc. Scotland Bill, more duty here from the petitioner during our stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill. I contend to keep the petition open while we consider the bill. P1-3-7-0 calls from independent inquiry into McGraw-Hit conviction. We've received an update from Justice McGraw-Hit on their latest meeting with Police Scotland and XB. They are asking us to consider the principle of appointing an independent prosecutor to consider the forthcoming Police Scotland report. Separately, the SCCRC has asked the High Court for a ruling on the legal status of the victims' relatives to enable it to decide whether they can pursue an appeal on behalf of McGraw-Hit. A date for a full hearing is yet to be fixed. Can I hear if members have any comments in relation to these developments? I should declare that I am a member for the Justice for McGraw-Hit campaign. John Finch-Evill. I think that it's an entirely reasonable request, and I would hope that the committee would throw their weight behind it. Clearly, there's the role for the independent QC assisting with the on-going police investigation, and I think that the reports that we've received of that are very encouraging. Certainly, Justice for McGraw-Hit committee seemed to have full confidence in Police Scotland, and that's welcome. I think that Police Scotland have said that they will act as honest brokers and thoroughly investigate the incidents that have been alleged to them in good faith. Of course, it's what happens there after that's the challenge, but I would suggest that there already is presence in the system with the role of the independent QC who's assisting with the police inquiry. A couple of things. First, obviously, in terms of the procedural hearings to determine whether or not a reference to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can go ahead. Obviously, we've just got to wait and watch that, and that would be one very good reason for keeping the petition open. In terms of the independent prosecutor issue, I think that we shouldn't be taking a decision on that without making a specific reference to the Crown Office and asking them for their comments. I think that my concerns would be whether or not it is competent for the committee to appoint an independent prosecutor from the committee point of view. I'm comparison what Roddy says about asking for comments from the Crown Office. I've got you back in, John. I'm just giving my views, not summing up. I would suggest that we also ask the Government about the competence of appointing an independent prosecutor and what their views are, John. For the volumes of doubt, I wasn't saying that that was something that was within the gift of this committee. What I was saying is that we should lend our support to that. Clearly, there will be a role for the statutory prosecuting authority, which is the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service. Roddy's point about the SCCRC, I think that's interesting, but I think that it's a separate issue altogether. That's not an issue, that's not a problem for us really. We really have to await the process and see what happens at a full hearing with regard to that part of the process, but, quite separately, there's the issue of the Crown and Police and their role throughout the matter. I think that just the view that I'm taking is to find out what the position would be about who would investigate, as it were, the Crown Office, how one would go about it. I don't know if it's ever happened. I'm looking around for guidance. No, we don't. Do we not assume that that's part of the on-going police inquiry? In some respects, the issue is more when the police come to submit their report as they stand or submit it to someone who's already prejudged the situation by in-temperate remarks. Somebody else wants to go in. Sorry, Roddy, you're not shaking in. No, no, I just think that it's premature. Because we await the police report. Do you want me to write and find out about the issue of an independent prosecutor, whether, in principle, this would be something that could be considered? I think that it would be interesting to hear the Lord Advocate's views on that, because clearly, having had a prior involvement in the case, then he won't be able to have any direct hands-on role anyway in any report that is received. I do think, frankly, that some of the Lord Advocate's comments were not helpful during hearings on this petition. That may in some ways colour whether one feels content of a hesitate to say independence of spirit, let's say, rather. So, what are we going to do? We're going to continue the petition. Are we going to write to, I seek your guidance? Are not them to wait to the SCCR has reported on the status of the victims. Is that not the key, really? Well, there's two. I think that that's not a problem. That's fine, but I think it's absolutely fine. We just wait for the full hearing. Not a problem for that. We keep it open for that reason, but it's whether we take any action in relation to the independent prosecutor. Can I suggest that we write to the Lord Advocate asking for his views in that position, or alternatively, how, given his personal involvement previously, he would envisage being able to take forward a report presented to Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service by Police Scotland? Do you want us to make reference to some comments that have already been made by the Crown Office? Do you want to be as pointed as that? I would prefer the request to be neutral. You can relay the position of the petitioners, their comments, but without the committee expressing a view on it. No, but it's on the record what we've already heard and said. So, a fairly neutral letter, okay? Thank you very much. That's it. We keep the petition open. PE1427 or Multi-Party Actions corresponds to the Scottish Government, responding to the petitioners concerns regarding withholding of documents. It is included annex C of your paper. The Government also included the petitioner in its related consultation. Can I have your views? Would you like to draw the petitioners' attention to the Scottish Government's letter and close the petition or what? Yes. Agreed. Okay, thank you very much. Is that unanimous? PE1479 relates to legal, professional and legal aid. Time bar, we previously agreed to keep the petition open until the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's rule change for a new time bar comes into effect in July this year. Do we just continue the petition? PE1501 is on public inquiries into self-inflicted and accidental deaths following suspicious death investigations. We received correspondence from the petitioner responding to issues raised in a letter from the Crown Office and PF Service. The petitioner has also provided detailed information on the need for an alternative review system. Although the FAI bill does not address the issues raised in the petition, it is feasible for the issues raised in the petition to be considered during stage 1 of the bill. Can I have your views, please? I think that it goes a bit wider than that. Particularly looking at the supplementary evidence that they provided for us, I think that it does actually go quite a bit farther than anything that will be considered with the bill. I do not know whether it is something that we need to… There are particular issues in the way in which unexplained or self-inflicted deaths are investigated in different parts of the country, and that will not be covered, I do not think at all, in the consideration of the bill. It is all right, Roddie. I agree with Elaine on that. I think that it is a bit wider, but I am not quite sure where I could ask for information from the clerks procedurally when we would be the next time we would consider the petition in the normal course. I kind of feel that we might come back to this in three months' time, once we have had a proper opportunity to digest it. Are you content that we just leave it open, but we do not think that it fits within possibly the remit of the paid license? I am not sure whether it fits within the remit of the paid license. I am not sure whether it fits within possibly the remit of the paid license. Thank you very much. PE1510 and 1511 are on police and fire control rooms. We previously agreed to keep the petitions open pending the Audit Scotland report and the Scottish Farm Rescue Service expected in the autumn. We are also due to take evidence and fire reform more jiggly next week. Since, in the recent past, we have seen an increase in concern about the time taken to answer calls and the capacity of the currently amalgamated control rooms to actually cope. There are some concerns about resilience. We have seen a number of press reports recently. I wonder at the midpoint of the reorganisation, whether we should seek some evidence from Police Scotland, in particular, on how the closures have gone and whether they are not able to cope with the pressures. I support Alison's position on that. I would say that, in relation to the sub-committees review of local policing, I suggest that we include call handling. It was to include the broadest possible consideration of that and how Police Scotland is responding to calls for assistance from the public. Discussing with the clerks the way forward, I think that we could write in the first instance, raising the concerns to the chief constable, but we could also, I think that the sub-committee of policing deals with local policing in June when we could put that as part of that and agenda questions. We will also then have had a response at that time from the chief constable. You can tend. We do that. Okay, okay. Thank you very much. Now we move item 3, EU priorities. It is consideration of a response of the Minister of Community Safety and Legal Affairs in relation to our EU priorities. Roderick, it is your cue, if you want to say a few words on the minister's response. Very much to add beyond what's in the minister's letter. Obviously, we don't have the updated action plan on European engagement. I think the other matters are fairly well set out. Anything I would perhaps mention is that the European agenda on migration, the right of recent events, that might be something that the European Commission will be looking at further. I would have thought we specifically asked about its kind of correlation implications for the human trafficking bill. I wish I didn't demer from the Government's comments on that. Other than that, I would say that it's probably just something that we would note as a committee. Does that say anything? Simply no. Yes, sorry, Christian. No, I would agree with Rod Campbell about that. I think a lot of it will be rewritten after what happened this week. I think there will be a different tone, maybe, into the engagement with the EU regarding particularly what's happening in the Mediterranean. Given the horrendous events that have happened recently, perhaps the committee wants to consider, at some point, a more robust focus on the European agenda on migration. I look at the many areas for possible who are actually a common asylum system, new policy and legal migration, fighting irregular migration and human trafficking more robustly and securing Europe's external borders. It seems that this is something that, as the Justice Committee in Scotland, we want to perhaps really begin to put our weight there, it's up to you. Is there any way we can do this, Roddy? Is there any way in communicating back? Well, I think it's kind of a moving feast or something, but we might want to just pay attention to our work programme, but also consider what other committees in this panel might want to do on this issue. Do we want to ask the European Committee? Well, that's what I was thinking about. Yes, you're on the European Committee as well, but we will formally, apart from you as a messenger, we will formally write the European Committee. I think that we would have concerns that it's not just a simple matter of a traffic and exploitation bill that's far, far more required in practical and pragmatic terms to be done with regard to this. If you're desperate, you're desperate. You're not paying any attention to any bill that anybody puts in place. So, we will write and ask the European Committee whether they're addressing this issue. We would like to keep our eye on this as well. Thank you very much. I do know that Alison Johnston has a topical question on that today, which I put down as an FMQ. It wasn't selected, but there we are. So did you. There we are. Roddy and I in competition. That's fine. Thank you very much. We will now move into private session.