 I welcome everyone to the fifth meeting of the Justice Committee in 2015. Can I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices? We have no apologies, although a couple of members have been delayed due to the weather. Item 1 in private, the committee is invited to agree to consider item 4 and EU engagement, item 5 and issues paper on the prisoners bill in private. Are you agreed? Item 2, paper 1 sets out the current position with each of our on-going petitions. I'll seek your views on each petition in turn. PE1281, Fadelax and Inquiries and Deaths Abroad. The committee has already agreed to consider this petition in the context of the forthcoming FAI legislation. We have received correspondence from the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, setting out more detail on this legislation. Do members have any comments on the petition or the minister's correspondence at Annex F, or are you content simply to note the issue? I'm looking around for some kind of inspiration. I'm ahead of you too fast for you all. You're very slow today, gentlemen and ladies. That's PE1280. I think so. Are you agreed? Thank you very much. PE1371 has been inquired into the Magrahe conviction. The committee has received record of the latest meeting in justice from Magrahe and Police Scotland in correspondence from GFM. I like to hear recent comments from Lord Anvil and the Magrahe investigation. Do members have any comments and material received or are you content to simply note the updates and developments with the SCCRC application referred to in the paper, which I should say that the application of the code will be subjudice. That's just a little cautionary line for you now. Do you wish to just continue this to see the outcome of the other matters that are on-going? I'm pleased that the committee is content, but I think that it is important to pick up in some of the comments made by the justice for Magrahe people, not least the role of the Lord Advocate in the broadest sense, not specifically relating to the any on-going matter. We have a situation where September 2012, December 2012 and more recently in December of last year, the Lord Advocate in my mind has compromised the potential for him to be viewed as an honest broker when it comes to receiving the report from Police Scotland. I'm delighted that Police Scotland gets a ringing endorsement from Justice for Magrahe committee for the diligent work that they're doing. I think that there are challenges ahead that won't just relate to the delivery of these particular reports to the Crown Office procurator, fiscal service, which we may have some regard to in the future. It's a similar point that I go in opposite directions, so I would need to get some advice on this at some point. My view was, if we take, if we set aside this particular one, but just talk about the generality of people who have been convicted, that I think the Crown Office automatically makes an assumption and that is that they're guilty after they've been convicted and they will defend that position regardless, except when new evidence has brought forward for them to consider, maybe in an appeal or something like that. My view has always been, what my understanding was, that no matter what crime has been committed, you couldn't have the Crown Office. It's not a maybe's eye and a maybe's no. It's a clear somebody's convicted. That's how it is and it will stay that way and that's what they'll defend and tell new evidence comes forward. I would need some advice. I think it's appropriate if somebody's been convicted to consider that they were guilty. Otherwise, we have turmoil within the justice system, but I take your point. I've got some comment to make on that myself. I just wanted to highlight the fact that, as DCC Livingston says in the note, an independent QC has been appointed to provide the police investigation with an appropriate level of scrutiny prior to reporting the findings to the Crown Office, which is clearly not normal procedure. There is an acceptance that this is an unusual situation, so I think that Mr Finnie's comments should be tempered with that. Tempered was the word that I was thinking about. I think the issue also, however, we get to the number of it, who investigates the Crown. The Crown can't investigate the Crown, so we do have that. I think that's where you're going with your comments. Yes, indeed, and that's the area we looked at before. Mr Finnie always seeks to temper his comments and, believe you me, those are extremely tempered comments than what I would like to say. I think that there's an obligation on this committee, and that is when respected citizens are called conspiracy theorists and accusations they make in good faith are described as deliberately false and misleading, then that doesn't suggest an open posture being adopted by the Crown Office procreate or fiscal service. To theorist, John, do you think that it's members of the Cinema Siaf i Conspiracy? I think that the committee is waiting a judgment by Lady Dorian on the 27th of March regarding supporting evidence for McGracky's family, supporting their involvement. I did mention that, in fact, you can mention that, but that's as far as we can go because it's some due to say. So it makes sense that we... It's a connected thing. We have the police matter, then we have whether or not there'll be a further appeal, but I think that with all those things in the air, it is appropriate to continue the petition and the issues you've raised will no doubt come out if this goes any further in terms of the appeal procedure. Thank you. That's the case. So we continue the petition. Thank you very much. Multi-party actions, PE1427. The committee previously wrote to the Scottish Government inviting it to include the petitioner in its consultation of matters between four by primary legislation on recommendations on the Taylor review to respond to the petitioner's concerns, raised regarding withholding documents by private company. The Scottish Government has been invited to respond by 3 April. Are you content to keep it open pending the response from the Scottish Government makes sense? Sorry. Indeed. I thought you would say it doesn't make sense. I think that there's a further consultation on aspects of Taylor announced by the Government that went either Taylor under last week. That's one the petitioners can be included in. Thank you for that additional information. We continue this. PE1479, legal profession and legal aid time bar. The committee previously agreed to keep the petition open pending the outcome of the Scottish legal complaints commission's consultation on increasing the legal aid time bar from one year to three years. The consultation closed in 17 November last year. The new time bar was due to become operational from 1 January this year. However, the SLCC has decided that the time bar provisions will now be altered in July 2015 to coincide with the ADR directive coming into force with the start of a new operational year for the SLCC. I don't have any further information on what these time bar alterations would be. We don't have any information on it but something is in the air again. Do you want to keep the petition open until after the SLCC rules change? That's taking effect. Right, okay. We'll keep that going. PE1501, public inquiries into self-inflicted and accidental deaths following suspicious death investigations. The committee previously wrote to the Crown Office and the PF Service to ascertain that the level of investigation carried out to the 4,000 deaths classified as self-inflicted in the past five years. The committee also agreed to consider the petition in the context of the forthcoming FAI legislation. We've received a response from Cofras and a letter from the Minister about the petition. The petitioners indicate that the forthcoming FAI legislation is unlikely to directly address the issues in his petition. The minister has restated the Scottish Government's petition that it has no plans to introduce proposals along the line to request by the petitioner. After the meeting papers were published, the petitioner contacted the clerks to advise that he would like the opportunity to respond to the points raised in the Cofras letter. Are members content to invite the petitioner to respond to that letter and to consider the response that it has received? That's only just. Thank you very much for continuing that one. PE150 and 1511, police and fire control rooms. The committee last considered those petitions in the context of an evidence session with the police and fire inspectors. Audit Scotland is due to publish a report on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in the spring. As part of our on-going monitor of fire reform, we may hold an evidence session with SFRS in autumn 2015. Would members be content to close the petitioner? Would you prefer to consider them during our next session with SFRS? Is there life out there? I look, I look in vain. Is it a drop in the temperature that's frozen the brain cells? Insofar as decisions have been made in our operational, it's a bit after the event. I don't want to stifle petitioners. My feeling, if you're not going to say, is that Audit Scotland is due to publish a report. Once we have that report, we could have an evidence session on it. I mean, we certainly don't want to leave it undone, but I think that that gives you the chance to go back and see the impact, so we'll do that. Thank you. So that's closed, but we're going to undertake an evidence session. It's closed because we're going to have an evidence session, I think. Is that right? What do you want to do? Sorry, am I moving too fast? Keep it open and do the evidence session. I'm not, I'm not. Easy peasy either way. Open and an evidence session after the Audit Scotland report. Then decide what to do. Christian, you've come alive. Then decide if you want to. Correct. That's where we are, right? Item 3, subledge. Consideration of two negative instruments. The first is the Victim and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014, prescribed relatives order, SSI 2014, slash 360. This instrument defines those relatives of victims to which measures introduced by certain sections of Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014 apply. Do you have any comments in relation to the statutory instrument? Are members content to make no recommendation? You have a sound out of you to further the OR. The second negative instrument for our consideration is the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Amendments Scotland Regulations 2015, that's SSI 2015 slash 1. This makes provision to further facilitate the application of Scotland of Regulation number 1215 slash 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Do you have any comments in relation to that instrument? Thank you very much, Mr Paterson. Are members content to make no recommendation in relation to this instrument? Thank you very much. We now move into private session.