 Good morning and welcome everyone to this 20th meeting of the Justice Committee in 2014 can ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as interfer with broadcasting system. Apologisy那個 bekommen received item 1 inviting you to agree to consider item 4 in relation to our work program in private are you agreed item 2. It's consideration of free negative instruments. The first is the sexual Offences Act 2003 prescribed police stations Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014, 147. The purpose of this instrument is to add and remove certain police stations from the list of prescribed police stations for sex offenders who are subject to the notification requirements in part 2 of the sexual offences act 2003. The delegate powers and law reform committee did not raise any concerns with this instrument and I think Margaret you want to say something to you. Yes, I have a little bit of a concern here. I understand that this is moving obviously from the eight forces down to the single police force but it seems to me the effect of this could be to make it much more difficult for sex offenders to comply with the requirements of notification on maybe some of the sex offender register requirements for example by closing given police station they would now be required to make a journey of 22 miles to report to air and it seems to me anything that we're doing to make this more difficult is a matter of some concern. I have to say I think governor near 22 miles isn't that bad with buses and so it's not a it's a good connection between those actually. Is anybody else wish to make any comments in relation to it? No. Do we members content to make no recommendation relation to this instrument? Just note my concern. Well it's on the record but I take it that we're not making any recommendation. Thank you. The second instrument under consideration of the firefighters pension scheme Scotland amendment number 3 order 2014 SSI 2014 149. This instrument rectifies with retrospective effect errors contained in the previous firefighters pension scheme amendment order which the committee considered on 20th May. Again the DPLR committee didn't raise any concerns with us on this. Do members have any comments? None? A member's content to make no recommendation relation to this instrument. Thank you very much. The final instrument is the adults within capacity supervision of welfare gardens etc by local authority Scotland amendment number 2 regulations 2014 SSI 2014 157. The instrument corrects and erroneous cross-reference in the previous adults within capacity amendment order. Again there were no comments from the DPLR committee. Do members have any comments to make on that? Just another drafting error that's been brought in by one of us. Yes, I think we would all agree with you there. Minor or otherwise we do get regularly drafting errors and I think it's important to put this on record because we have to come back to these things and time is taken. Are members however content to make no recommendation relation to this instrument? Thank you very much. Item 3, Public Petitions. We have two petitions, PE1510, by Jodie Curtis on behalf of the emergency service and non-emergency service call centres, calling on the Scottish Parliament to undertake a committee inquiry, the closure of police, fire and non-emergency service centres north of Dundee and PE1511 by Laura Ross calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the decision by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to close the Inverness control room. The Public Petitions Committee referred to petitions to this committee with requests that the issues highlighting the petitions are raised at our evidence session with the chief inspectors of constabulary and fire on 19 August. Are you content to consider the terms of these petitions during that evidence session and move on? As a courtesy, we could also inform the sub-committee of policing that we are looking at PE1510. If we do decide that it doesn't mean that it's closed after that, it's just that it may be better to wait until that time. Can I hear your comments, Alison? Yes, I think that these are worthwhile petitions and there is still a lot of concern in my community in the north-east about stripping away of these assets. I think that it remains controversial. I wonder if, in advance of this, we could write to emergency planning authorities to ask for their views on the closures and the capacity of the area to respond to major incidents, just to inform our discussions. I think that we have to be very careful on the Eushaline mission. I wasn't saying that Alison was being intemperate there, but when you're talking about things like public safety, I think that it's very important that the public has confidence in the services. I have to say that a very easy thing for me to do would be—that's a great idea, let's support that—put a PR out doing it, as colleagues would say. For instance, in doing so and not to acknowledge that there's a lot of work going on behind the scenes regarding this, the local knowledge thing is, I have to say, often erroneously expressed by members and good faith members of the public. I just think that we need to be very temperate in how we discuss this. Public safety is not being compromised because it couldn't be compromised. I'm wondering also if we're going to have a look at this, whether it's worth asking both Scottish Police Federation and the FBU for their views. I know that the FBU did have some concerns about the closures and just really to get some idea from the people who represent the emergency workers, whether or not they're aware of any difficulties or concerned about any difficulties. Rodi? No, I'm just going to say to make sure that particularly P1510 was drawn to the attention of the chief inspector before he gave evidence on the 19th of August, so I know fully what the concerns were. Why don't you look, Sandra? The position committee looked at it considering all the evidence that you're wanting. I think we need to check with them to see if they've asked for anything as well. Right, they didn't take evidence from the positioners. I think one of the ways of doing it, rather than to select one group to write out to, is we know that we are taking evidence on the 19th of August. That's on the record, so what we could do is, I don't know how, is to put that on to our website, intimate that we're taking evidence from the chief inspectors and that anyone wants to do submit anything to us in advance, either collectively or individually, should do so. That means that we're not just selecting, we might be missing people out who want to make some kind of comment. What's the best way of doing this? Bear with me a minute. If we just put a call for evidence in advance of our session, that gives us July before up to the 19th of August, a call for evidence, because we're taking evidence on the two chief inspectors and that catches everybody, but there's also this, of course, discussion on the record, Alison. I would particularly like to hear from emergency planning authorities, so, I mean, you might not necessarily pick up that there is a call. So, distribution lists within which would be there as well. I don't just want to write out to one group, but I think if we've got a normal distribution plus a call for evidence, then anybody who wants to give us information in advance of that session, and it doesn't close it down, it just seems to be an appropriate way to deal with it. I thought we'd agreed what to do now, but perhaps not, Christian. We agree, convener. I just wanted to check, had the sub-committee did any work on this? I wish we should make a way off before we be for the session. I just wanted to check if the sub-committee had done any work on this before the session. Both petitioners spoke to their petitions, but it wasn't as it were an inquiry by public petitions, but we could have that as well before us. Yes, we'll get that stuff as well, so that's what we're going to do, is that all right? Right, thank you very much. Now moving to private session.