 I welcome members to the 23rd meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. Agender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that the committee takes item 11 and 12 in private. Item 11 will allow the committee to consider its approach to the scrutiny of the land reform Scotland bill at stage 1. Item 12 will be considered by the committee of the written evidence received on the succession Scotland bill. Does the committee agree to take both items in private, please? Agender item 2 is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Scotland Act 1998, modification of schedules 4 and 5, order 2015 draft, nor on the Scottish Parliament disqualification order 2015 draft. Is the committee content with those instruments, please? Agender item 3, instrument subject to negative procedure, the Westerost Marine Conservation Order 2015, SSI 2015-302. That instrument was laid before the Parliament on 17 August and came into force on 18 August. The requirements to leave a minimum of 28 days between laying and coming into force has therefore not been complied with. It was brought into force urgently due to a breach of the voluntary management arrangement for the Westerost Marine protected area. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground J? Has there been a failure to observe the requirements of section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010? Does the committee accept the Scottish Government's explanation as to why the 28-day rule has been breached? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the town and country planning hazardous substances inquiry session procedure Scotland amendment rules 2015, SSI 2015-250, nor on the adults with incapacity public guardians fees Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-260, nor on the court of session etc fees order 2015, SSI 2015-261, nor on the High Court of Justitiary fees order 2015, SSI 2015-262, nor the justice of the peace court fees Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015-263, nor the sheriff court fees order 2015, SSI 2015-264, nor the public bodies joint working integration joint board establishment Scotland amendment number 2 order 2015, SSI 2015-266, nor the south Aaron marine conservation order 2014 urgent continuation order SS 2015, SSI 2015-303, nor lastly on the Queen Margaret University Edinburgh Scotland amendment order of council 2015, SSI 2015-305. Is the committee content with these please? The general item 4 instrument is not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The act of a general criminal procedure rules 1996 amendment number 4, Sheriff appeal court 2015, SSI 2015-245. This instrument contains some minor drafting errors. Firstly, in paragraph 2 9, the references in the substituted rule 1911, 1A and B of the criminal procedure rules 1996 to sections 1799 and 1879A should be followed by the words of the act of 1995. Secondly, in paragraph 3, the reference to section 194 ZF2A in the inserted rule 19E41 should be followed by the words of the act of 1995. Thirdly, in paragraph 523 B, the reference to paragraph 4 of form 38 should instead refer to paragraph 5. Lastly, in form 19E2, which is inserted by the schedule, the reference to rule 19E24 should instead refer to rule 19E25. The law president's private office has laid an instrument, SSI 2015-295, to correct the errors ahead of the instrument coming into force, and this amending instrument will be considered later on the agenda. However, does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground as it contains some minor drafting errors? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the act of a journal criminal procedure rules 1996, amendment number 4, Sheriff appeal court 2015, SSI 2015-245, nor on the Housing Scotland Act 2014, commencement number 3 and transitional provisions order 2015, SSI 2015-272, nor the act of a journal criminal procedure rules 1996 and act of a journal criminal procedure rules 1996, amendment number 4, Sheriff appeal court 2015, amendment Mr Lania's 2015, SSI 2015-295, nor the act of sederant ordinary cause rules 1993, amendment and Mr Lania's amendments 2015, SSI 2015-296. Here's the committee content with those instruments, please. Agender item 5 is the health, tobacco, nicotine, et cetera, and care Scotland bill. Purpose of this item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers provisions in the bill at stage 1. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government on the delegated powers in the bill in written correspondence. The committee will have the opportunity to consider those responses at a future meeting before the draft report is then considered. Section 31 confers a power for ministers to issue guidance on age verification policy. Section 31 inserts section 4B5 into the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Scotland Act 2010. Subsection 1B refers to the requirements for a person to operate an age verification policy in respect of premises at which the person carries on a tobacco or nicotine vapour product business. Subsection 3 enables an age older than 25 to be specified in that policy. Subsection 5 lists various matters on which the Scottish ministers may publish guidance relating to age verification policies. It appears that other matters than those listed might be included in guidance, but the list does not include guidance as to what should be considered before any person decides to specify any age older than 25 in their policy. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government, one, to clarify whether it is intended that a person operating an age verification policy in relation to a tobacco or NVP business should have complete discretion to determine any age older than 25 that may be specified in their policy for the purposes of subsection 3 or section 4B? Two, to clarify whether it is intended that the guidance issued by ministers under subsection 5 should or should not include guidance on how any such older age may be determined. Three, whether, therefore, the new section 4B could be clearer in providing for the intentions that underline the provisions? That was actually a set of questions. You are happy with it. Yes, thank you. Section 17.1 enables ministers by regulations to make provision prohibiting or restricting anactivity in the course of business, which relates to an NVP advert or NVP brand sharing. The delegated powers memorandum acknowledges that this power is widely drawn. Further clarity on the subject of the power to regulate related activities might be beneficial. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government, one, why it is considered that the wide power in section 17.1 to make provision prohibiting or restricting an activity in the course of business, which relates to an NVP advert or NVP brand sharing, is appropriately drawn? Could not be framed more transparently or narrowly to provide a description or a list of activities relating to NVP advertising or brand sharing, which may be included within the regulations? Two, what related activities it considers would be potentially within the scope of this power? Three, examples of the activities that the Scottish Government intends could be covered by these regulations? Subsection 2B and C of section 17 enables the regulations under subsection 1 specifying offences to provide for exceptions and defences to such offences. There is currently no description or list of exceptions or defences to defences which may be included in those regulations. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government, one, could the power in section 17, 2B and C be drawn more transparently or precisely, to include a description of the list of exceptions or offences to offences which might be included in the regulations in accordance with the Scottish Government's intentions, albeit that the initial description or list might in future be modified by regulation? Two, otherwise, could it please explain why it has been considered appropriate to include the provisions in section 17, 2D and E on enforcement, but not to include further provision as to exceptions and defences? Section 18, 1 of the bill enables ministers to make regulations to prohibit or restrict in the course of business the giving away of NVPs and coupons for these products for free, including retailing them for a nominal value. Section 19, 1 enables regulations to prohibit or restrict a person in the course of their business entering into a sponsorship agreement where the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement provotes an MVP. Both section 18, 2 and 19, 2 contain a non-exhaustive list of the kind of provision that could be made in regulations, including enforcement, offences, defences and exceptions. There is currently no description or list of exceptions or defences to offences which might be included. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government, as far as the powers in section 17, 2B and C, therefore, could sections 18, 2 and 19, 2 be drawn more transparently or precisely, to include a description or list of exceptions or defences to offences? Sorry, defences to offences, which might be included in the regulations in accordance with the Scottish Government's intentions, albeit that an initial description or list might in future be modified by regulation. Otherwise, could the Government please explain why it is considered appropriate to include the provisions in sections 18, 2, E and F and 19, 2, D and E on enforcement, but not include further provision as the exceptions and defences? Section 20 in section 4D into the 2005 act. Section 4D 1 defines the meaning of a non-smoking area outside a building hospital. It is an area lying immediately outside a hospital building and bounded by a perimeter or a specified distance from that building. New section 4D 2A enables ministers to make regulations to prescribe the specified distance of the perimeter. The Delegated Powers memorandum explains that the perimeter distance to be specified under this power is a key aspect of the proposed policy. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government one for further explanation as to why our proposed initial perimeter distance could not, following the consultation on the bill, have been included in the proposed new section 4D of the 2005 act for consideration by Parliament and consultation with stakeholders during the bill's stages? It appears possible to have provisioned that such an initially proposed distance might be variable by means of regulations. Why does the Scottish Government therefore consider it more appropriate for the distance to be proposed in regulations at a later date? Secondly, the DPM states that it is intended that the same perimeter distance for proposed non-smoking area is to apply to all NHS buildings. For consistency, paragraph 87, sorry, that is hospital buildings, not all buildings. However, the proposed new section 4D 1 and 2 of the 2005 act do not, in terms, provide that only one distance may be specified for the purpose of all health service hospital buildings. The ancillary powers in section 321 enable the regulations to make different provision for different purposes. The Scottish Government therefore asks to consider whether the policy intention to prescribe a single perimeter distance could be made clearer in the provisions. Section 221 confers powers on ministers to specify the actions which could be taken by the responsible person, the duty of candor procedure. A responsible person is one of the bodies, including health boards, as defined in section 25, who provide health, care and social work services. Further information about why secondary legislation is appropriate here and how it might be used might be beneficial. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to one, explain why it has been considered more appropriate to set out the whole details of the duty of candor procedure in regulations under the framework of particular matters that might be included as set out in sections 22A to K and to provide examples of how the power might be exercised to set out specific procedures and requirements on a responsible person? In particular, could examples be provided with the type of actions, steps and requirements that might be required of a responsible person under section 222 DGI? The wording of the ancillary powers in section 331 differs from, for example, that in section 971 of the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill as passed, yet different wording is used in section 25 of the Succession Scotland Bill, which the committee is also currently considering. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain why the different wording is using section 331 is appropriate and what the effect of the provision is compared with the formulations used in the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill and the Succession Scotland Bill? Does the committee agree that if the effect of ancillary powers in different bills is intended to be the same and that the same wording ought to be used for consistency? John. I just wonder how important this is in that people say things in different ways but they end up having the same meaning, or if it is really important that we all have exactly the same wording in any different bills at the same time. I will throw that in by way of comment. John. I will throw it in by way of comment too that if the words are different then presumably they must have a different meaning in law thereafter and be open to different interpretations and I think it would make sense if the intentions are the same. Would it not that the words were consistent one with another? Shall we ask the question? It would seem reasonable that there is a catch-all set of words that would be in every statute and would be changed only when something was not meant to be caught. We shall ask the question. Thank you. Agender item 6, Community Justice Scotland Bill. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider the delegative powers provisions in the bill at stage 1. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government on the delegative powers. The committee will have the opportunity to consider the responses that a future meeting before a draft report is then considered. Section 3.4 of the bill makes provision for Scottish ministers to confer additional functions on or transfer another person's functions to Community Justice Scotland. Section 3.5 provides that regulations made under section 3.4 may modify any enactment. The delegative powers memorandum appears not to provide an explanation as to how those powers might be exercised. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government in relation to the powers in section 3, 4, C and 5? Why, specifically, is the power to make changes to the main functions of the community of Community Justice Scotland as listed in section 3.1 appropriate? How might the Scottish Government exercise this power to modify that subsection? Secondly, which functions of the Community Justice Scotland described in section 3.1 and elsewhere in the bill are functions in relation to Community Justice, which may be changed by regulations. Would it be clear if the provisions set out which functions described in the bill could be changed and which could not be changed? That brings us to agenda item 7, which is the succession Scotland bill. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers and only the delegated powers provisions in that bill at stage 1. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government. We will have an opportunity to consider the responses at a future meeting before a draft report is then considered. The wording of the ancillary powers in section 25.1 differs from, for example, that in section 971 of the Community Empowerment Scotland bill, as passed and as just discussed, does the committee therefore agree to ask the Scottish Government again to explain why there is a different formulation used in section 25.1 is appropriate what the effect of the provision in comparison with the formulation used in, for example, section 971 of the Community Empowerment Scotland bill might be. Does the committee agree that the effect of ancillary powers in different bills, if it is intended to retain, then the same wording should be used? Just on agenda, I think that it would be appropriate for me to declare that, as the introducer of the bill that you are about to discuss, I would not take any part in this discussion. Thank you very much. I take it that, as the convener of the Scottish Parliamentary convener of the relevant committee, the name of which I am struggling close to procedures, it is in that capacity that you are making that declaration. A generator mate is the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament amendment bill, and members are asked to consider the delegated powers contained in that bill. If members are content with the recommendations in this paper, that will form the basis of the report to the Parliament, and the draft report would not be discussed by the committee before it is published. Is the committee content with the delegated power in section 17? Does the committee agree to refer to the standards procedures of the public point committee the following questions? Whether any changes to the standing orders are contemplated in implementation of the bill, in light of the resolution of making power in section 17, to include specific provision for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any such resolution? An example of such provision can be found in the standing orders and respective motions seeking modification of the parliamentary pension scheme or grant scheme. Secondly, whether any changes to the standing orders are contemplated in respect of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament to change the registrable interest set out in the schedule to the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 to include a specific provision for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any such resolution? That takes us with that more due to agenda item number nine, which is the British Sign Language BSL Scotland bill. The item of business, again, is consideration of delegated powers provisions in the bill after stage two. It is expected that the stage three debate will take place in early September. Therefore, members should agree their conclusions today. After stage two, one power to make a supportment legislation has been removed and another has been amended. Does the committee agree to report that it is content with the delegated powers in the bill as that which has been amended or removed at stage two? Gender item 10, the Education Scotland bill, purpose of this item is considered the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report on the bill at stage one. The Government agreed with the committee's recommendations and will bring forward amendments to the bill to give these effect. I am really just asking members to note that. At which point we come to agenda item 11 and I move the meeting into private.