 Ae, rhaid i chi'n mewn cyfraig o ddwylliant 15 ym 2015 o'r Cymru a Llywodraeth Cymru, ac yn dwylo'r cyfraig o'r cyfraig o ddwylliant Ym Mhobar Fhons. Gendro item 1, instrument subject to affirmative procedure, no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Procedure of Crime Act 2002, cash searches, constables in Scotland code of practice order 2015 draft nor on the provision of early learning and childcare Children's Scotland amendment order 2015 draft, is the committee content with these please. Generator 2, instruments subject to negative procedure. The certification of death Scotland act 2011, authorisation of cremation, death out with Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-162. The certification of death Scotland act 2011 application for review regulations 2015, SSI 2015-163, and the certification of death Scotland act 2011 consequential provisions order 2015, SSI 2015-164. These three instruments, along with SSI 2015-165 and 2015-166, which I will address later, were laid on 2 April 2015 and came into force, sorry, come into force on 13 May. This breaches the 28-day rule, given that no account has been taken of the days when Parliament was in recess over Easter. The committee recognises that some complex issues involving representations from and discussion with various stoke elders led to a delay in laying these instruments. However, the committee considers the way that it is critical to announce in advance the coming into force date for a package of instruments. Sufficient time should be built into the planning of the instruments so that early required review of the provisions after consultations can be done before the announced date while respecting the requirements of section 282 of the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland act 2010. Does the committee therefore agree to draw those three instruments to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground J as they fail to comply with the requirements of section 282 of the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland act 2010? I agree that we should draw this to attention. I make the comment to underline why that is the case, in part. In my constituency work, I have been working with undertakers and the health board on the introduction of the new system of certification. It is clear that there is a significant amount of preparation that has to be taken place by both those parties among others. Therefore, giving sufficient notice is very, very important. Although I do understand that the reason for the delay is precisely because there has been interaction, so there ought to be reasonable knowledge. At the end of the day, people do not know the final form of regulations until they are published. Therefore, one needs time to make sure that what you thought they were going to be and be ready to implement them. The reason that the 28-day rule is there can, in some circumstances, be quite significant. I agree with that. I think that this series of instruments, representing five instruments that have breached the 28-day rule, we really should try and do better and encourage the Scottish Government to do better. It is there for a good reason, as Stuart Stevenson has said, and we shouldn't be breaching it. Thank you. If I could turn now to the certification of death Scotland act 2011 post-mortem examinations death out with United Kingdom regulations 2015, SSA 2015-165, there is a patent drafting error in the form and schedule to the regulations. It specifies that it is a form of application under section 19 of the certification of death Scotland act 2015. Regulation 2 cites the act correctly, as enacted in 2011. The Scottish Government proposes to correct the error by means of a correction slip on the basis that it is self-evident. That might be suitable in the instance, if I agree with the National Archives. The committee considers having regard to the fact that the only purpose of the instrument is to provide this form of application that the patent error should be reported. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground on account of the aforementioned drafting error? As was the case with SSIs 2015-162, 163 and 164, this instrument was laid on 2 April 2015, and it comes into force on 13 May 2015. The speech is the 28-day rule, given that no account has been taken of the days when Parliament is in recess over Easter. The same comment supplied to this instrument is supplied to SSIs 2015-162, 163 and 164. Does the committee therefore agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground J? Does it too fails to comply with the requirements of section 282 of the Interpretational Legislative Reform, Scotland Act 2010? A Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Scotland Act 1965, Prohibition of Disposal of a Body Without Authorisation Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-166. The meaning of Regulation 8 and of Form N in the Schedule to the Regulations could be clearer in a particular respect. There could be more clearly implement the policy intention that section of Form N relating to post-mortem examinations will require to be completed by a registered medical practitioner who has appropriate expertise in pathology. The Scottish Government has undertaken to bring forward an amendment to make this clarification at the next appropriate opportunity. Given that Form N is significant as having effect to release body parts for disposal after a post-mortem examination, the committee considers that the provisions could be clarified by an amendment as soon as possible. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground H? Does the meaning of Regulation 8 and of Form N in the Schedule to the Regulations could be clearer? Does the committee also agree to call on the Scottish Government to clarify the intended provision by making forward and by bringing forward an amendment instrument as soon as possible? Finally, as was the case with SSIs 2015-162-165, this instrument was laid on 2 April and comes into force on 13 May. The spirit is the 28-day rule, given that no account has again been taken of the days when Parliament was in recess over Easter. Again, the same comments that applied to the previous instruments apply to this. Does the committee therefore agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground J as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 28.2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010? Does the committee also agree to reinforce the point on when it comes to a package of instruments sufficient time should be built into planning instruments so that any required review of the provisions after consultation can be done before the announced date, while still respecting the requirements of section 28.2 of the act? I turn now to agenda item 3, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the act of Soderent, ordinary cause rules amendment, Proving the Tenor and Reduction 2015, SSI 2015-176, Norum the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, commencement number 12, Order 2015, SSI 2015-177, Norum the Community Care and Health Scotland Act 2002, commencement number 4, Order 2015, SSI 2015-179, Norum the Registration of Births, Stillbirth, Deaths and Marriages, Prescription of Forms, Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-180. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Yes. Gender item 4 is the Education Scotland Bill and the purpose of the item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers in the bill at stage 1. Members will have seen the delegated powers memorandum and the briefing paper. Committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government on the powers. It suggests that these questions are raised in written correspondence, and committee will have the opportunity to consider the responses at a future meeting before the draft report is considered. Section 7 of the bill relates to initial assessments of the need for Gallic medium primary education and applies when education authority receives a pimental request under section 5 of the bill. I will refer hereafter to Gallic medium primary education as GMPE. Where such a request is made, the authority is required to make an initial assessment for the need of GMPE, both within the area designated as a GMP assessment area under section 6 and within the specified child's year group. Section 7.5 provides that where, following an initial assessment, the authority is satisfied that the various conditions of section 6 are met, the authority must determine that there is potential need for GMPE in the area. There are two conditions in subsection 6 in A and B. Paragraph A provides that the child specified in the request and children residents in that GPE assessment area are in the same year group as a specified child and in respect of whose parents the authority holds information about demand, as mentioned in section 5.3, total 5 or more in number. Paragraph B provides that the demand for GMPE in respect of children in a different year group is at or is likely to increase to a level where the authority considers reasonable. Section 7.7 provides that Scottish ministers may by regulations amend section 7.6A so first to substitute a different number for the number of children that are specified. Paragraph A also enables ministers to provide that the number of children specified is to be read as a different number in the application of that subsection to such local education authorities as may be specified in the regulations. In essence, Paragraph A enables Scottish ministers to change the threshold figure by determining whether there is a demand for GMPE in a particular area sufficient to justify securing GMPE or to apply different threshold figures for different education authorities. Paragraph B is subject to negative procedure and while not altering the substance of the duty placed on education authorities to determine whether there is a need for GMPE in a particular area when a certain threshold is reached, the power is nonetheless significant to the practical operation of part 2 of the bill and its scope and application. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the Scottish Government for further justification of the choice of negative procedure for the exercise of this power, given its apparent significance and the fact that it permits the variation of the threshold figure beyond which an education authority must determine that there is potential need for GMPE in a particular assessment area? I think that this is very important because I think correctly what you have just said stresses the how significant the numbers could be. Probably four, five or six, would not be a significant difference, but there could be more significant changes made, so I think that it is quite fundamental. I would certainly like to hear the explanation for why they have done this. Section 10 of the bill relates to full assessments of the need for GMPE. Where, at the conclusion of the initial assessment process, an educational authority determines that there is a potential need for GMPE in that assessment area, the authority must either carry out a full assessment or proceed directly to securing GMPE. Whether the authority concludes at the end of the initial assessment that there is not a potential need for GMPE in the area, it is not required to take any further action. However, it may still exercise its discretion and either undertake a full assessment or proceed directly to securing GMPE. The full assessment procedure requires the educational authority to consult with the bodies as specified in section 10 3. The educational authority must then decide whether to secure the provision of GMPE in a particular assessment area. Section 10 7 sets out a list of matters in which the educational authority must have regard to in making its decision. In addition to the matter that is specified in the list in section 10 7, the authority must also have regard to any other matters that it considers to be relevant to the decision. Section 10 8 provides that Scottish ministers may by regulations modify sections 10 3 or 10 7. They may also make such other modifications to section 10 as they consider necessary or expedient in consequence of the modification of section 10 3. That power is subject to negative procedure and permits the modification of primary legislation. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the Scottish Government why it is considered appropriate that the power in section 10 8b is subject to negative procedure? Given that it permits modifications to primary legislation, the nature of which is not specified beyond the requirement that ministers consider them to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any modification of subsection 3. Section 12 of the bill enables the making of regulations that would extend the provisions of section 2 of the bill relating to GMPE to early learning and childcare. At present, section 2 applies only in respect of primary school education. A request under section 5 can only require the education authority to assess the need for Gallic medium education in primary schools. That power is subject to negative procedure except where it is exercised to make textual modifications to primary legislation. The power would permit a request made under section 5 to be treated by the education authority as a request to assess the need for Gallic medium education in the area in respect of the duty to provide early learning and childcare. Section 12a provides that regulations made to extend part 2 to early learning and childcare may modify part 2 of the 1980 act or any other enactment. Section 12b provides that such regulations may provide for any provision in part 2 of the 1980 act or any other enactment to apply with or without modifications. The power is generally to be subject to negative procedure but where it is exercised to make textual amendments to primary legislation, the affirmative procedure will apply. The extension of part 2 to early learning and childcare would represent a significant departure in policy terms from the position under the bill at present as the assessment process currently applies only in respect of primary education. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the Scottish Government for further explanation as to why the power is not subject to affirmative procedure in its entirety rather than a negative procedure where the regulations made in its exercise do not make textual amendments to primary legislation? Thank you.