 I welcome members to the fifth meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and ask members to turn off mobile phones please. Gender item one is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that we take items five and six in private. Item five is consideration of a draft report on the Assisted Suicide Scotland Bill and item six is consideration of the committee's second quarterly report for the parliamentary year 2014-15. Do we agree to take these in private please? Thank you. Gender item two then is a instrument subject to affirmative procedure and we begin with the Firefighters Pension Scheme, Consequential Provision Scotland Regulations 2015 draft. Regulation 13 refers to an upper till upper tier ill health pension. That term is not defined in the regulations or in the Firefighters Pension Scheme, Scotland Regulations 2015, which were laid in Parliament after the present regulations and respect of which the present regulations make consequential provision. Those later regulations refer instead to a higher tier ill health pension. Terminology used in the present instrument is inconsistent without using the instrument and respect of which it makes consequential provision. The term upper tier ill health pension as used in regulation 13 is accordingly unclear. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground H as the meaning of regulation 13 could be clearer? Further matter has been raised by our legal advisers. These regulations were laid before the Parliament on 14 January 2015. The regulations containing the new Firefighters Pension Scheme were subsequently laid on 26 January 2015. The lack of clarity in regulation 13 could have been avoided had the new scheme regulations been laid prior to or at the same time as the present regulations. The commitment given by the Minister for Parliamentary Business in session 3 to the effect that the Scottish Government would avoid staggering the laying of related instruments where possible has not been met in this case. I think that there is a patent error of process in that it makes no sense for consequential provisions to be laid before the instrument to which they are consequential is available for consideration. That may or may not have practical implications because you cannot determine that at the point that you are looking at a consequential provision. I make this comment in relation to the Firefighters Pension Fund, the current agenda item, but also the subsequent ones on the national health service pension scheme, police pensions consequential provisions, teachers pension consequential provisions are all caught with the same remark. I think that it is important that we communicate in an appropriate way with the policy committee so that if, at the point that they are considering these instruments, they are not in possession of the instrument to which they are consequenced, they should take account of that in their consideration. We should certainly make sure that the Government is aware of our concerns about us as a committee being asked to consider consequences of something that we do not have before us to assess what it is consequences to. I support everything that Stuart Stevenson has said. I agree with him absolutely. We are being invited in agricultural terms to put the cart before the horse and consider consequentials when we do not have the instrument itself. It may be that the lead committee will also find themselves in that position and I do not think that that is a proper position for them to find themselves in. I think that we should alert the lead committee to that possibility and indeed make the Government aware of our concern about this failure in process that is highlighted by Stuart. The committee agreed that I should write to the lead committee about the specific case, write to the Minister of Parliamentary Business about the General Principle and in this particular case write to the Deputy First Minister because it was his department to produce this particular statutory instrument. No formal reporting grounds have been raised by our legal advisers on the national health service pension scheme consequential provision of Scotland regulations 2015 draft nor on the police pensions consequential provision of Scotland regulations 2015 draft. However, as with the previously discussed instruments and the instruments just referred to this committee may consider writing to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Deputy First Minister to highlight the matter and to the lead committee specifically to point out our concerns on these instruments. Last session, the Minister for Parliamentary Business gave an undertaking to the committee regarding how packages of instruments would be handled. As mentioned, the Scottish Government undertook to try to avoid wherever possible staggering the laying of instruments that cross refer to one another and the Government undertook to provide the committee with a copy of draft or related instruments that are not ready for making again wherever possible. This did not happen in the case of these instruments. These two sets of regulations refer in many places to the new scheme regulations for the payment of retirement pensions to or inspect of health workers and members of the Police Service of Scotland, which are yet to be finalised. Regulations also modify how various statutory provisions apply to the new scheme. For example, regulations 14 and 15 of the Police Pensions consequential provision of Scotland regulations 2015 refer to the transitional provisions of the new scheme regulations. Better planning and preparation of the instruments could have avoided the potential anomaly of determining whether consequential provisions are satisfactory prior to the scrutiny of the regulations pertaining to the new pension scheme for which they relate. A timing and laying of packages of instruments was previously raised by the committee with the Minister for Parliamentary Business in relation to the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011, safeguard as further provision regulations 2012, SSI 2012, 336, and the Town and Country Planning and Miscellaneous Amendment Scotland regulations 2012, SSI 2012, 325. Those instruments also raised some general issues as to the programming of subordinate legislation. Does the committee therefore agree to write to those ministers and to the committee drawing their attention to all these instruments? I agree and could I just say that it's perhaps something that we should consider putting into our annual report this weakness of process. Failure might be too strong a word but nonetheless there is an opportunity for it turning into a shambles and we are only seeking to avoid that so I think we should highlight it wherever we can. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the teacher's pension scheme, consequential provisions Scotland Regulation 2015 draft, nor on the land and building transaction tax, sub-sale development relief and multiple dwellings relief, Scotland Order 2015 draft, is the committee content with those instruments please. Item 3, instrument subject to negative procedure, no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Plant Health Scotland Amendment Order 2015, SSI 2015-10, nor on the Revenue Scotland First Planning Period Order 2015, SSI 2015-16, is the committee content with those please. Item 4, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Marriage and Civil Partnership Scotland Act 2014, Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision Order 2015, SSI 2015-14, and on the Land and Build Tax Scotland Act 2014, Commencement No. 2 Order 2015, SSI 2015-17, nor on the Revenue Scotland and Tax Pires Act 2014, Commencement No. 3 Order 2015, SSI 2015-18, is the committee content with those instruments. Thank you very much. That brings us to agenda item 5 and I move the meeting into private.