 Os i fod ni ddoch yn cymdysgolol â'r 13 ym 2015 y byddwn i Llyfrgelliaethol a Llyfrgelliaethol, ac mae gwaith y byddwn i mi gwybod, mae'n mynd i gael o gwzod ialau mewn cyffin. 1. Os i fod ni i gael o'r prysgio afirmyt oedd yn ei si pieffydd mwy oedd eu cymryd meddwl o gyflym ymgymaint, o swyddogwch cynllun ddychchiol�er hwylfaeth Scotland, o i ddau aelod 2015 ymwneud, o casoedd mae ddim yn cymryd mwy o gyfryd mwy o'r prysgio afirmyt o'r prysgio. 2, instrument subject and negative procedure, the firemen's pension scheme amendments Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015, 1, 4, 0, and the fire fighters compensation scheme and pension scheme amendments Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015, 1, 4, 3. Both instruments were laid on 26 March 2015 and came into force on 1 April 2015, the very short period of time between laying instruments and them coming into force has meant that there has been no opportunity for scrutiny of the instruments. Does the committee therefore agree to draw both 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? The committee may consider that the breach of the 28-day rule in this case raises a broader issue about the timetabling of instruments which are prepared and laid in parallel with UK instruments, which makes similar provision. The committee may consider that there is a clear need for the projects of this nature to be planned in a way which allows for the procedural requirements of both Parliaments to be met. The committee may further consider it to be unsatisfactory that it has not been achieved in the present case. The committee may wish to welcome, however, that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has undertaken in recent correspondence with the committee to review the processes for laying instruments in these circumstances and to take steps to improve awareness within the UK Government of the challenges involved. The committee may consider that this work should be progressed in early course in order to avoid similar issues arising in the future. Two further points have been raised by our legal advisers on the latter of the two instruments, SSI 2015 at 1.4.3. Article 11.2.b.3 inserts a reference to Regulation 1.66 of the Firefighters' Pension Scheme, Scotland Regulations 2015, into rule 3.2c of part 10 of the schedule to the Firefighters' Compensation Scheme, Scotland Order 2006. The correct reference should be to Regulation 1.56 of the 2015 regulations. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground? Article 18, in inserting a new subparagraph 11 into rule 1 of part 2 of the schedule to the Firefighters' Pension Scheme, Scotland Order 2007, is defectively drafted. The new subparagraph provides that a person is provisionally enrolled member of the scheme if the person is not eligible to become a provisionally enrolled member pursuant to rule 6c3 of part 11. The reference to not eligible should be a reference to not ineligible. The effect of this error is that the provision does not achieve its policy objective. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground? I, as a drafting, appears to be defective. I think that the errors in this particular instrument are quite significant, potentially by affecting individuals. We would certainly expect to see that remedied. More to the point, it illustrates the real danger of officials in the Scottish Government and the Parliament not having adequate opportunity to look at those instruments in the run-up to them being laid and implemented. I am given to understand that the error in relation to eligible and not ineligible is lifted straight from the UK legislation, which appears to be defective in a similar way. I would not think it unreasonable that officials in Scotland rely on the professional standards that apply elsewhere, but the compression of timetable appears to have led to what can only be described as a burrach. Therefore, the issue of properly meeting our timetable is not simply a technical issue. It is an issue that has real-life implications. We are very much indebted to the legal advice that we as a committee have for bringing that to our attention. I hope equally that the UK is aware that the defect is being found and looks again at its own legislation as a consequence to us directly, but it would be good practice to do that. It is a reason why it should work with us more robustly to give adequate time for everybody who can check this to do so. Everybody will benefit if that actually happens, as this case perfectly illustrates. John Finch-Everett, Stevenson and everything that he has said. I am caution against accepting the work of others when they have made mistakes, not the standing their best endeavour, and we should have the time, therefore, to check for our instruments that have been examined elsewhere, but not properly examined, as it turns out in this circumstance. For those comments, colleagues, the committee may wish to note, however, that the Scottish Government has undertaken to bring forward a further instrument to correct both of those errors with retrospective effect. Other points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Housing Scotland Act 2006, Repayment Charge and Discharge Amendment Order 2015, SSI 2015-144, nor on the National Health Service free prescriptions and charges for drugs and appliances, Scotland Amendment Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-1610, nor on the welfare of animals at the time of killing Scotland Amendment Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-1611, is the committee content with these instruments, please? Agenda item 3 is instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The act of a journal criminal procedure rules amendment number 2, European protection orders 2015, SSI 2015-121. Paragraph B of Form 616B in the schedule to the instrument appears to be defectively drafted. Paragraph B specifies the incorrect maximum penalties on summary conviction, which are applicable for an offence under section 234A4 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, as modified by section 254D2. Paragraph B should have specified the maximum penalties as 12 months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both, instead of three months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level five of the standard scale or both. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground eye as it appears to be defectively drafted? A further point has been raised on this instrument by our legal advisers. There is a minor drafting error in the new rule 6191 of the criminal procedure rules 1996, as it is asserted by Paragraph 22 of this instrument, rule 6191, provides that the rule applies where the court has to send information to the competent authority of an issuing state under these provisions, so are under, among the other provisions, rule 6134, but this should refer to rule 6133. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground as it contains a minor drafting error? The committee may wish to note that the Lord President's private office has confirmed that the errors will be corrected by laying an amending instrument before Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. Given that the instrument came into force on 1 April, the committee may consider that the amendment should be laid quickly. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the act of sedurant, rules of the court of session and sheriff court of bankruptcy, rules amendment, bankruptcy and debt advice Scotland Act 2014-2015, SSI 2015-119. Is the committee content with this instrument, please? The committee may wish to note that, in response to questions raised by our legal advisers on this instrument, the Lord President's private office has explained that it intends to review its approach to citing and referring to rules of court in acts of sedurant and acts of a journal, with a view to adopting a standardised approach. The Lord President's private office hopes to be able to communicate its revised approach to citation and references to the committee in the near future. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Housing Scotland Act 2014, commencement number 2, order 2015, SSI 2015-122. The committee may wish to note, however, that the Scottish Government intended within the order to commence section 89 of the Housing Scotland Act 2014. The order commenced sections 85, in so far as not already enforced, 87, 88, 90, 91 and 92 of that act on 1 April 2015, which make a number of amendments to existing legislation effectively largely administrative changes in the area of private housing conditions. The omitted section 89 relates to maintenance plans under the Housing Scotland Act 2006 and operates to change the way in which such maintenance plans must be registered. The fact that section 89 is not commenced by the order does not affect the operation of revisions that are commenced by the order. The Scottish Government has confirmed that section 89 will be included in the next commitment order to be made under the Housing Scotland Act 2014, and until then the current arrangements for the registration of maintenance plans will remain in place. In noting this, does the committee agree to report that it is otherwise content with this instrument? Agender item 4, the Scottish elections reduction voting age bill. The purpose of this 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. Section 9E of the Representation of the People Act 1983 requires registration officers to invite persons to apply for registration in the electoral register if they are not currently registered, but the officer believes that they are entitled to be registered. Section 41 of the bill confers powers on the Scottish ministers to make provision about invitations to be given to persons under the age of 16 in relation to the registration of local government electors. Does the committee agree to report that it finds this power to be acceptable in principle and that it is content that it is subject to the affirmative procedure? Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the bill set out the limited circumstances in which details of entries in the local government electoral register relating to under 16-year-olds may be published, disclosed or shared. Section 142 provides a non-exclusive list of examples of what might be done with the power. The list includes authorising or requiring the supply of specified persons, specifying the purposes for which such information may be used, prohibiting further supply of information and prohibitions on the supply of copies of the full register. Does the committee agree to report that it finds this power to be acceptable in principle and that it is content that it is subject to the affirmative procedure? Section 17 permits regulations to make the full range of ancillary provision. Incidental, supplemental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision. Ministers may make such provision if they consider it necessary or expedient for the purposes of or inconsequence of or for giving full effect to any provision in the bill. Does the committee agree to report that it finds this power to be acceptable in principle and that it is content that it is subject to the affirmative procedure when it amends primary legislation but otherwise to the negative procedure? Given that no issues have been raised in relation to these powers and we do not wish to raise any questions with the Scottish Government, are we agreed to report that the committee is content with the delegated powers provisions in the bill at stage one? Thank you. Gender item five is the human trafficking and exploitation Scotland bill. This item of business is consideration of the response from the Scottish Government to the committee stage one report on the bill. Members have seen the briefing paper and the response from the Government. Do you members have any comments or are we content to note the response and, if necessary, reconsider the bill after stage two? We are. Thank you very much. That completes our agenda and our next meeting will be next Tuesday.