 I welcome members to the 14th meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. Gender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that the committee takes agenda item 6 in private. This is consideration of a draft report on the delegated powers provisions contained in the carers Scotland bill at stage 1. I'll be agreed to take item 6 in private, please. Gender item 2, instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the enhanced enforcement areas scheme Scotland regulations 2015 at draft, nor on the Equality Act 2010, specific duties Scotland amendment regulations 2015 at draft, is the committee content of these instruments. Gender item 3, instrument subject to negative procedure. The Firefighters Pension Schemes amendment Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015, 141. Regulation 22D, in inserting new paragraph 38 in part 3C of schedule 2 to the Firefighters Pension Schemes Scotland regulations 2015, appears to be defectively drafted. Paragraph 38, 2B determines the date on which a member is taken to join the new pension scheme where they decide not to appeal against refusal of an ill health award under the Firefighters Pension Scheme 1992, as set out in schedule 2 to the Firefighters Pension Scheme Order 1992. It does so with reference to the expiry of 28 days from the date on which the member received the last of the documents, which the authorities required to supply under rule H24 of the 1992 scheme. Rule H24 of the 1992 scheme, as it applies in Scotland, does not require the fire authority to provide any documents, although the equivalent rule in England and Wales does require the relevant authority to do so. The absence of a requirement under the Scottish rules to supply documents, the provision does not give effect to the apparent policy of establishing the alternative of two dates on which a member is taken to join the new scheme in circumstances where the member decides not to appeal against refusal of an ill health award under the 1992 scheme. In 26 I2, which amends rule 9 of the new Firefighters Pension Scheme, Scotland, is set out in schedule 1 to the Firefighters Pension Scheme Order 2007, the NFPS, hereafter, regarding commutation of pensions, also appears to be defectively drafted. Provision inserts new paragraph 1A in rule 9, as acknowledged by the Scottish Government, the wording of the text to be inserted in new paragraph 1A does not make sense. The meaning of the provision is accordingly unclear and it does not deliver the intended policy objective. Regulation 34B, so far as it inserts new rule B1A3B in the 1992 scheme, again appears to be defectively drafted. As acknowledged by the Scottish Government, the wording of the text to be inserted as new rule B1A3B does not make sense. The meaning of the provision is accordingly unclear and does not deliver the intended policy objective. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument of the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground I as it appears to be defectively drafted? I am distressed, I think, as probably as good a word as any at the inadequate quality of the drafting of this particular instrument. I am distressed particularly in that I understand informally that the problems described thus far, and I think that you are going to speak of others, are in some senses patent. In other words, senses do not make sense, so it is not something requiring enormous legal skills to spot that sort of error. In relation to the cross-references, I understand again that this is a comparatively, albeit legally trained and experienced, skill to establish that these cross-references do not work. We are not talking necessarily here about great legal principles being difficult here and requiring to be engaged in detecting that there are errors in what is a very important piece of legislation for people who are getting pensions. I absolutely acknowledge that the timescale over which this has had to be dealt with has been set by others and has presented significant challenges, but it demonstrates to the committee and to the Parliament in its form here. With the substantial amount that we are going to be saying about it, the drafting and checking processes that the Scottish Government is adopting in relation to this are wholly inadequate for purpose. Whatever else we say, and we have to agree with the proposition that you are putting to us—I am going to do that—we should nonetheless think very carefully, as a committee, about what we want to say to the Government overall on this particular instrument and its approach to dealing with it, because it has not been at all satisfactory. Thank you for those comments, John. I do have quite a lot of detail to go through, and I think that it would be good to get through that if I may. Maybe we could have a general discussion at the end of that, as to how we handle that. Are you comfortable with that? Yes. Thank you. That would be helpful. Furthermore, as members have indicated, the meaning of regulation 7, which amends regulation 59.2 of the principle regulations, is lacking in clarity. The amendment does not indicate whether or not the sum referred to in new regulation 59.2 BA is to be included in the calculation referred to in regulation 59.2. The intended effect of the new subparagraph BA is accordingly unclear. The meaning of regulation 38A1, which inserts new subparagraph AB in rule F21 of the 1992 scheme, is also lacking in clarity. The word OR is included at the end of the new paragraph AB instead of the intended word AND. The use of the word OR rather than AND indicates that the period of service mentioned in new subparagraph AB is to be regarded as an alternative to one or more of the periods of service mentioned in subparagraph ABs OR and C of paragraph 1. However, the apparent policy intention is that each period of service mentioned in the existing paragraph 1, including the period of new subparagraph AB, is to be calculated cumulatively. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instruments of the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground H as the meaning of regulations 7 and 38A1 could be clearer? There are also three matters that the committee may wish to report under the general reporting ground. Firstly, regulation 9 amends regulation 65 of the principle regulations by substituting paragraph 3. Substituted subparagraph 3A refers to entitlements to payment of a lower-tier ill-health pension under rule 22 of the NFPS. There are several rules, number 22, in various parts of the NFPS, at least two of which refer to entitlements to lower-tier ill-health pension. The omission of the words OF PART 3 after rule 22 is a drafting error. Secondly, regulation 22D inserts paragraphs 26 and 28 in new part 3B of schedule 2 to the principle regulations. Paragraph 263 refers to a bereavement pension payable to a spouse or civil partner under rule E8 of the 1992 scheme. Paragraph 282 refers to a bereavement pension payable to an eligible child under rule E8A of the 1992 scheme. Those references have been included in error. Rule E8 of the 1999-92 scheme, as it has effect in Scotland, does not make provision for bereavement pensions, while rule E8A has no effect in Scotland at all. Provision have effect in England and Wales only. The references to bereavement pensions in paragraphs 263 and 282 of the principle regulations are accordingly unnecessary. Thirdly, and finally, the instrument contains a number of minor drafting errors that have been identified by the committee's legal advisers. In paragraphs 6 to 8 of rule 1 of part 11 of the NFPS, as inserted by regulation 28A2 of the instrument, the references to paragraph 33 of schedule 2 to the 2015 regulations should be references to paragraph 32 of that schedule. In the new paragraph 2AB of rule 2 of part 11 of the NFPS, as inserted by regulation 28B2 of the instrument, the reference to paragraph 33A4 of schedule 2 to the 2015 regulations should be a reference to paragraph 32A4 of that schedule. In rule B1A3A of the 1992 scheme, as inserted by regulation 34B of the instrument, the reference to paragraph 1A of rule B1 should be to paragraph 1B of rule B1. In new rule B2A of the 1992 scheme, as inserted by regulation 34D of the instrument, the reference to regulation 654A of the 2015 regulations should be to regulation 653B of those regulations. The reference to rule B1A31 of the 1992 scheme should be to rule B1A3A of that scheme. In new paragraph 1A of rule B5D of the 1992 scheme, as inserted by regulation 34H2 of the instrument, the reference to paragraph 31 of rule B1A should be to paragraph 3A of rule B1A. Finally, in new paragraphs 9, 10, 12 of rule G1 of the 1992 scheme, as inserted by regulation 39A2 of the instrument, the reference to paragraph 34 of schedule 2 to the 2015 regulations should be references to paragraph 33 of that schedule. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground on account of drafting errors in regulations 922D and the minor drafting errors identified by the legal advisers? It gives me the opportunity to say thank you to our legal advisers for spotting all that. Just reading it out tells you something for John. Thank you, convener. I support Stuart Stevenson's remarks in their entirety. From all that we have heard, to be frank, it is almost insulting to us as a committee that this piece of work will be presented to Parliament in this way. Of course, we recognise the difficulties in terms of timings, but it appears that not even the most minimal effort has been made to check the policy intentions or, indeed, any of the detail that even a cursory examination would have revealed to be problematic. It feels to me as if this committee is being forced to do the work that should reasonably be carried out by the Scottish Government. I think that that is not acceptable that parliamentary resource should be being used in this way to carry out the work of the Government. We have to consider our options here. I am not certain what they should be. There are possibly several, but one of them would be to invite the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, who I believe is ultimate responsibility for this piece of legislation to appear before the committee. Others may wish to have a view on that, of course, but this is one of the worst examples that we have seen in a very long time. I wonder whether I could just deal with the other issues that are on my brief here. The Scottish Government's response to questions on the instruments from our legal advisers, which happens in the normal way, states that they will deal with identified errors by way of an amending instrument with retrospective effect as from 1 April 2015. The committee may, however, consider that it is unclear from the response which of the points raised by our legal advisers are actually accepted by the Scottish Government as identified errors, and therefore invite the committee to agree to a Scottish Government to amend all the errors reported by the committee under reporting grounds IH and the general reporting ground with respect to retrospective effect as from 1 April 2015. A few other thoughts, which we might notice issues arising from the Scottish Government's response. Firstly, there are various references in the response to the fact that the same errors appear in the equivalent regulations applying to England and Wales. Secondly, the Scottish Government is unable to confirm the meaning of various provisions in the Scottish regulations and refers to the relevant UK department on the issue. Thirdly, in some cases, the Scottish regulations simply copy over amendments relating to provisions that have effect in England and Wales and not as Scotland has previously discussed. I think that all of that indicates that we are looking at regulations that did come from Westminster, which has ultimate responsibility for this and which simply needed to be transposed into Scots law. Are there any other comments that members make as to how we might proceed? I think that the bottom line is that greater care is required, particularly in complex areas. I think that this is a pretty complex provision that has to be brought forward here. What we need to hear from the Government is what additional steps it is putting in to minimise the errors that are being picked up by the committee. We are the last possible safety net in this whole process before the courts. The fact that we pick up such manifest errors, such large numbers of errors, as could be relatively straightforwardly checked in terms of cross referencing, is something to which the Government needs to turn its mind as to how it is going to stop this. The Government might come along and say that this is the last of such instruments, because we have had a whole series of such instruments. If so, that will give them the time to put in processes that they have to engage with next time. They are not going to find themselves in the same difficulties. Of course, we would wish to support the Government absolutely in making sure that there is greater amount of time for the Government to do such processes as it requires. However, at the end of the day, they have to do it right however little time there may be in which to do it. That means that they have to look to the processes in where the committee should write to them and make that point most robustly and reserve the right, if we are not satisfied with the response thereafter, to consider what further actions we might take, including, as John Scott referred to, perhaps having the responsible member of the Government appear before us to explain what they are seeking to do. However, in the first instance, we should certainly look to write and ask for that explanation as to how they are going to step up the quality of their processes to improve the quality of what we get. There is a failure of process here. We are not seeking to really cast aspersions or blame. We are only wanting the process to work and for a Parliament to be presented with instruments that have reasonably been considered by the Government before they reach us, notwithstanding all the difficulties that the Government has to overcome in that regard. Nonetheless, that is not a problem for us, that is a problem for the Government. Like Stuart Stevenson, I would like to hear how that is going to be addressed in the future. What I would like to suggest is that we start by writing. I think that what needs to be said is already on the record. I do not think that I need to add to that. I suppose that we do have an opportunity here, given that there will be a new Westminster Government, regardless of its politics, so the new one will be able to reflect on the processes that it wants to bring in, and it will not actually be responsible for what we have before us because it was a previous Government. Let us not argue the politics of that, but the point is that it will have changed. The committee makes a very important point there. I think that one of the duties to good governance in the round is that we would probably want to be assured that the errors that we cannot say with certainty, but certainly it looks as if it is the case, are ones that will adversely affect English legislation that applies elsewhere in the UK. We need to be satisfied, I think, that they become aware of what our officials and our committee have been aware of. I think that that may be a question of the Presiding Officer writing to the UK Government, because I understand that that is a protocol, or otherwise. I am not there, but having got to the point where we have established that the Scottish legislation is defective and the inference that the UK legislation, for which we are not responsible, may be similarly defective. I think that it is good behaviour for us to make sure that message gets back to those who can fix it. That is a very good point. As a matter of courtesy, it would only be a kindness on our part to perhaps point out the weaknesses of the legislation as we have found it, given that it appears to have been transmitted to us in its entirety in the way that it left Westminster. There is a warning, certainly, for us here in Scotland about doing that in the future, in regard to your comments, convener, about a change of government. Of course, there may be a change of government or there may not be, and we are not suggesting anything about that. However, the point is that it would probably not necessarily be a change of drafters or civil servants. Therefore, it is fundamentally not about the Government but about the process that we are concerned with. Indeed, and I am right with you. That was not meant to be a political comment. I do recognise that it will be the same drafters, but clearly they are working under instructions and the process does require a political leadership there, as it does here. That is clearly part of the problem, because they work into a 21-day rule and we are working into a 38-day rule, and it is the wrong way round. Convener, if I may, I do not think that we should get too bogged down about the 21-28 day. That is an issue. They have a timetable, and without having rigorously sought to identify fitness for purpose in UK legislative terms, we appear to be overview that it is very likely to be defective, and they are 21 days that they had available. They would appear not to have used correctly. It is not about the 21-28 days. I could drop into unparlamentary language at the drop of a hat. Please do not. We all know enough about processes too. Does that provide an adequate discussion of those? I go immediately straight on to the Police Pension Scheme Scotland Regulations 2015 SSI 2015 142, which is rather shorter. The drafting of the instrument is defective in that Regulation 663 does not include, in error, an equivalent to subparagraph D of Regulation 763 of the Police Pensions Regulations 2015, which introduced the counterpart police pension scheme in England and Wales. The effect of that error is that Regulation 663 does not set out in full the basis on which a selective medical practitioner must decide that a member of the scheme is permanently medically unfit for engaging in any regular employment. The regulations should include a provision requiring the practitioner to decide whether the inability is likely to continue until normal pension age or death. The Scottish Government has agreed to address this point by having an ending instrument with a retrospective effect, as from 1 April 2015. Notwithstanding that, does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground I as it appears to be defectively drafted? The instrument also contains a number of minor drafting errors. In Regulation 1321, the word pension should be added after adults. In Regulation 1375, the reference to paragraph 3 should be to paragraph 4. In Regulation 149, 4A, the reference to Regulation 159 should be to Regulation 150. In Regulation 171, the reference to Regulation 174 should be to Regulation 166. In Regulation 1983, the reference to Regulation 115 should be to Regulation 215. In Schedule 1 paragraph 1, the reference to Regulation 97 in subparagraph D of the definition of medical decision should be to Regulation 96. Although the Scottish Government has confirmed that these points will be addressed by way of an amending instrument with a retrospective effect, as from 1 April 2015. Does the committee also agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground on account of the aforementioned drafting errors? As was with the case with SSI 15140 and 2015 143, which were considered by the committee last week, this instrument and SSI 2015 141, which the committee had just considered, were laid on 26 March 2015 and came into force on 1 April 2015. The very short period of time between laying of those instruments and coming into force has meant that there has been no opportunity for scrutiny of the instruments to take place prior to them coming into force. Does the committee therefore agree to draw both instruments SSI 2015 141 and SSI 2015 142 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 this breach of the 28 tool. Day rule raises again a broader issue about the timetabling of instruments that are prepared and laid in parallel with UK instruments that make similar provision. The committee reiterates the point that there is a clear need for projects of this nature to be planned in a way that allows for the procedural requirements of both parliaments to met, although noting again that the Minister for Parliamentary Businesses 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 again wish to express its dissatisfaction that has not yet been achieved. I think that probably we have already made that point. Thank you. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the common agricultural policy non-IACS support schemes appeal Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SI 2015, 167, nor the firements pension scheme amendment number two Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015, 173, nor on the police pensions amendment Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015, 174. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Agender item 4 inquires into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland bill. The purpose of this item is for the committees to consider the delegated powers in the bill at stage 1. Members 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 delegated powers in the bill. It suggested that these questions are raised in written correspondence. The committee will have the opportunity to consider the responses at a future meeting before the draft report is then considered. Section 34.1 confers wide powers on the court of session to make rules by act of sedurant to regulate A, the practice and procedure to be followed at fatal accident inquiries, FAIs in the sheriff court and B, matters that are incidental or ancillary to such FAIs. Section 7 of the 1976 act currently confers power on the Lord Advocate to make rules about FAIs. Section 34 of the bill widens the rulemaking powers and confers them on the court of session. Subsection 3 of section 34.1 provides that an act of sedurant on to subsection 1 may make incidental, supplemental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision and different provision for different purposes. In the context of providing a broad discretion to the court to regulate inquiry practice and procedure without parliamentary interference, but also to respect matters properly reserved to the legislature and ministers, does the committee agree to our Scottish ministers to explain, one that the limits of the power in section 34.1 B to make provision 4 or about any matter incidental or ancillary to an inquiry, two, whether such power permits the court to make provision in relation to matters other than procedure and practice in inquiry proceedings, including issues of substance relating to inquiry proceedings and three, the interaction between the power in section 34.1 B and the power in section 34.3 and in particular why the court requires the power in section 34.3 to make provision that is incidental or supplemental to matters that are in themselves incidental or ancillary to inquiries. Convener, we've had some of this discussion previously and I think while I'm content to allow this to go through without too much comment, I suspect that this is the sort of thing that Parliament in future, our successors in office, should tuck away as perhaps suitable for post-legislative scrutiny once it's seen how this actually pans out on these powers, which we are highlighting, are actually exercised in practice, so putting that on the record for future generations. Are we agreed to ask those questions, though, about? That brings us to agenda item 5, which is Apologies Scotland bill. The bill contains one delegated power set out in section 23 of the bill, which permits the Scottish ministers to modify the list of civil proceedings which are accepted from the effect of the bill. The power enables additions to be made to the list of exceptions for an exception to be removed or for the description of the exception to be adjusted. That power is subject to the affirmative procedure. Does the committee agree to report to the Parliament that is satisfied with the taking of the power in section 23 and that the affirmative procedure is appropriate? If there are no other comments that completes agenda item 5, I move this meeting into private. Thank you.