 I welcome members to the 17th meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I asked members to switch off mobile phones and we have apologies from Margaret McCulloch. Gender Item 1 is decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that we take item 5 in private. This will allow the committee to consider further delegated powers provisions in the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths, etc. Scotland Bill at stage 1. Does the committee agree to do that, please? Thank you. Gender Item 2 is instrument subject to negative procedure. The Town and Country Planning Hazardous Substances Scotland Regulations 2015 SSI 2015 181. Regulation 21.3 and paragraph 19 of schedule 2 contain a definition provision where expressions appear both in the regulation and that schedule and in the Surveys-O3 directive 2012-18. They have the same meaning as used in the directive. This defines a major accident for the purposes of those provisions in the instrument. A similar definition is omitted, however, for the purposes of the references to major accidents in Regulation 6, 2, D, 6 and 7. Does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground on account of a drafting error? The Scottish Government does not propose to take any corrective action to remedy this discrepancy within the provisions. The committee considers it to be undesirable for the definition provision, which is intended to apply for the purposes of two regulations of under schedule 2. The instrument is omitted for the purposes of one of these regulations. Does the committee agree to invite the Scottish Government to rectify this discrepancy by an amendment as soon as practicable? The Town and Country Planning Hazardous Substances Inquiry Session Procedure Scotland Rules 2015 SSI 2015 182. There are three drafting errors in this instrument. Firstly, in rule 4.1 it appears that which is omitted between effect and must. Secondly, paragraph 3 of the schedule states the persons entitled to appear at the inquiry session is restricted to. Thirdly, paragraph 10.1 in the schedule in the definition of appointed representative appointed is omitted between person and to. The Scottish Government has undertaken delay in amending instrument as soon as practicable to correct these errors. Does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground as it contains pattern drafting errors? Scottish Tax Tribunals Time Limits and Rules of Procedure Regulations 2015 SSI 2015 184. For this instrument, two matters have been suggested for consideration by our legal advisers. The first matter concerns an apparently unusual or unexpected use of the powers in the parent statute. In schedule 1 of the instrument, rule 5.3A, confers power on the first tier tax tribunal to extend or shorten the time for complying with the time limit specified in regulation 3.2 of this instrument. 30-day time limit for permission to appeal to the upper tax tribunal. In schedule 2, a symbol of power is conferred on the upper tax tribunal to modify the time limit specified in regulations 3.2 and 4.2. Time limit for permission to appeal to the upper tax tribunal or the quarter session. Regulations 3.2 and 4.2 are made by the Scottish ministers in exercise of the powers conferred by section 39 of the Revenue, Scotland Tax Powers Act 2014, the act to specify a time limit within which the permission to appeal must be sought. The Scottish Government's Delegated Powers memorandum, which accompanied the 2014 bill, stated as follows in relation to the powers on which the bill's enactment was conferred by section 39. I quote, the time limit for applying for permission to appeal is a procedural matter and is therefore considered to be more appropriate to be set in requirements, set out the requirements in subordinate legislation rather than on the face of the bill. It is, however, considered to be of such importance that it should be in the regulations made by the Scottish ministers rather than left to the tribunals' rules. The committee may consider recording that this is unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent statute to provide in the rules of procedure for the first tier tax tribunal and the upper tax tribunal that tribunals made by direction extend or shorten in relation to any proceedings at any time, the time limits which are specified in regulations 3.2 and 4.2. Secondly, the committee may wish to draw a further aspect of rule 5.3a in both schedules 1 and 2 to the attention of the Subject Committee considering the instrument. The rules also confer power on the first tier tax tribunal and the upper tax tribunal to extend or shorten the time for complying with any matter of practice or procedure specified by the president of the tax tribunals under section 57 of the Act. This power to vary procedural time limits in proceedings before the tax tribunals would apply, even where a direction by the president could provide that a time limit specified in his direction must be adhered to. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament under a committee's reporting ground G in light of the unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent statute? The Government asserts that time to appeal is a matter of procedure. In one sense, it is correct that it is about changing the procedures of the tribunal, but it is not clear to me that in relation to shortening the period for appeal that equity is present. I can perfectly understand why the Government might wish to hand to the tribunal by this instrument the power to lengthen the period for appeal. One can imagine a whole series of circumstances where the ends of justice are served by lengthening the period to allow people who might be out of the country for a month to register. However, appeals by the very nature are that the two parties to an appeal are not in agreement as to what the solution should be. It seems difficult to imagine that the ends of justice are served by shortening the period of appeal that is available to someone who is aggrieved and wanting to appeal are natural justice. However, the point for the committee is perhaps not the policy one that I have just outlined. Although clearly this would give the tribunal the power to shorten the period for appeal just for the sake of illustration three minutes, I am not sure that that is a proper process. Of course, it being a negative instrument, there is a very good chance that it may pass without discussion and debate. I think that we should encourage the appropriate policy committee to look at the use of this instrument to allow the tribunal itself to shorten the period for tribunal. I think that they can look at anything that they like, but I think that that is the issue that causes me concern and I think that the policy committee should look at it because the Government has proffered no explanation as to why it is proper to allow the tribunal itself to shorten the period and how that might or might adversely or beneficially affect the parties to any appeal. John Swinney I support what Stuart Stevenson has just said. Of course, it is an extreme example that Stuart uses to shorten the period for appeal to three minutes. Nonetheless, it would be helpful if the Government were to provide us with reasons or, indeed, examples or sets of circumstances where the requirement to shorten such an appeal process might be of benefit to anyone. John Swinney It is far from clear and I even wonder whether it occurs to me, would this be ECHR compliant, to deny someone their rights that are clearly stated, but yet can apparently be changed almost whimsically? Stuart Stevenson I am sure that courts would not do things like that, but I think that we have eloquently made the point. Are we agreed to report this both to the Parliament and also draw it to the attention of the Finance Committee then? John Swinney Agreed. Stuart Stevenson Thanks very much. That then takes us to the less favoured area support scheme Scotland amendment regulations 2015 SSI 2015 185. Regulations 6 of the principle regulations as substituted by regulations 7 of these regulations could be made clearer to applicants in that the EU requirements specified in regulations 6, 2B and 3B are to be read as if references to transfer are when references to transfer are and vice versa. Stuart Stevenson Yes, I do. I must of course firstly declare an interest as an active farmer in this regard and I appreciate that this is perhaps a policy matter but I am particularly concerned about where paragraph beginning purpose and bullet point 3 provision of a process for the reduction of the maximum payment rates where I appreciate that this is perhaps a policy matter, but I'm particularly concerned about where paragraph beginning purpose and bullet point 3 provision of a process for the reduction of the maximum payment rates where the financial resources available are insufficient to meet ELFAS payments within the annual budget of £65.5 million. This is a pretty major discretionary power, which would have a material impact on the entitlement of applicants under the scheme. I just want to think that this should be drawn to the attention of the policy committee, because I'm not sure that such a change is actually appropriate that such a change should be put through by a negative instrument. I would have thought that an affirmative instrument for such a major change would be reasonable unless I'm missing the point. I think that I would have to suggest that the major point to which you refer is one for the Rural Affairs Committee and invite you to take it to them, and I'm sure that you'd be very interested in your comments for all sorts of obvious reasons. Could I simply ask the committee whether the committee wishes to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under report in ground H as the meaning of the regulation, which is what immediately concerns us? The meaning of regulation 7 could be clearer. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the carbon accounting schemes. Scotland Amendment Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-189, is the committee content with that instrument, please? Agender item 3, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The Scottish Tax Tribunals Conduct and Fitness Assessment Tribunal rules 2015, SSI 2015-187. Paragraph 22.1 of Schedule 2 to the Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014, which might just be the act for the rest of this paragraph, provides that Scottish ministers may make rules for the purposes or a connection with the investigation and determination of any matter concerning the conduct of members of the Scottish Tax Tribunals and the review of any such determination. That power is relied on to make provision in rule 13 of the conduct rules to the effect that, following the receipt of a report determining a conduct matter in relation to the President of the Tax Tribunals, the Scottish ministers may give the President formal advice, a formal warning or a reprimand, and I'll refer to the President thereafter. Conduct matters are dealt with paragraph, sorry, in paragraphs 21 to 23 of Schedule 2 to the Act, while disciplinary matters, reprimand, warnings and suspension of members are dealt with in paragraphs 24 to 26. By virtue of paragraph 22 of Schedule 2, paragraphs 21 to 23 apply expressly to the position of the President. However, the Act is silent on the application of paragraphs 24 to 26 to the position of the President. Accordingly, it would appear that provisions in the Act concerning disciplinary action, which follow on or from an investigation and recommendation in accordance with the conduct rules, do not expressly apply to the President. As such, the use of the power in paragraph 22.1 of Schedule 2 to the Act to make provision, pardon me, enabling the Scottish ministers to take disciplinary action in relation to the President appears to be inconsistent with the other provision made in the Act. The committee may accordingly consider that it appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of power in paragraph 22.1 of Schedule 2 to provide in the conduct rules that the Scottish ministers, following receipt of a report determining a conduct matter in relation to the President, may give the President formal advice for formal warning or a reprimand. Accordingly, as rule 13.8, when read with rule 13.7b of the Scottish tax tribunals conduct rules 2015 in Schedule 1, the instrument has been made by what appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the parent statute, does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the committee's reporting ground? John, thank you. There is also a minor drafting error in rule 12.6 of the conduct rules. Rule 12.6 does not expressly provide for rule 11.4 to apply to an interview under rule 12.5c, review by a disciplinary judge, as it applies to an interview conducted under rule 11.1c procedure and conduct to an investigation. Scottish Government acknowledges that rule 11.4 should have been applied in the context of an interview under rule 12. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground in respect of that minor drafting error and invite Scottish Government to rectify this error as soon as practicable? Thank you. No points have been raised by illegal advisers on the 4th Road Bridge Act 2013 commencement order 2015, SSI 2015190. Is the committee content with that instrument, please? Gender Item 4 is our annual report, and this is from the 11th of May 2014 to the 10th of May 2015. Under rule 12.9 of standing orders, the committee is obliged to report to the Parliament at the end of each parliamentary year on its activities. We have before us a draft annual report for that year, sorry, the report is due to be published next month to coincide with all the others. Do members have any comments or are we content with the contents of that? Thank you, we are. Right, which point I move the meeting into private for a gender item 5?