 I welcome members to the second meeting into a D16 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I ask members to switch off their mobile phones please. I have to note at this point that Richard Baker has resigned as an MSP, so we are down to four. I hope we won't be losing any more before the session is up and I'd also like to record on behalf of the committee our grateful thanks to Richard for his diligent work over the recent while. With that, I turn to a gender item 1, which is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that we take item 6 in private. This will enable the committee to consider a draft of its second quarterly report for the parliamentary year 2015-16. Do we agree to take it in private please? Gender item 2, instruments subject to affirmative procedure. The Police Act 1997 and the Protection of Vulnerable Group Scotland Act 2007 remedial. Number 2, Order 2015, SSI 2015, 4-2-3. This instrument could be clearer in two ways. The meaning of paragraph 75 of schedule 8B to the Police Act 1997 has inserted by article 3-8 of the order could be clearer. Schedule 8B lists offences which require to be disclosed in response to an application for higher level disclosure, subject to rules contained in the Police Act 1997 as amended by the order. Paragraph 75 of that schedule lists an offence under section 672 and 3 of the Medicines Act 1968 as such an offence. The policy intention indicated by the Scottish Government is to list any offence committed under section 672 and separately any offence committed under section 673. Given the words in paragraph 75 of their ordinary meaning, however, the paragraph appears only to list an offence where it is an offence under both section 672 and 673. Given the terms of section 672 and 3, it is not possible for an offence under one subsection to constitute an offence under the other subsection. However, the wording gives the rise to the risk of confusion for lay readers of the instrument. The meaning of paragraph 81C of schedule 8B to the Police Act 1997 as inserted by article 3-8 of the order could also be clearer. The policy intention, as indicated by the Scottish Government, was to delete paragraph 81C as it does not contain any offence. The continued inclusion of the paragraph in schedule 8B gives rise to a risk of confusion for lay readers of the instrument. Does the committee therefore agree to draw this instrument to the Parliament's attention under reporting ground H? The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, Exclusions and Exceptions Scotland amendment order 2016 draft, raises the same issues as SSI 2015-1943. Does the committee therefore agree to also draw this instrument to the Parliament's attention under reporting ground H? No points have been raised by illegal advisers on the welfare fund Scotland regulations 2016 draft, nor on the advice and assistance and civil legal aid financial conditions and contributions Scotland amendment regulations 2016 draft, nor the public services ombudsman act 2002 amendment order 2016 draft, nor the bankruptcy and dead advice Scotland act 2014 consequential provisions order 2016 draft, nor on the water environment amendment of part 2a of the environmental protection act 1990 contaminated land Scotland regulations 2016 draft, is the committee content with these instruments please. The committee may wish to note that the Bankruptcy and Dead Advice Scotland act 2014 consequential provisions order 2016 fulfills the Scottish Government's undertaking to bring forward an order under section 55 of the Bankruptcy and Dead Advice Scotland act 2014. The instrument is made in consequence of that act and it amend sections 7, 2B and 4 of the Bankruptcy Scotland act 1985 to bring these provisions in line with section 16 of the Bankruptcy sorry the Bankruptcy Scotland bill. Agender item 3 is instrument subject to negative procedure and no points have been raised by illegal advisers on the housing Scotland act 2014 commencement number 5 and consequential provision order 2015 SSI 2015 430, nor the management of offenders acts Scotland sorry the management of offenders etc Scotland act 2005 specification of persons amendment order 2015 SSI 2015 431, nor the public bodies joint working integration joint boards and integration joint monitoring committees Scotland amendment number 2 order 2015 SSI 2015 432, nor the food Scotland act 2015 consequential provisions number 2 order 2015 SSI 2015 433, nor the inshore fishing prohibition of fishing and fishing methods Scotland order 2015 SSI 2015 435, nor the inshore fishing prohibited methods of fishing loose bay order 2015 SSI 2015 436, nor the south arran marine conservation order 2015 SSI 2015 437, nor on the waste meaning of recovery miscellaneous amendments Scotland order 2015 SSI 2015 438. Do members have any comments to make John? Thank you, convener. I have a minor concern about the south arran marine conservation order 2015 SSI 2015 437 in as much as I have been approached by the Clyde Fisherman Association and I have concerns about the government apparently not consulting with them in particular or perhaps everyone they should have although I understand that notwithstanding the CFA's legal advice that not making the CFA aware of this order does not apparently affect its validity. Since I believe that the Clyde Fisherman Association's essentially concerned the policy of this instrument I would suggest that they make representation to the Rural Affairs and Climate Change Committee and I think that that is the appropriate place for them to make their objections. Thank you for that comment. With that is the committee content with these instruments please. In relation to SSI 2015 431 our legal advisers have noted that this order and the management of offenders etc Scotland Act 2005 commencement number 8 order 2015 SSI 2015 429 replaces the provisions of the Management of Offenders Scotland Act 2005 commencement number 8 in consequential provisions order 2015 SSI 2015 397. The Scottish Government confirmed to the committee in relation to that order that in its view it is of no legal effect and undertook to lay the corrective instruments. The Scottish Government has confirmed the National Archives with the National Archives that the SSI 2015 397 will not be printed as a Scottish statutory instrument and no longer appears on worldwide web legislation gov.uk. The committee may wish to note that these steps have been taken in highly unusual circumstances where the Scottish ministers have publicised subsequently to laying an instrument which has been purportedly made by ministers that the entire instrument is of no legal effect. The committee has also reported to the Parliament that there is doubt whether the instrument is into various and the instrument has not been laid for approval by the Parliament. The committee may also wish to note that normal practice is to expressly revoke provisions to remove them from the statute book. While these steps have been taken with the intention of causing readers less confusion it appears that some confusion may still arise. For example, stakeholders with an interest in the instruments may read the Parliament's official report of the consideration of SSI 2015 397 and may read legal resources beyond legislation.gov.uk which might possibly have retained a record of that instrument. I'm wondering whether members have any comments to make, Stuart, please. In your remarks, you used the phrase that this is not being laid for the approval of Parliament. If I may, I take a different view. It has appeared in the business bulletin and at that point, in parliamentary process terms, it has been accepted by the chamber desk to put in the business bulletin and therefore should be regarded as having been laid. I'm perfectly content with the explanations that have been provided that because it's been agreed by the Government to laid this order that it is ultraverus and therefore has no legal effect, that the legal aspects of the order concerned are adequately dealt with and I welcome the fact that no printed or otherwise published version will appear in the archives. However, I think that it still leaves open the question of parliamentary process that the order having been laid, there is no formal recognition by the Parliament that that laying should not have any future effect, any effect that the laying should be undone because it could not properly be laid. There are clearly a couple of ways in which it could be dealt with. It could be dealt with by the Parliament simply passing a motion agreeing that it be unlaid or it could be reported in the business bulletin that the previous report of the laying of this order had no effect and therefore it should be regarded as not having been laid in the first place. These are probably matters of process and it may well be that the committee should write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to ask them to consider whether the disposal of this instrument, which I think has been laid but could not properly and legally be laid, have actually been completed in a satisfactory way and I suggest that we do that. Any other comments, Stuart? I would just support Stuart Stevenson in what he says. For completeness, there should be a way of, as it were, unlaying instruments and given that this is essentially an untidy and inelegant situation in which we find ourselves, I think it would be wise to refer this to the Standards Committee and perhaps have them consider it as soon as possible and get the job done untidy up before the end of this session. Indeed. Clearly, the committee has agreed that that is what we should try to do. Can I suggest that we might also just refer it back to the Government and ask them to consider whether there is anything else they could sensibly do. For the record, can I agree with Stuart Stevenson that I said that it had not been laid for approval, which I think would have been the process of bringing it to the Parliament again. There is absolutely no doubt among our legal advisers that it has been laid before the Parliament and that part of the process has been done and it is that part which undoubtedly needs to be undone if it is to be completely tidy and if we can refer it to the Standards and Procedures Committee to consider that in short order, that would appear to be the way forward. Are we agreed? Great. Super. Thank you. Agender item 4 is instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, the act of sedurant rules of the Court of Session, sheriff appeal court rules and sheriff court rules amendment, sheriff appeal court 2015, SSI 2015 419. This instrument contains two drafting errors. Firstly, in paragraph 4 2A, which amends rule 72 3 of the act of sedurant proceedings in the sheriff court in the Dettas Scotland Act 1980, the reference to sheriff principle should have been omitted within rule 72 3B. Secondly, paragraph 12 3A4 substitutes a new paragraph 10 of rule 231, appeals of the small claims rules 2002. This provision should have substituted a new paragraph 9. The law president's private office has confirmed that those provisions will be corrected within a further instrument to be laid in due course. Does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground? How soon would in due course be likely to be? The answer is when another suitable instrument comes forward, which probably doesn't take us any further forward. I think that the committee agreed with me that we would want corrections to be brought forward as soon as is reasonably practicable because we don't like the statute but being untidy. I think that that's probably the point I'm trying to make, is that as soon as possible it would be welcome. Thank you. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on management of offenders etc. Scotland Act 2005 commencement number 8 order 2015 SSI 2015 429 nor on the act of a journal criminal procedure rules amendment number 6 special measures in the justice of peace court 2015 SSI 2015 443. Is the committee content with these instruments please? Thank you. Gender item 5 apologies Scotland bill members are invited to consider the delegated powers contained in this bill as amended at stage 2. The stage 3 debate will take place on Tuesday 19 January therefore members should agree their conclusions today. It's proposed that members may wish to find the two substantially amended delegated powers to be acceptable. Does the committee agree to report that it's content with the delegated powers in the bill which have been substantially amended at stage 2? That completes agenda item 5 and I therefore move this meeting into private.