 Welcome, members, to the third meeting of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I could invite members to turn off any mobile phones, please, or, at the very least, turn them to silent. Elaine Smith, sadly, is unable to attend the meeting this morning and has submitted her apologies. Monica Lennon is attending the meeting this morning in her place. Welcome, Monica Lennon. If I might invite you, in the corridor section 3, of the code of conduct, to declare any relevant interests, if you have any, please. Thank you, convener. I would draw committee's attention to my register of interests, where you will note that I am an elected member of South Lancer Council and a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Okay, thank you very much. I will now move to item 2. The decision on taking business in private is to propose that the committee discuss item 6 in private. That will be an opportunity for the committee to discuss its working practices. Do members agree to consider item 6 in private? Yes, they agree. Thank you very much. Agenda item 3, instrument subject to affirmative procedure. Agenda item 3 is consideration of instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on public appointments and public bodies, etc. Scotland Act 2003, treatment of Crown Estate Scotland interim management as specified authority, order 2016 draft. No points have been raised on children and young people. Scotland Act 2014, part 4 and part 5 complaints revocation order 2016 draft. Is the committee content with these instruments? Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is consideration of instrument subject to negative procedure. The named person's training qualifications, experience and position and the child's plan Scotland revocation order 2016 in brackets 2016 slash 234 closed brackets. The order was laid before the Parliament on 24 August 2016 and came into force on 30 August. The order therefore does not respect the requirement that at least 28 days should elapsed between the laying of an instrument that is subject to the negative procedure and the coming into force of that instrument. As regards its interests in the Scottish Government's decision to proceed in that manner, the committee may wish to find the failure to comply with section 282 to be acceptable in the circumstances. The reasons for doing so are outlined by the Deputy First Minister in his letter to the Presiding Officer dated 24 August 2016 and are in connection with the halting of commencement of parts 4 and 5 of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014. Does the committee agree to draw the order to the attention of the Parliament under reporting grounds J as the instrument fails to comply with the requirements of section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010? Does the committee agree to find the reasons for doing so to be acceptable in the circumstances? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the health and care professions council, miscellaneous amendments, rules orders of council 2016, brackets SI 2016 slash 693, closed brackets. Is the committee content with the instrument? Contend. Agenda item 5 is a consideration of instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, which is the act of simple procedure 2016 slash 200 closed brackets. The committee may wish to note at the outset that the Lord President's private office has undertaken to amend almost all of the errors in respect of which the briefing invites the committee to report. A number of errors will be corrected in time for the commencement of the new simple procedure on 28 November 2016. However, the LPPO explains that some corrections will require further deliberation by the Scottish Civil Justice Council and may accordingly be resolved following implementation. The committee may wish to welcome the LPPO's commitment to correcting errors and to encourage the LPPO to take all steps available to it to correct the errors in time for the commencement of the new procedure on 28 November 2016. Do we agree to that? The committee may wish to also agree that, for an instrument of approximately 260 pages in length and one that deliberately adopts a drafting approach, which is in many respects novel, the number of errors identified by the committee in the new rules does not appear to be unilaterally disproportionate. Rhyw 10-11 brackets 1 provides that a person who has particular documents must tell the court that the person believes them to be confidential. The provision is intended, however, to require a person to tell the court that documents are confidential only if that person believes the documents to be confidential. The error means that the proper policy intention is not delivered. The LPPO has agreed that there is an error in Rhyw 10-11-1 and proposes to change the word that to if at the next available opportunity. Rhyw 11-7-3 provides that when a special measures review application is received, the sheriff may do one of four things. The policy intention, as confirmed by the LPPO, is that the sheriff should be able to do five things, and Rhyw 11.73 omits to include a fifth option enabling the sheriff to vary an existing special measure. To the extent that the rule does not fully deliver the policy intention and the full suite of options that are to be available, the committee may consider that it is defectively drafted. The LPPO has undertaken to amend Rhyw 11.73 at the next available opportunity so as to include the fifth option of varying a special measure. With respect to those errors, does the committee wish to draw the instruments to the Parliament's attention under reporting grounds I as the drafting of the rules appears to be defective? Thank you very much. The definition of the term a case where the expenses of a claim or cut set out in paragraph 3.1 of the instrument is unclear, as it defines such a case by reference to a provision where a sheriff has specifically directed that an order capping expenses is to be supplied with the effect that the expenses are not cut. The LPPO acknowledges that there is an error in this definition and has undertaken to amend it at the next available opportunity. Rule 10.53 uses the wording within two weeks of the end of either the four-week period or the appeal being decided, whichever is the later. The meaning of the end of the appeal being decided could be clearer given that there are a number of options available to the sheriff appeal court when considering an appeal as set out in rule 16.4. The LPPO has agreed to consider whether rule 10.53 can be drafted more clearly and whether the rules can be explicit in setting out the stage in an appeal when the two-week period begins. There is also a lack of clarity as to the relationship between rules 11.33 and rule 12.34. Rule 11.33 provides that a sheriff may not continue a hearing to another day solely because a witness did not appear. Rule 12.34, however, provides that a sheriff may continue a hearing to another day only if it is necessary to do so. The rules do not make clear which rule is to take precedence in circumstances where the reason why the sheriff considers it necessary to continue a hearing to another day in the language of rule 12.34 is to enable the court to hear from a witness who did not appear. In particular, the rules do not make clear whether rule 11.33 is intended to preclude the continuation of the hearing in these particular circumstances. The LPPO has undertaken to reflect on whether the relationship between the two rules could be clarified. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention under reporting grounds H as the meaning of the provisions could be clearer? The preamble to the instrument fails to cite paragraph 1A of schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 as an enabling power under which the instrument is made. The committee may consider that this error constitutes a failure to follow proper drafting procedure. The preamble fails to explain the basis for making the reference to service regulation in paragraph 3 1 of the rules and ambulatory reference. Proper drafting practice for creating an ambulatory reference to rate the intention to do so in the preamble to the instrument. The committee may consider that amitting to do so constitutes a failure to observe proper drafting practice that falls to be reported under the general ground. Paragraph 3 1 of the rules contains four definitions that do not appear in the body of the instrument. The definitions are a decision absolving the responding party, a decision ordering the responding party to deliver something to the claimant, a decision ordering the responding party to do something for the claimant and restart a case. The LPPO has undertaken to amend the definitions at the next available opportunity. Further, paragraph 3 1 defines the terms child's property administration order as an order under section 11 1 of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. The correct reference should however be to section 11 1d of the 1995. The LPPO acknowledges the lack of specification and has agreed to amend the reference at the next available opportunity. Also, rule 18.22c refers to rule 6.16102. The correct reference, as confirmed by the LPPO, should be to rule 6112. Again, the LPPO confirms that it will amend the error at the next available opportunity. There is also an error in section C2 of form 20e of the rules, which contains two OTOs tick boxes, those referring to buy a next day postal service that records delivery and other. The LPPO has undertaken to remove these tick boxes at the next available opportunity. Rule 19.716 refers to the confirmation of formal service notice. The LPPO has confirmed that it should instead refer to the confirmation of formal service. The LPPO has undertaken to correct this error at the next available opportunity. The heading to rule 10.9 indicates that a party may apply for a special order to recover documents if that party does not believe that the standard order to recover documents has been complied with. The LPPO has acknowledged that the heading to rule 10.9 does not accurately affect the policy intention, which is that a party should be able to make an application for a special order for recovery of documents where a standard order has not been complied with and not only when the party does not believe that the order has not been complied with. The LPPO has undertaken to amend the heading to rule 10.9 to better reflect the content of the rule at the next available opportunity. Section B2 of Form 9G admits to include a tick box for an interested person who is neither the claimant nor the respondent but who nevertheless is a person entitled to make an application using that form by virtue of the provision made in rule 20.62. Form 9G also instructs the person filling it out to refer to rule 9.10 before completing the form. Rule 9.10 is of no relevance to interested parties who may make applications using Form 9G by virtue of rule 20.6. The introductory note to Form 9G should also, therefore, instruct the person filling it out to refer to rule 20.6. The LPPO has acknowledged those admissions from Form 9G and intends to correct them at the next available opportunity. With reference to the preceding errors, does the committee wish to draw the instruments to the Parliament's attention under the general reporting grounds? Yes. Moving on now to the act of Sederent Court rules amendment personal injury pre-action protocol 2016-16 slash 215 closed brackets. The appendix 1A, the personal injury pre-action protocol contained in schedule 2, should properly have been numbered 1B. In consequence, the reference is to appendix 3 in paragraph 3-2 of the instrument and to appendix 1A in paragraph 3-3 and in the heading of schedule 2 are errors. SSI 2016-229 is also considered by the committee this week. Paragraph 5 of that instrument corrects the errors to monthly. Does the committee wish to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting grounds as the instrument contains two drafting errors? Many thanks. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the following instruments. The Succession Scotland Act 2016 commencement transitional and saving provisions regulation 2016 brackets 2016 slash 210 brackets C19 closed brackets closed brackets. The act no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the act of Sederent rules of the Court of Session 1994 and Sheriff Court rules amendments number 2, miscellaneous 2016-269. Again, no points have been raised on Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 commencement number 11, partial revocation order 2016 brackets 2016-233 closed brackets. Is the committee therefore content with the instruments? Many thanks. That concludes that part of the agenda, so we will now move into private session. Everyone is happy with that.