 I welcome members to the 10th meeting in 2016 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and as always ask members to turn off mobile phones please. Agender item 1 is instrument subject in negative procedure. The Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Scotland amendment order 2016, SSI 2016-126. This instrument contains a drafting error. Regulation 32 of the instrument substitutes class 6H of part 1A of schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Scotland order 1992. The word IF has been omitted from the provision at the beginning of sub-paragraph 2D of that class. The committee may wish to note that the Scottish Government intends to correct this error at the next available opportunity. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention under the general reporting ground in respect that it includes a minor drafting error? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the non-domestic rates renewable energy generation relief Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-121, nor the non-domestic rating unoccupied property Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-124 is the committee content with these instruments. The act of sedurant rules of the Court of Session 1994 and Sheriff Court rules amendment, Mr Lanius 2016, SSI 2016-102. The instrument contains two errors. New rule 33A-216 of the ordinary cause rules as inserted by paragraph 3 of the instrument makes reference to a child welfare officer. The correct term is child welfare reporter. Paragraph 5 of the instrument makes a saving provision preserving the effect of the ordinary cause rules as applied immediately before 21 March 2006. The correct reference is, of course, 21 March 2016. The committee may wish to note that the Lord President's private office intends to correct both of these errors at the next available opportunity. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention under the general reporting ground as it contains errors? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Act 2015, commencement number 3 in transitional provisions order 2016, SSI 2016-130, nor the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Act 2015, commencement number 4, transitional and saving provisions order 2016, SSI 2016-132 is the committee content with those. Dender item 3 is the Higher Education Governance Scotland Bill, and this item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers provisions in the bill as amended at stage 2. There is one revised power in the bill. Four delegated powers have also been removed from the bill, which the committee had reported upon at stage 1. The committee may wish to welcome both the removal of these powers and the inclusion of further detail on the face of the bill. Does the committee agree to report that it is content with the delegated powers as amended at stage 2? Dender item 4, Private Housing Tendency Scotland Bill, this item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers provisions in the bill as amended after stage 2. At stage 2 there was one new power and two revised powers. The revised power in section 32 of the bill allows Scottish ministers to designate a rent pressure zone. The bill has been amended at stage 2, so the procedure to make regulations to designate a rent pressure zone is restricted to when the zone is first so designated, and any subsequent revocation or amendment of the zone is subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. Justification for the change provided by the supplementary delegated powers memorandum is that there may be a need to respond quickly to market conditions and that the affirmative procedure would be a barrier to expeditious action. The committee may wish to have regard to the steps that are taken before a rent pressure zone can be designated by Scottish ministers in regulations, including being subject to affirmative procedure, and may wish to consider that a similar level of scrutiny by the Parliament should be available when it is proposed that a rent pressure zone is amended or revoked. The committee may consider that the provisional affirmative procedure would provide adequate scrutiny and also meet the Scottish Government's needs. A model is found in section 684 of the Land and Building Transaction Tax Scotland Act 2013. The procedure would allow regulations to be made and, if necessary, have effect during periods of recess. Members have several comments, John. I agree with that. It seems to me that there are quite considerable steps to be taken before the initial designation can be made. Although a subsequent step might be minor, it could also be major. If it is undoing the whole of a rent pressure zone, that is, in my opinion, a major step. That would require the provisional affirmative procedure, so I support that. The Government could take a number of approaches to the one that occurs to me. It could perhaps restrict the power under the negative procedure to orders that only have effect for a limited period of time, say, for the sake of argument, 60 days, giving them time to bring forward an affirmative procedure. I am not saying what they should do, but I am saying that I share the concern that my colleague John Mason has expressed that we could see something as substantial as the original order being dealt with by a negative procedure. I understand the issue about urgency, but I think that there are other ways of dealing with it that the Government should consider. I would just be supportive of what my colleagues Stuart and John Mason have said. I think that this is a very big step to amend or revoke a rent pressure zone, and I think that the procedure needs to be an enhanced procedure rather than just a negative procedure, so I would be content and supportive of their comments as well. I am supportive of the comments from changing it from a negative to an affirmative. In section 323, it says that the zone would cease to have effect after five years, and I just wondered whether it had amended it under the negative. If it was nearing the end of the five years, I think that the affirmative procedure is a better procedure, so it gives proper scrutiny. I am very happy to ask that question. If the original order was for five years and we amend it partway through, does the amendment run for five years or is it merely an amendment of the original five-year period? I think that the original five years would run, but I would need to look at it properly. This issue has first come up now, so I think that I would want to consider it. I think that the five years would expire on the original regulations looking at it that way. Either way, it does not seem unreasonable to read this as an opportunity to bring an extremely strong procedure for one street in theory and then have an amendment that would cover the whole of a town. I am not arguing that the Government would do that, but it seems a strange way to set up the law. That is to expand it to the whole of a town rather than just take it away from the one street. It rather looks as though this amending procedure is rather under-weighted. Does the committee agree that a change in procedure for regulations under section 30, which amend or revoke a rent pressure zone from the affirmative procedure to the negative procedure, is unacceptable? Does the committee agree to recommend to the Scottish Government that the provisional affirmative procedure may be more appropriate and to suggest the model similar to that when section 68.4 of the Land and Building Transactions Scotland Act 2013 should be adopted. Do you want us to prove that, if the Government does not propose an amendment, we would put forward an amendment at this stage, or would that be a decision that we made at another time? It is an interesting discussion to have now. Thank you for raising the issue. I mean, how do we see this? My inclination would be that, if the Government does not propose an amendment, we would put forward our own amendment. I agree with the principle of what John John said. We should allow the convener in the light of what emerges to make that choice, because I think that I trust the convener. I do not think that we do not go away tying the convener's hands to must do it if the Government does not do it, but to look at what has happened and to take soundings from members of the committee in an appropriate way. However, we empower the convener to do that if his soundings of committee members, once we see what is brought forward, suggest that that is the right thing to do. Other members have any view? I am very happy to take the soundings now, because I think that there are various ways of tackling this. I think that I am supportive of what John Mason said about if the Scottish Government does not propose such an amendment that we put forward as an affirmative. We have a meeting on Thursday, so will we know the Government's amendments by then? Not necessarily, I am told. Given the general timescale of this, it might be wise if we did something proactive. Maybe I should be writing to the Government laying out our concerns. As always, I am sure that somebody will be watching us as literally as we proceed. However, I think that if there is a general concern about this, because there must be some options as to how the Government could handle this. One would be to give itself a different kind of power if it is something minor. Secondly, to give itself a different kind of power if it is merely to revoke something that already exists on a small scale. However, on the other hand, if revocation is as significant as setting it up in the first place, then maybe even that is not logical. I am in members' hands, and I am quite prepared to write to the Government pointing out that we think that there is an issue here. That would be the logical first step to write to the Government. As you say, the Government will doubtlessly be watching those proceedings in to make that we are unhappy with what it is proposing in the letter formally. Discussions can take place between our advisers and the Government in the meantime, and if the Government does not wish to bring forward an amendment, we should perhaps reserve the right to do so. We certainly do have the right to do that. We do not need to reserve it, do we, John? Right. Do colleagues have anything to add to that? I will pursue those thoughts in writing, and no doubt there will be discussions between legal advisers and clerks. You are going to write to the Government and lay all that out. I think that I am going to write to the Government to lay out the general issues that we have raised. We will see what happens, but following Stuart's suggestion that you are empowered to put down amendment, if we are not satisfied with the response, I would certainly endorse that. Well, thank you. I think that if there is any indication by Thursday that we need something to discuss, then I will make sure that we have something positive to discuss on Thursday. Okay, thank you very much. Does that cover that? I think that it does. Agender item 5 then is the Land Reform Scotland bill, and this item is for the committee to consider correspondence received from the Scottish Government on expected amendments to part 3 of this bill. The expected delegated power will enable Scottish ministers to make provision for a public register, which will contain information about persons who have a controlling interest in land. It is proposed that regulations should be subject to an enhanced affirmative procedure the first time the power is used, but the implication of the letter to the convener of the Rural Affairs First committee is that maybe it will be the first time and only the first time. Again, we have not seen the Government's proposals yet. Can I just confirm that we will have seen that by Thursday? On this particular occasion, we will have seen Government's proposals by Thursday, but how would members like to take this one forward, please, Stuart? I think that until we see the Government's proposals and conclude that we are satisfied with them, we should, perhaps at this meeting, put on the record that our preliminary view is that subsequent operation of those powers should also be by the same procedure as initial. I support Stuart Stevenson's remarks because we expect that the powers that the Government will take in this amendment, as yet to be revealed to us, will have very wide powers. Therefore, while we are content that the first use will be subject to the enhanced affirmative procedure, it would be reasonable from our understanding of what we are about to receive, so to speak, that subsequent usage should be subject to the enhanced procedure as well. Yes, I still have overall concerns about this bill that there just is so much that is being left for regulation and is not going to be in the face of the bill. I do accept the time pressures, but somebody made the decision to run with the timetable that is being run with. That is my overall starting point. On the specific issue that we are looking at, I agree with my colleagues. The intention is clearly that, on the first use, something major happens and, probably after that, it would be minor tweaking. I think that my preference would be that the Government put in the bill that, in future, once the initial steps have been taken, that, in future, we would only be minor changes. Given that, assuming that that is not there, I totally agree that there needs to be greater scrutiny. One option, if I am hearing members correctly, would be that there might be two amending powers, one of which would be for things that were definably minor, and the recognition that, if they were not minor, they should have some kind of enhanced form of scrutiny. However, if they were minor, it would be actually crazy to force that, and it ought to be possible to have some short system. It may be that we would conclude that, in relation to there being two processes for major or minor, there should be a case for Parliament being party to making the decision as to whether they are major or minor, rather than merely being at the hand of ministers, because we are talking about a major policy area. I think that there has been a number of concerns about the lack of policy development on this bill. I think that we would want to have clarity about it going forward for the development of the regulations. I think that it would be good to have that clarity around whether it is a major amendment of the second and subsequent iterations or if it is a minor. I think that we need that clarity, given that there are a number of concerns about the lack of policy development. I would echo what my colleagues have said and add to it a little in that this has been one of the sections of the bill where we have had ECHR concerns as well. We are looking at this very late stage at major policy being left to regulation, which may or may not, given the Government's track record in this area. It may or may not be compatible with ECHR and therefore in terms of balance, because that seems to be one of the important things in ECHR, of the rights of the individual versus the state. It must be given, at the very least, the amendment to be brought forward must at least offer the maximum level of scrutiny so that any mistakes that would bring the Parliament into dispute can be avoided. I am just wondering how we should take this forward. Again, the timetable is short. I wonder whether, again, I should suggest the committee that I should be writing to the Government, pointing out the 10 hour of this discussion, thanking them for the letters to myself and to Rob Gibson, and expressing some concern that whatever amendments they bring forward or what proposals they bring forward should be appropriate to whatever amendment it is that they are trying to make to those regulations. Of course, there is a risk that if we asserted that it should always be an extended enhanced procedure that that would be over, totally over the top on some occasions, but equally to take the reverse view would be inappropriate on other occasions. I suggest that I need to try and get the Government to see if it can get the minds around a way of doing something that is appropriate to the level of amendment at the time. I think that a letter would be given the very tight timescales. I think that that would be a good step forward. I endorse that. I think that my preference would be that they actually do spell out in the bill that the first time would be major and other times might be different, but if that is not the case, then the scrutiny side needs to be changed. Yes indeed. Of course, we do get an opportunity to look at this again on Thursday, but we will have the Government's current proposals, so it suggests that my letter needs to go off pretty promptly this afternoon to make sure that, again, they have something to work on, proposing that I would copy the Rural Affairs Committee into that letter as well, or at least the convener, so that everybody is in the same place. I stand that we would be happy that we do not necessarily personally need to see that letter, but we are happy to delegate that power to you. Thank you, but I am sure that you will see a copy, but possibly it will have gone before you see it. Yes, absolutely. In the context, thank you. I think that that completes it into gender item 5 if we are comfortable with making every decision that we need to make, which takes us on through gender item 6, which is the Scotland Bill. Thank you, Rebecca. Under the item, the committee is invited to consider the powers to make subordinate legislation conferred on the Scottish ministers in this bill. A briefing paper has been provided that sets out the relevant aspects of the bill and the comments on their effect. Does the committee agree to recommend the Evolution Further Powers Committee that, in relation to clause 714 of the bill, the power conferred upon Scottish ministers by virtue of section 1552A of the political parties elections and referendums act 2000 should be subject to the following procedure, that the order should be laid before Parliament and not subject to further procedure in accordance with section 32 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010? Does the committee agree to recommend the Evolution Further Powers Committee that, in relation to clause 3810, the powers conferred upon Scottish ministers to commence certain provisions of part 1 of the equality act 2010 should be subject to the procedure that normally applies to a commencement order, that the order should be laid before Parliament and not subject to further procedure in accordance with section 32 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010? Does the committee agree to report to the Evolution Further Powers Committee that it is content with the remaining delegated powers conferred on Scottish ministers in the bill and with the procedure to which they are all subject? Thank you very much. That completes the agenda and I close this meeting.