 Welcome to the first meeting of session 6 of the Delegated Power and Law Reform Committee. I am Bill Kidd MSP and, as the oldest member, I am told of the committee, I have the pleasure of convening this meeting for the first two items of business. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome all members and I look forward to working with you on this committee. As we are meeting online, I appreciate it being more challenging for members to indicate agreement to the items being discussed, so I can therefore ask you to raise your hand if you are not consent with any of the questions being put or if you wish to speak about the item. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I would like to remind everyone present to switch mobile phones to silent, if you have not already done so. The first item of business is declaration of interest, in accordance with section 3 of the code of conduct. I invite members to declare any interest relevant to the remit of the committee, and I will begin with myself before asking each member in turn. First, I state that I have no relevant interest to declare. I will now turn to each member and I ask them to invite them to declare any interest, and, firstly, I ask Craig Hoy. I declare that I am a member of East Llewain Council. Thank you very much indeed for that, Craig Hoy and Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Bill. I have no relevant interest to declare. Thank you, Stuart McMillan. Graham Simpson, please. I do not have any relevant interest to declare either. Thank you very much, Graham Simpson and Paul Swinney, please. Thank you all very much indeed. Rwy'n cael ei wneud. Rwy'n cael ei wneud i agend item 2, yw chois o'r convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as convener of this committee in this session. Can I therefore ask for a nomination for this role, please? I will nominate Stuart McMillan to be convener. Thank you very much, Graham Simpson. There is a nomination for Stuart McMillan to be convener. Does the committee agree to appoint Stuart McMillan as convener of the DPLR Committee? The member has indicated that they are not content, and so we are agreed. I would like to congratulate Stuart McMillan on his appointment. I am now going to advocate the chair and hand over to Stuart McMillan, please. Thank you very much for that bill and thank you very much, colleagues, for your support in me becoming the convener of the committee. Just before we do move on to item 3, I would like to certainly say that I would like to congratulate and thank the previous committee on session 5 for their outstanding work that they undertook in the DPLR Committee. I would particularly like to thank Bill Bowman, the previous convener of the committee, for his excellent stewardship, certainly when he became the convener. In prior to the bill, it was Graham Simpson as well, so thank you to also Graham. We move on to agenda item 3, and that is the choice of the deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for nomination as deputy convener of the committee. That is the case. I seek nominations for the position of deputy convener. I would like to nominate Bill Kidd to become the deputy convener of the DPLR Committee. Does the committee agree to Bill Kidd becoming the deputy convener? No member has indicated that they are not content, so we are agreed. Congratulations, Bill, on your appointment as deputy convener of the DPLR Committee. The next item of business is to decide whether to take item 9 in private, the committee's intent to take item 9 in private. No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed. The next item of business is the consideration of instruments subject to the made affirmative procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs at 2021, 224, 227, 230, 237, 238 and 242. Is the committee content with these instruments? I am content within the remit of this committee. One of the instruments that is amendment 28 relates to the travel restrictions from Scotland to Manchester. It is important that people realise that under the remit of this committee there are no grounds for this committee to challenge that. I have reservations about that particular amendment on a technical level. I think that it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce, but I will have the opportunity to raise questions about that later. So it is just if people are watching and they are wondering why on earth aren't they saying anything about it. It is because, under the terms of our committee, we are restricted on the grounds that we can push back on certain regulations. That is the reason Parliament will have a chance to question ministers later this afternoon. Sure, no problem. Thank you very much for that, Mr Simpson. Mr Simpson has a question today in talkable questions. I am not sure if there was a delay in broadcasting there, except that Mr Simpson has a question and talkable question today on this particular issue. No member has indicated that they are not content, notwithstanding what Mr Simpson has indicated. Are we agreed with those instruments? Agenda item number 6, we are considering instruments subject to the negative procedure. An issue has been raised on SSI 221-236, which is the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020, early expiry or provisions number 2, regulations 2021. The instrument brings forward the expiry date of three provisions in the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020, affecting the work of the Parole Board for Scotland. It was laid on 10 June 2021 and came into force on 14 June 2021. As it was laid less than 28 days before it came into force, it is in breach of section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010, which requires that negative instruments are laid at least 28 days before the commen to force, not counting recess periods of more than four days. The committee wishes to draw the instrument to the essential department under reporting ground to J, as it has been laid less than 28 days before it came into force and therefore has breached the laying requirements under the 2010 act. At the same time, does the committee wish to note that it is satisfied that the explanation provided for failure comply with the laying requirements. No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak and therefore so were agreed. Also, under the agenda item, no points have been raised on SSIs 2021 to 10, 214 to 20, 221, 222 and 225. Is the committee content with those instruments? I am sorry to be awkward, but I am just monitoring the chat box. Mr Sweeney indicated that he wanted to come in on a previous item. He is struggling with the platform, which is understandable. If he was convened, he would wish to check if Mr Sweeney did want anything. Thank you for that, Mr Simpson. I see that point now. I will go back to the previous agenda item number five. Thank you, chair. Sorry for the confusion there. I just want to raise a concern about the potential deficiency of the provision in respect of consumer rights. It has been understood that the train line has said that the Government has to advise the rail industry that only essential passengers can travel and that non-essential travellers should be refunded. Given the lack of provision in the SSI, it could potentially cause significant financial detriment. Is that a concern that we ought to raise with the Government? My understanding would be that it is not a technical matter that the committee would look at, but I am quite content to ask any of the legal team if they wanted to come in on that particular point. Do you have any advice? I will come in here. In terms of the technical remit, our advice would be that there are no reporting grounds engaged, but Andy might have a view on how the committee might wish to handle raising that concern. To say that we could note in our report that the committee might want to pick up in its consideration. I am happy to do that, not an issue. Are you content with that, Mr Swinney? Yes, that is a helpful means of raising the concern, thank you very much. We will go back to agenda number six and the SSIs. The issue was SSIs 221, 210, 214, 220, 221, 222 and 225. The committee is content with those instruments. No member indicated that they are not content or that they should speak, and so we are agreed. We move on to agenda number seven. I am considering instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 221, 226, 231, 232, 234 and 239. The committee is content with those instruments. No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, and so we are agreed. The agenda item number eight is the legacy paper, and we are considering the delegate powers and law reforms session 5 legacy paper files. The committee will look at the legacy paper in more detail as part of its planning work in the coming months. I wonder if it will be simply noted for now. Therefore, as the committee agrees, thank members of the session 5 delegate powers and law reform committee for the legacy paper and also to consider the report as part of its work programme discussions at the future meeting. I am very content with that approach. We will get a chance to speak about it later. I am saying this in public, but I have only just thought of it. I wonder whether it will be nice for the committee to write to the previous convener and thank him for his work, Mr Bill Bowman. Graham, I think that that is a nice gesture and I think that the content for our committee to do such or to do that, because I think that certainly Bill Bowman was an excellent convener of this committee. No member has indicated that they are not content and so we are agreed. I will now move the meeting into private. Thank you very much.