 I welcome members to the 22nd meeting in 2014 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I've always asked members to switch off mobile phones. Gender item 1 is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by legal advisers on the provision of early learning and childcare specified children's Scotland order 2014 draft, nor on the Lanarkshire College's order 2014 draft. Members will note that the first of these two orders supersedes the draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 19 May, and which was reported upon in acceptable terms by the committee on 27 May. The earlier order has been withdrawn and relayed to Cata for certain policy changes. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Right to information, suspects and accused persons, Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014-159. The requirement of section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2014 has not been complied with. However, the committee may wish to accept the reasons provided by the Scottish Government for the breach of the 28-day rule in this instance. Scottish Government has explained that regulations have been prepared and are proposed to be brought into force as quickly as possible to transpose urgently into Scots law certain provisions of directive 2012-13 EU on the right to information and criminal proceedings. This follows the rescheduling of stage 2 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill into 2015 as originally certain provisions of that directive were to be transposed by the bill. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground to J as the requirements of section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010 have not been complied with? Does the committee agree, however, to accept the reasons provided by the Scottish Government for this breach of requirements? A further matter in relation to the instrument has been raised by our legal advisers. Regulation 3.2 provides that a person in police custody must be provided as soon as reasonably practical with such information as is necessary to satisfy the requirements of articles 3 and 4 of the directive. The Government has acknowledged in its response to the committee that the terms of the directive envisage an element of discretion in the timing of providing the information through the use of a backstop provision. Regulation 7.2 refers to, at the latest before the first official interview of the suspect or accused persons by the police or any other competent authority. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the directive provide that the information should be provided promptly. The committee may wish to draw to the attention of the lead committee that Regulation 3 does not make provision for the latest timing, which is referred to within the preamble to the directive. The Scottish Government has explained in its response that the regulations do not specify a time limit for the provision of the information because, as a matter of practice, a suspect will not be interviewed before a letter of rights under article 4 of the directive is provided to the person. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the terms of Regulation 3.2 and has Scottish Government's response to the committee, which explains the effect of that paragraph, to the attention of the lead committee? Local Government pension scheme Scotland Regulations 2014, SSI 2014.164, drafting of Regulation 9.3b, appears to be defective. Regulation 9.2 provides for the pension contributions rates under reference to be a table showing bans, earning range figures and contribution rates. Regulation 9.3b provides that the earnings figures set out in that table are to be applied to pensions beginning on 1 April 2014, but the intention is that they are to be applied from 1 April 2015, bringing the date on which the regulations come into force. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground i on the basis that drafting of Regulation 9.3b appears to be defective? Committee may wish to note, however, that Scottish Government is undertaken to bring forward an amending instrument to correct this error, as the error is significant. The committee may wish to suggest that an amendment should be brought forward promptly. Are we agreed to do this? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the seed fees Scotland Regulations 2014-SSI 2014-167, nor on the road traffic permittive parking area on a special parking area in the Clyde council designation order 2014-SSI 2014-169, nor on the parking attendants wearing of uniforms in the Clyde council parking area regulations 2014-SSI 2014-170, nor on the road traffic parking adjudicators in the Clyde council regulations 2014-SSI 2014-171, nor on the aquaculture and fisheries Scotland Act 2013, specification of commercially damaging species order 2014-SSI 2014-176, is the committee content with these instruments please. Agenda item 3 is instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure and no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the bankruptcy and diligence etc. Scotland Act 2007 commencement number 9 and saving amendment order 2014-SSI 2014-173, is the committee content with that instrument please. Agenda item 4 is the Housing Scotland Bill. The committee agreed its reports on the Housing Scotland Bill as amended at stage 2 at last week's meeting. Since that meeting, a non-government amendment amendment 61 has been lodged, which confers a new power on the Scottish ministers to make subordinate legislation. Members will recall the Scottish Government officials wrote to the clock on 11 June in order to advise the committee of the intention to lodge this amendment and to inform us of the Government's intention to support it. In order to allow the committee to scrutinise the amendment, the letter also explained the purpose of the provision and the reasons why it was proposed that the power is taken. Members have seen that letter and a briefing paper from our legal advisers. Does the committee agree to note the letter from the Scottish Government? Agenda item 5 is the committee content with amendment 61, so far as it relates to the committee's remit. John Swinney said that that is a further example of something that perhaps Mr Stevenson's committee of examination needs to look into, again, the late submissions of amendments and indeed in discussion. I think that earlier we talked about the need for explanation of amendments. Of course, as it turns out, we are content with this amendment, but had we not been, then it might have raised difficulties. I think that that is something that you might wish to investigate convener with Mr Stevenson's committee of examination. I am afraid that I cannot remember the name of that committee, but it is for help, but it is the standards committee. I would like to pursue that, please. With that comment, is the committee content with amendment 61, so far as it relates to the committee's remit? Agenda item 5, welfare funds Scotland bill. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers in the welfare funds Scotland bill at stage 1. In considering the bill, the committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government on the delegated powers in the bill. It suggested that those questions are raised in written correspondence, and the committee will have the opportunity to consider the responses at a future meeting before the draft report is then considered. Section 4.1 and 4.2 provide that regulations may be made to require local authorities to review the decisions made by them under section 2 as to the use of welfare funds. Regulations may make all decisions subject to review, or they can set out particular types of decisions that would be subject to review. Delegated powers memorandum explains that section 4 is considered necessary by the Scottish Government to allow requirements to be placed on local authorities to carry out reviews of decisions in relation to the applications for assistance through welfare funds. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain why it has been considered appropriate that section 4.1 is framed as permissive, allowing the Scottish ministers to regulate to require local authority reviews, rather than requiring regulations that will put the review process in place? Section 4.2A provides for a choice that may be implemented by ministers in the regulations that all decisions under section 2 may be subject to review, or certain types of decision will be subject to review. Does the committee agree to ask that question? We do. Thank you. Does the committee also agree to ask the Scottish Government why the section 4.2 is framed as permissive to allow the Scottish ministers to regulate to implement one of those two options, rather than requiring the regulations to provide for one option? How are some visions of these powers should be used? What examples could be given of the types of decisions that could be made subject to review, or otherwise, and the types of circumstances that might be specified in which reviewable types of decisions are to be reviewed? Why could those not be stated initially in the bill, though subject to adjustment in future by regulation? Section 7 enables sections 1-6 to be commenced by order. In the order under section 7, may include incidental supplementary consequential, transitionary, transitory and saving provisions. In regard to section 7-3, the committee may consider that it is unusual in a bill of the scope for the commencement powers to include power to make incidental supplementary consequential provision, whether power is exercisable by an order that is laid before Parliament but is not subject to the negative procedure. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain why the parliamentary scrutiny by a negative procedure is not considered appropriate for the exercise of these ancillary powers, or whether the Scottish Government could agree to lodge an amendment at stage 2 of the bill so that the negative procedure would apply in these circumstances? Section 6 is the Food Scotland Bill, the item of business consideration of the Scottish Government's response to the committee's stage 1 report on the Food Scotland Bill. Members have seen the briefing paper and the response from the Scottish Government. They have also seen a letter from the Lord Advocate, which he penned yesterday concerning the publication of the Lord Advocate's guidelines. Do members have any comments, please? I think that we should welcome the letter from the Lord Advocate. I have his willingness to work with us or with the Government in terms of bringing forward amendments and guidelines. I think that the Government's explanation has outlined that paragraph 11 is entirely a reasonable one. The fact that the regulations have not been used in recent times is a matter to rejoice over, but nonetheless, having lived through BSE and E. coli incidents in the food industry, I think that the ability to make regulations at short notice can and, indeed, in the past has been required. Therefore, the Government's explanation of its desire to retain that type of power for such emergencies is an entirely reasonable one. That would be my only comment. Thank you, John. Any other comments from members? Are we content to note the response and, if necessary, reconsider the bill after stage 3? Sorry, stage 2 might be considering it after stage 3. Thank you. I think that completes our agenda unless there is anything else. Our next meeting will be held not next Tuesday, Tuesday 5 August. I look forward to recess and I close this meeting.