 Can I welcome members to the 18th meeting in 2017 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee? Monica Lennon is unable to attend the meeting this morning and has submitted her apologies. Pauline McNeill is attending the meeting this morning in her place. We will move to agenda item 1, which is the Declaration of Interest. I invite Pauline McNeill, in accordance with section 3 of the Code of Conduct, to declare any relevant interests. We now move to agenda item 1, which is an instrument subject to affirmative procedure, and no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Draft Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, consequential provisions order 2017, or the draft mental health cross-border transfer patients subject to detention requirement or otherwise in hospital Scotland amendment regulations 2017, or the draft mental health cross-border transfer patients subject to requirements other than detention Scotland regulations 2017. Both mental health instruments contain minor drafting errors. Where an instrument is laid in draft but a drafting error has been identified, the committee has to date tended to recommend that the instrument should be withdrawn and relayed with the error corrected. If there is no time for relaying, then there is the option of laying anamending instrument. That is, in our view, the normally correct approach. However, in this instance, the numbering and cross-referencing errors are highly evident. In this particular instance, the Scottish Government has considered the matter and decided that the errors should be corrected on the signing copy. The committee could agree that it may appear disproportionate in this particular instance that the regulations should be withdrawn and relayed, or that there should be anamending instrument. As a very limited exception to the committee's normal approach, are we agreed that we could accept the proposed approach of correcting this highly evident error on the signing copy? Are we agreed? Thank you. Otherwise, is the committee content with the instruments? We now move to agenda item 2, which is an instrument subject to a negative procedure. The next instrument for consideration is the law, car and urgent marine conservation order. 2017, SSI 2017, number 158. A separate order, the law current nature conservation marine protected area order 2017, has designated law current as a nature conservation marine protected area with effect from 19 May 2017. That order provides that the flame shell beds within law current are protected creatures. The order in which the committee is now considering has been brought into force urgently to further the stated conservation objectives for the law current marine protected area order. That order fails to comply with the 28 day rule in section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010. Section 282 provides that an instrument subject to the negative procedure must be laid before the Parliament as soon as practicable after it is made and, in any event, at least 28 days before it comes into force. The order was made and laid before Parliament on 18 May 2017 and came into force on 20 May 2017. Therefore, it 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. Accordingly, does the committee agree to draw the order to the attention of Parliament under reporting ground J as there has been a failure to lay it in accordance with section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010 for the reason that I have just outlined? Does the committee agree to find the failure to comply with section 282 to be acceptable in the circumstances as outlined in the letter from the head of marine conservation on behalf of the Scottish ministers to the presiding officer dated 18 May 2017 and included in our meeting papers? Agenda item 3, instruments that are not subject to any parliamentary procedure and the final instrument for consideration today is the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Act 2016, commencement number 3, transitional and saving provisions regulations 2017 SSI 2017 number 155. The instrument commences provisions of the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Act 2016 on 15 June 2017 in so far as they are not already in force. It saves the old regime under the fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiry Scotland Act 1976 and the fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiry procedure Scotland rules 1997 for inquiries applied for prior to 15 June 2017. The terms of regulation 3 could have been clearer so that the references to an inquiry in sections 30 to 35 of the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths etc. Scotland Act 2016 are only to the original inquiry conducted under the fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiry Scotland Act 1976. Accordingly, does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of Parliament under reporting ground H on the basis that the meaning of regulation 3 could be clearer? Agenda item 4 is the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider its approach to the scrutiny of the delegated powers in the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill at stage 1. Specifically, this is an opportunity to identify matters that the committee may wish to raise with the Scottish Government in relation to delegated powers contained in this bill. The overall policy aim of the bill is to complete the devolution of forestry in Scotland by transferring the powers and duties of the Forestry Commission so far as they relate to Scotland to the Scottish ministers and to provide a modern statutory framework for forestry in Scotland. This modern statutory framework will replace the application in Scotland of the Forestry Act 1967, which currently governs forestry in England, Wales and Scotland. It is suggested that the committee may wish to raise four questions with the Scottish Government in relation to the delegated powers in the bill. Section 24 gives a power to the Scottish ministers to make regulations setting out exemptions to the offence of unauthorised felling. Regulations under section 24 may, in particular, provide that the offence provision does not apply to particular categories of person, particular places or activities, particular circumstances and trees of particular descriptions. Regulations under this section may modify any enactment, including the act flowing from this bill. In relation to that power, does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government for an explanation of the following? As the Government acknowledges in its delegated powers memorandum, the exemptions under section 24 are key to determining which situations will be caught by the forestry regulatory regime in the bill. That, in turn, will establish when the act of felling may amount to an offence under the bill. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government why it is considered appropriate in section 24 to take a power to create exemptions from the offence of unauthorised felling under section 23, rather than making provision for such exemptions on the face of the bill? Does the committee also agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain why it is considered that this approach strikes an appropriate balance between primary and secondary legislation and to consider, as an alternative approach, whether setting out initial exemptions on the face of the bill together with a power to amend those exemptions by regulations could strike a more appropriate balance? Section 27.7 gives a power to the Scottish ministers to set out in regulations further provision in relation to decisions on applications for felling permission. Such regulations may include, but are not limited to, provision about power for the Scottish ministers to enter land in order to make a decision about the application, how decisions are to be notified, the imposition of conditions on felling permission and situations in which persons who have made an unsuccessful application for felling permission may be restricted from making a further application in relation to the same circumstances. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government for an explanation of the following? The delegated powers memorandum refers to the administrative nature of the regulation making power in section 277 of the bill and concludes that, for this reason, the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny. It is not immediately clear, despite the non-exhaustive list provided in that section, whether the exercise of this power would be limited to matters of purely administrative detail or whether the power that could be used to make provision in relation to the way in which such decisions should be taken by the Scottish ministers. If the latter, that would appear to go beyond purely administrative provision and could have a significant effect on those applying for felling permission. On that basis, does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government for further clarification as to how it is intended that this power should be exercised? Thank you. Section 29 provides that a person suffering loss as a result of the Scottish minister's decision to refuse an application for felling permission is entitled to compensation in accordance with regulations made under subsection 2. Section 29 2 provides that such regulations may include but are not limited to provision about. Person is entitled to compensation, the procedure for applying for compensation, information to be included in applications, the way in which compensation is to be determined, the way in which disputes about compensation are to be determined and detail on appeals against compensation. In relation to that power, does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government for an explanation of the following? The Delegated Powers memorandum refers to the administrative nature of the regulation making power in section 29 2 of the bill and concludes that, for this reason, the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny. Section 29 2 provides that the regulations made under that section may include, among other things, provision about persons who are entitled to compensation. To the extent that this could extend to a provision setting out in what circumstances may or may not be entitled to compensation, thereby affecting the scope of the compensation provision made by section 29 1. That would appear to go beyond purely administrative provision and could have a significant effect on those persons who suffer loss as a result of a refusal by the Scottish Minister to grant felling permission. On that basis, does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to provide further clarification as to how it is intended that this power should be exercised? Does the committee also agree to ask in particular for an explanation of the policy intention underlying the taking of a power to make provision about persons who are entitled to compensation and how it is intended that this will interact with the provision in section 29 1, that a person suffering loss as a result of the Scottish Minister's decision to refuse an application for felling permission is entitled to compensation in accordance with regulations made under section 29 2. Although not a power to make subordinate legislation, it is also suggested that the committee may wish to raise a question about the power delegated to the Scottish ministers under section 64. Section 64 gives a power to the Scottish ministers for the purposes of or in connection with the carrying out of their functions under the bill to impose charges of such amounts, as they consider appropriate. In relation to the power, does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain the policy intention behind the taking of the power in section 64 of the bill for the Scottish ministers to impose charges of such amounts, as they consider appropriate, for the purposes of or in connection with the carrying out of their functions under the bill? In particular, does the committee agree to ask for an explanation of the circumstances in which this power might be exercised and the types and level of fees that might be imposed under this section? Does the committee also agree to ask the Scottish Government to consider whether taking a power to impose such charges by way of executive action is appropriate, as opposed, for example, to a power to set and amend charges by way of subordinate legislation? So, are we content to ask these questions as well? Thank you and thank you for your forbearance, and I now close the meeting.