 Cymru. Aeloddiol. Mae'r dŵr yn Gwmwng, Margaret McCulloch, a dyna'r Cymru. Yr ystafell yma yw'r Pension Scheme o'r Regulau Sgoltenol 2014, SSI 2014 217. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddaf yn cyffinol ar gyfer y llyfr mewn plwyntau. Fy i'r gynhyrchu'r ddweud, mae'n ddweud o'r Regulau Sgoltenol sy'n ddweud o'r初 yng Nghymru, maen i ddweud o'r 7 yng Nghymru. Does the committee therefore agree to report the instrument under the reporting ground D, as there has been an unjustifiable delay in laying the instrument? Yes, I do agree to that convener, but I would like to just put on the record that I think there is some uncertainty in my mind, perhaps in others minds, about the effectiveness of the joint working between the Westminster Administration and the Administration in Scotland. Clearly, we seem to have the Minister for Parliamentary Business accepting some responsibility for what is going on. I would like to be clear where the shared responsibility for making these instruments, where there is a shared responsibility of work, stands and a shared commitment result at some point in the future to improving the process. I am not particularly interested in examining the detail of how the scheduling got where it is, but I am interested in seeing that someone at the Scotland office, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, will jointly say that they will work together to make this work better in the future. I share the views of Stuart Stevenson, but I would further add that it appears that this is the third time that this has happened and that there has been almost a breakdown of satisfactory communication links, certainly on three occasions between the two Administrations. We need to find a way of resolving this because I understand that there may be a great deal more of pension legislation about to come through. We want to get the system that exists between the two Administrations working in a way that is fit for purpose, because it is demonstrable, obviously, at the moment that it is not. While the delay does not affect the validity of the instrument, it also amounts to a failure to comply with the laying requirement of section 282 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010 that the instrument must be laid as soon as practicable after it is made. Does the committee therefore agree to report the instrument under reporting ground J as it breaches that laying requirement? Furthermore, the drafting of the instrument appears to be defective in that there are 10 errors, which the Scottish Government has acknowledged to be errors. The committee may consider that those errors may impede the intended operation of the instrument or fail to give effect to the policy intention. Does the committee therefore agree to report the instrument under reporting ground I as its drafting appears to be defective? I think that it is a little poorer than defective. I think that the drafting is barely workman-like. It is not remotely effect for purpose, as is acknowledged by the withdrawal of the instrument and a new instrument being laid in its place by the intended revocation of the instrument. I am extremely dismayed at the waste of our valued legal team's time in having to review the instrument nonetheless, even though it is not fit for purpose, and indeed the waste of our time being here when we are considering something that is immediately going to be revoked. I think that, for the sake of the record, probably is the opportunity for me just to observe, and I will do it on the record, that we have received from the Minister for Parliamentary Business a letter as of this morning, which confirms that it would be our intention to lay a new order by revoking the instrument and replacing it with the new and corrected version at the earliest possible convenience. The timing of the laying of the new order is not completely with the control of the Scottish ministers. The new version and the accompanying revocation order will require the consent of the Lord's commissioners of the Treasury. I have asked my officials to explore how quickly this can be progressed and to ensure that your officials are kept informed of the progress. I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. Nonetheless, it is worth observing that we do have to go through the process of actually considering and reporting on an instrument which, at this moment, is still laid and needs to be reported. Given that we have agreed that it is defective, there are two other provisions where the meaning could be clearer. The Scottish Government appears to accept that there is a lack of clarity in respect of at least one of those provisions and is undertaken to consider the drafting of the other. Does the committee therefore agree to report the instrument under reporting ground H, as there are two provisions where the meaning could be clearer? There are a further 17 errors, including patent and other drafting errors, which, on balance, do not appear to impede the delivery of the policy intention, but which the committee may wish to report under the general reporting ground. Are we agreed to do that, then, please? I think that that gives me the opportunity to concur with John Scott, that what we are looking at does appear to be in the whole not fit for purpose, and I suspect that the committee would want to concur with that view. The committee may also wish to note that the Scottish Government has expressed its gratitude to the committee for picking up all those numbers of errors, and I apologise for the error upon me that it has failed to do so. The committee may consider that, while it notes the explanation given in the Scottish Government's response, it is highly unsatisfactory for an instrument to be laid before the Parliament in its present form. The committee's role is not to substitute for internal checking by the relevant Scottish Government Department, and given that the instrument does not come into force until 1 December or, in some parts, 1 April next year, it appears that there has been no urgent need to lay the instrument in its present form. Rather, it appears that sufficient time would have been available for the instrument to undergo thorough checking and quality control processes before laying. I am sure that we all hope that the Government will ensure that that happens in the future. I have already noted that it is going to be withdrawn, so it looks as though at least the damage will be removed. Convener, I just noted your use of the word hope that things will improve. I think that it is almost the case that we should say to the Government that they are required to improve. Indeed. Are there any other further comments on that? Thank you for your time. I think that that brings us to the end of that item and, therefore, to the end of the meeting. Thank you very much.