 I welcome members to the third meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I ask everyone to turn off mobile phones, please. Agender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that we take items 11, 12 and 13 in private. 11 is a consideration of a Scottish Government's response to the committee's report on community empowerment. Scotland Bill at stage 1. Item 12 is further consideration of the Delegated Powers provisions in the Assisted Suicide Scotland Bill. Item 13 is consideration of a draft report on the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill. Does the committee agree to take this in private, please? Great. Thank you very much. Agender item 2 is the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland Bill. We now turn to the formal stage 2 proceedings of this bill. I welcome the Minister for Business, Economy and Tourism, who is accompanied by Rhea Phillips from the Civil Law Reform Unit and Neil McLeod from the Solicitors Constitutional and Civil Law Division of the Scottish Government. Welcome, colleagues. We have no amendments to deal with, but in terms of standing orders, we are obliged to consider each section of the bill and the long title and agree each formally. Before we do that, I invite any questions members may have or any comment which the Minister may wish to make. Minister, would you? I have no comment. Thank you very much indeed. Do members have any comments to make? No. We will take the sections in order and then the long title. Standing orders do allow us to put a single question when groups of sections are to be considered consecutively. The first question is therefore whether sections 1 to 7 are agreed to. Are we all agreed, please? Agree. Thank you. The second question is that long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. That completes stage 2 consideration of the bill. Thank you very much to the Minister and his staff for coming. Thank you also to members of the Scottish Law Commission for coming along to witness this historic day. That is where we have got to. I look forward to stage 3. I look forward to more meetings like this. Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I shall briefly suspend simply to enable us to move out as far as you need to. Thank you. Welcome back. Thank you. Turning now to agenda item 3. This is guidance subject to approval. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Scottish regulators. Strategic code of practice, SGE 2015, number 10. However, the committee may wish to note that this redrafted code of practice addresses concerns the committee reported in relation to the previous draft, SGE 2014-236, which the committee considered on 25 November. Does the committee agree to note this and report that it is content with the code of practice? Agree. Yes, Kim. Agenda item 4, instruments subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Equality Act 2010, specification of public authority, Scotland Order 2015 draft. Is the committee content with this instrument, please? Agenda item 5, instruments subject to negative procedure. The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax Transitional Provision, Scotland Order 2014, SSI 2014-377. Articles 3 and 4 of the order do not implement the Scottish Government's intention to additionally make transitional provision for contracts for land transactions that were entered to on 1 May 2012. Does the committee agree to draw the attention of Parliament to the order on reporting ground I, as the drafting of articles 3 and 4 appears to be defective? Agree. Does the committee agree to note, however, that the Scottish Government has undertaken to correct this by laying an amending instrument, which will come into force on 1 April 2015, the same day as this order? Agree. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Land and Building Transaction Tax Administration, Scotland Regulations 2014, SSI 2014-375, nor on the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Amendment, Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-1. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Agenda item 6, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the act of sederence. Sheriff Court Adoption Rules Amendment 2015, SSI 2015-5. Is the committee content with that instrument, please? Agenda item 7 is the Budget Scotland number 4 bill. The next item is consideration of that bill, and the bill confers one delegated power set out in section 7 of the bill, which makes provision for budget revision regulations. This power is subject to affirmative procedure. Does the committee agree to report that it is satisfied with the power in section 7 of the bill and that it exercises subject to the affirmative procedure? Agenda item 8, Public Bodies Act consent memorandum. This is consideration of the Public Bodies abolition of advisory committees on pesticides order 2015 draft. The United Kingdom Government order under the UK Public Bodies Act 2012-2011. The consent of the Scottish Parliament is required to make an order under part 1 of the Public Bodies Act 2011, where such an order makes provision, which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considers and reports on such orders under the same grounds as instruments laid before the Parliament. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on this order. Does the committee agree to report its content with the order, please? Agenda item 9, Serious Crime Bill, which is UK Parliament legislation. Under this item, the committee has invited to consider the powers to make subordinate legislation conferred on the Scottish ministers in this UK bill. The committee may then report to the league committee on these provisions. A briefing paper has been provided that sets out the relevant aspects of the bill and comments on their effects. An amendment to the bill was tabled on 8 January, proposing a new clause 11. That clause would enable Scottish ministers, by regulations, to confer power on sheriff courts to make a telecommunications restriction order. A telecommunications restriction order is an order requiring a communications provider to take the action specified in the order for the purpose of preventing or restricting use of communication devices by persons detained in prisons or young offenders institutions. It suggested that the committee may wish to find the power proposed in new clause 11 to be accepted in principle and to be content that the power is subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the committee may wish to draw the terms of the proposed power to the attention of the league committee in respect to that. One, the power enables Scottish ministers to create offences for the breach of telecommunications restriction orders without specifying the maximum penalty which may be imposed for any offence created. Two, there is an apparent discrepancy between the scope of the power and the stated policy intention in the supplementary LCM. Does the committee agree to report to the league committee accordingly? My colleagues made a call that the Tribunals Act introduced similar provision during the passage of the bill that did not provide for a limit of penalty and responded to the committee's indication that it was uncomfortable that secondary legislation done in this way should have that effect. Similarly, we should invite the Government to consider whether, in fact, there should be a much more substantial explanation of what the plan and or provision to make sure that there is a limit to the penalties. However large that limit might be, rather than it being an unlimited penalty. I would agree with absolutely what Stuart Stevenson has just said. I suppose that the unlimited penalty may reflect what might be the content of a call and the importance of the significance of such calls being made from prison, and that is perhaps why. However, I agree with Stuart Stevenson entirely that we need an explanation, and it may be that there is a reasonable explanation as to why there is no limit on the penalty at the moment. On that basis, does the committee agree to report to the league committee in the terms that I had suggested? I agree. Thank you very much. 10. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, which is also UK Parliament legislation. This legislation confers powers to make subordinate legislation on Scottish ministers. A briefing paper has been provided, which suggests that the committee could seek a written explanation of matters relating to sections 149 to 151 of the bill and on a proposed new clause. The committee would then consider the response at the next week's meeting with the attention of agreeing a draft report. Clause 149 to 151 and a proposed new clause provide the Treasury and Scottish ministers with powers to make regulations requiring a public sector employee or office holder in receipt of an exit payment, as a result of leaving work or the relevant office, to return the payment or a proportion of it. The supply is where they return to be an employee or contractor of a public sector authority as prescribed in the regulations or a holder of a public sector office, so prescribed. These regulations would have significance. For example, they would prescribe the public sector authorities and office holders in respect of which the regulations would apply, which exit payments would be within the scope of the repayment requirement and which exemptions from the requirements would be available. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the Scottish Government why it has been considered appropriate that the regulations made by Scottish ministers under Clause 149 of the bill should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament by the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure? I think that this is quite important because it does appear to be quite wide-ranging powers. Sometimes the sums involved are quite considerable and they also attract quite a lot of media attention often when somebody leaves one post and enters another, so I think it would be good to have an explanation as to why it is the negative procedure rather than the positive. Am I right in thinking that the committee is happy that we seek that explanation? We are, student. Similarly, although the sums of money are probably rather less than the ones that John Mason referred to, we do not appear to have an explanation and I think it would be appropriate if one were given as to why parliamentarians leaving office and returning to office are caught by their proposals, but ministers leaving office and returning to office are not caught. I think that it would be useful for there to be an explanation as to why that distinction is being made.