 I welcome members to the 11th meeting in 2016 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As always, I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. A generating one is the Land Reform Scotland Bill. This item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers provisions in the bill as amended at stage 2. Section 89A was added to the bill at stage 2. This adds a new section 32B into the Agricultural Holding Scotland Act 1991, the 1991 Act. New sections of 32B provides that the Scottish ministers may by regulations make further provision about individuals who are new entrants to who are progressing in farming. This power is subject to the negative procedure. Part 10 of the bill as amended creates a new process whereby tenants of 1991 act tenants may assign their tenants to new entrants or those who are progressing in farming in circumstances where the landlord does not wish to accept the tenants' notice of attention to relinquish the 1991 act tenancy. The new process for relinquishment could impact upon the rights and duties of parties to existing 1991 act, which is in a significant way. The definition of the group of persons who are new entrants to or are progressing in farming for the purposes of the new process is accordingly fundamental to the scope and application of the new process in practice. The committee may accordingly wish to draw this power to the attention of the Parliament on the basis that the affirmative procedure would appear to represent a more appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny given the significance of this power and its centrality to the new scheme of relinquishment of 1991 act tenancies. Does the committee wish to draw the power in the new section 32B of the 1991 act as inserted by section 89 of the bill to the attention of the Parliament on the basis that the power could be more appropriately subject to the affirmative procedure? Does the committee agree to report that it is content with the remaining delegative powers provisions and the procedure to which they are subject in the bill? I am led to believe that Jim Hulme lodged an amendment in this regard that seeks to ensure that the affirmative procedure is in vogue. I think that, as a committee, there should be supportive or indeed support this amendment. Essentially, both mean the same things. I think that it is quite proper that the committee makes comment broadly in the terms that John Scott suggests, but I would be as well to indicate that I shall listen to the minister's response to that amendment before concluding how, as an individual MSP, we will treat that amendment when it comes before Parliament at stage 3. Yes, I agree with both the comments, especially Stewart's comment that we might have considered lodging amendment ourselves if one had not been lodged previously and I would have been happy with that. Therefore, in principle, I would support the amendment. However, as always, one wants to listen to the arguments on both sides. Given the guidance that we have, I think that it is changing from a negative to an affirmative procedure and being mindful that, if an amendment has not been lodged, we would be quite likely to put forward our own amendment. I think that it would be supportive of the amendment that is lodged, and I would hope that the committee would be supportive of that, too. I agree with it that, yes, we have put on record clearly that we think that it should be an affirmative, but I concur with the general view that we want to see what the Government minister has to say at the time before deciding which way to vote on the basis that it is only at that point that we have the full argument. However, I think that the committee has quite clearly laid down its view, which is, I think, unanimously that it should be affirmative as we currently see it. Members are content with that, thank you very much. On that basis, I move forward to agenda item 2, which is the Land Reform Scotland bill. Again, the item is for the committee to consider correspondence received from the Scottish Government on expected amendments to part 3 of this bill. The committee, at its meeting on 8 March, agreed to write to the Scottish Government on unexpected delegated power to create a public register of information about people who have a controlling interest in land. The Scottish Government indicated, identified that delegated power would be subject to an enhanced form of affirmative procedure the first time the power is used. The committee wrote expressing concern and suggesting the enhanced affirmative procedure should be used every time unless subsequent regulations could be limited to minor amendments. The minister has confirmed that an enhanced affirmative procedure would apply to the power only the first time it is used, and subsequent uses would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Do members have any comments? I welcome this important change of heart by the minister, if I have understood it correctly. I am pleased to see that subsequent uses thereafter will be subject to the affirmative principle. The committee may wish to note that the Scottish Government brought forward amendments to make this power subject to an enhanced affirmative procedure in light of the committee's efforts and concerns. The committee may also wish to note that the enhanced affirmative procedure will only apply to the first exercise, and there is no requirement for this procedure to be used in subsequent exercises of the power. However, there is a provision made for consultation to be carried out on future uses of the power, and subsequent exercises will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, as John Scott has just indicated. However, that does represent a reduced level of scrutiny for future exercises of the power, and according to the committee, we would expect that such future uses would be focused on minor and technical amendments and not significantly alter the policy set out in the original regulations. Does the committee agree that I should reiterate those remarks on behalf of the committee? In the context of the debate on those amendments, is the committee otherwise content to note those amendments? Thank you. Does the committee agree to consider the stage 3 amendments to the delegative power in section 36 of the bill at its meeting on Tuesday? Thank you. Agender item 3 is instrument subject to negative procedure, and no points have been raised by illegal advisers on the prisons and young offenders institutions, Scotland amendment rules 2016, SSI 2016-131. Is the committee content with that instrument, please? Agender item 4 is instrument not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and again, no points have been raised by illegal advisers on the act of a journal criminal procedure rules 1996 amendment number 2, serious crime prevention orders 2016, SSI 2016-137. Is the committee content with this instrument, please? Agender item 5 is the private housing tenancies Scotland bill. The item is for the committee to consider the Scottish Government's correspondence on the delegated power in section 32 of the bill, allowing the Scottish Minister to designate a rent pressure zone. At our meeting on 8 March, the committee agreed that I would write to the Scottish Government on its behalf to outline its recommendation that the power should be subject to the provisional affirmative procedure after a rent pressure zone has been designated rather than the negative procedure. The committee also agreed that pending the response from the Scottish Government convener could lodge an amendment to fill this recommendation. The Minister for Housing and Welfare has written to the committee today. The minister has indicated that she proposes to lodge an amendment at stage 3 so that section 30 of the bill is subject to the affirmative procedure for all regulations made under it. In light of this response, is the committee content with the proposed amendment to section 30 of the bill at stage 3? I think that we have made substantial progress on this, and I very much welcome the fact that the Government has lifted the idea of it being a negative procedure and welcome what is happening. I would just endorse everything that Stuart Stevenson has said, and I welcome the Government taking this action, which is the one that we sought and very grateful that they have. Clearly the committee is content with what is now being proposed. I thank you very much for that, and I can close the meeting.