 I welcome members to the 23rd meeting in 2014 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and asked members to turn off mobile phones, please. Agender item one is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed the committee takes item seven in private. This is further consideration of the delegated powers provisions in the Welfare Fund Scotland bill. Does the committee agree to take item seven in private, please? Agender item two, instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on, pardon me, the Scotland Act 1998, transfer of functions to the Scottish ministers, et cetera, order 2014 draft, nor on the public appointments and public bodies, et cetera, Scotland Act 2003, treatment of historic environment Scotland as a specified authority, order 2014 draft, nor on the public appointments and public bodies, et cetera, Scotland Act 2003, treatment of the convener of the school closure review panels as specified authority, order 2014 draft, nor on the pollution prevention and control Scotland amendment regulations 2014 draft, nor on the legal profession and legal aid Scotland Act 2007, membership of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission amendment order 2014 draft. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Thank you. Agender item three is instrument subject to negative procedure. Town and country planning general committee development Scotland amendment, amendment order 2014, SSI 2014 184. The requirements of section 282 of the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland Act 2010 have not been complied with. However, the committee may wish to welcome the breach of the 28-day rule in the particular circumstances of this case. Does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the parliament on reporting ground jays, 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 welcome the breach of the 28-day rule in this instance, given the circumstances I have outlined? Thank you. No points have been raised by our legal advisory committee. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the protection of seals, designation of all-out sites, Scotland Order 2014, SSI 2014 185, nor on the local authority accounts, Scotland regulations 2014, SSI 2014 200, nor on the Scotland Act 1998 agency arrangements specification order 2014, SSI 2014 1892, sorry, SI 2014 1892, is the committee content with those arrangements, please. Thank you. A dinner item for instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. Again, no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the bankruptcy and debt advice Scotland Act 2014, commencement number one and saving, order 2014, SSI 2014 172, nor on the tribunal Scotland Act 2014, commencement number one, order 2014, SSI 2014 183, nor on the Act of Sederent Rules of the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Rules, amendment miscellaneous 2014, SSI 2014 201, nor on the public bodies joint working Scotland Act 2014, commencement number one, order 2014, SSI 2014 202. However, members may wish to note a couple of matters in relation to the timing of two of these instruments. The Tribunals Scotland Act 2014, commencement number one, order 2014, was laid before Parliament on the 23rd of June. As recess began on the 27th of June, the committee was not in a position to consider the instrument before it came into force on the 14th of July. However, members will note that the Scottish Government wrote to the committee prior to the instrument being laid in order to explain why it was considered necessary to bring it into force during recess. This differs from the Scottish Government's approach to the Public Bodies Joint Working Scotland Act 2014, commencement number one, order 2014, which was both laid and came into force during the summer recess. In this case, the Scottish Government did not provide the committee with an explanation as to why the instrument could not have been laid prior to recess, thereby giving the opportunity to the committee to scrutinise it. The committee may consider this to be an unsatisfactory approach to laying, particularly given that the Public Bodies Joint Working Scotland Act gained royal assent on the 1st of April 2014. Do you members have any comments on this, please? John. I think this is probably something that we might wish to consider improving upon. I think the convention has perhaps broken down here with regard to the Public Bodies Joint Working Scotland Act, and I think it would be worth finding a way of our committee being able to look at these instruments not subject to parliamentary procedure during recess if a way could reasonably be found. I think, as I understand it, the reason why we are not reporting it is that there is no breach of the rules in this particular case. As you rightly say, it is just a matter of convention and would seem to be good practice for things to be laid during parliamentary terms so that we can look at them, even if they are not subject to procedure. I mean, perhaps we could see an explanation from the Minister in this regard why we were given a very full explanation with regard to one instrument, but no explanation with regard to another instrument. It seems inconsistent at best. Well, thank you for that. Would members be comfortable if I simply write a letter to the, on behalf of the committee of course, to the relevant Minister asking for an explanation as to why this happened? At least raise the issue, Mike. I think it should be clear that there are two issues here. There is a specific issue of this instrument, and there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation with regard to this instrument, but I think there is a general issue as well that we have discovered a situation where an instrument is falling between the cracks of convention and rules and so on, and therefore there is a general case that might get rise to some concern. On the basis that it could have gone wrong, but it hasn't. Yes. Are members therefore agreed that, in the first instance of this case, we will? Absolutely. Well, sorry if I can just complete the sentence, at least for the record in this instance, I'll write to the Minister and seek an explanation. Thank you. I think it is important to recognise and that we all are aware that no parliamentary rules have been broken in this case, but also that clearly appears to be some issue regarding the convention. So I think that just for the purpose of clarity, I think it's to get it on the record. I think we also have to recognise that. Okay, thank you. Fine, thank you very much for that discussion. Is the committee otherwise content with these instruments? Thank you. A gender item five is the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland Bill. As lead committee for the bill, we will consider and report on its general principles. However, the purpose of this item today is to specifically consider the delegated provisions contained in the bill. Members will have seen the delegated powers memorandum and the briefing paper. Section five provides Scottish ministers with the power to make such incidental supplementary consequential transition or transitory or saving provision as they consider appropriate for the purposes of in connection with or forgiving full effect to any provision of the bill. Does the committee agree to report that it finds this power to be acceptable in principle and that it is content that is subject to an affirmative procedure when it amends primary legislation but otherwise to the negative procedure? Sections five, six and seven of the bill will come into force on the day after royal assent. Section six two provides that Scottish ministers may by order appoint days on which the other provisions of the bill coming to force. Subsection three provides that a commencement order may include transitional, transitory or saving provision. Does the committee agree to report that it finds this power to be acceptable in principle and that it is content that the exercise of this power is not subject to parliamentary procedure? Given that no issues have been raised in relation to these powers and we do not wish to raise any questions with the Scottish Government, are we agreed to report that the committee is content with the delegated powers provisions in the bill at stage one? Thank you. Adender item six is the Mental Health Scotland bill. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers in the bill at stage one. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government on the delegated powers on me in the bill. It is suggested that these questions are raised in written correspondence. The committee will have the opportunity to consider the responses at a future meeting before the draft report is then considered. Section 268 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003, which I will hear off to refer to as the 2003 act, provides a right of appeal against detention in conditions of excessive security to patients held in hospitals other than a state hospital. Such a right is available to qualifying patients in a qualifying hospital. However, the meaning of each of these terms is left to be defined in regulations made by Scottish ministers under sections 268, 11 and 12. The right therefore relies on the making of regulations to give it practical effect. Section 11 of the bill makes a number of amendments to section 268 of the 2003 act. Together with section 12, the bill reformulates the right of appeal against detention in conditions of excessive security for patients other than those held in a state hospital. The 2003 act continues to provide that the right of appeal is available to patients in a qualifying hospital. But section 123 of the bill inserts a new section 272A into the 2003 act, which provides that a qualifying hospital is a hospital other than a state hospital which will fall within such meaning, if any, as it is given the expression by regulations. The right of appeal therefore appeals to be conferred on patients in all hospitals other than a state hospital with the possibility that regulations could be made which restrict that right by further defining the expression of a qualifying hospital. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to clarify the intended use of this power? In particular, does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain whether it is intended to that in the event that regulations, given further means to the expression of qualifying power, are not made by Scottish ministers? The effect of the new section 272A1 is that the right of appeal will be available to patients detained in all hospitals other than a state hospital. Does the committee also agree to ask the Scottish Government why, if the Scottish Government agrees with that interpretation of the power, it is considered appropriate as a matter of principle to qualify the application of the right of appeal provided by the new section 272A1 of the 2003 Act in Subordinate Legislation as opposed to specifying on the face of the bill those patients to whom the right will and will not apply? Section 273272A3 provides that regulations may make further provision as to the operation of sections 268271 of the 2003 Act in particular circumstances. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government whether it can provide examples of the particular circumstances in respect of which regulations made an exercise of the power in the new section 272A3 of the 2003 Act as inserted by section 123 of the bill may apply? The bill makes provision for a victim notification scheme for the victims of mentally disordered offenders. This is achieved by way of amendments to the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003. Section 43b of the bill amends section 16 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003. Section 482 of the bill inserts a new section 18b into that Act. Section 16 is amended under the power of section 18b1C both the modification of the new section 18a of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003 as inserted by section 472 of the bill. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government why it's considered necessary to take two separate powers to modify section 18a of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003, both the power in section 433b and the power in the new section 18b1C as inserted by section 482 of the bill? Does the committee agree to ask whether the Scottish Government considers that it would be clearer to consolidate those two provisions into a single provision? It should certainly make my life a lot easier. Section 45 of the bill inserts new sections 17b2d into the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003. The new section 17b affords a victim who is to be given information by virtue of the Victim Notification Scheme, a right to make representations before certain decisions are taken in respect of the offender. The new section 17c2 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003 obliges Scottish ministers to its guidance as to how written and all representations which are made by victims or their families under the new 17b are to be made. Guidance will be published on the websites of both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. However, there is no requirement for the publication of that guidance that is issued on the face of the bill, but simply a statement to that effect in the delegated powers memorandum. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government whether it considers it necessary to include a requirement of that guidance issued in exercise of this bill? Sorry, exercise of this power is published on the face of the bill. Agree. I think that completes the public section of the meeting and therefore we move into private. Thank you.