 I welcome members to the 10th meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and ask members to send off mobile phones, please. Agender item one is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that we take item five in private. This is consideration of the committee's third quarterly report for the parliamentary year 2014-15. Does the committee agree to take this item in private, please? Agender item two is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Scottish Marine region's order 2015 draft. There is, however, an issue which, while not a matter for this committee, the committee may wish to draw to the attention of the lead committee. The boundary between Scottish and English waters within the territorial sea is set out in the Scottish adjacent waters boundaries order 1999, and this forms the boundary of the Scottish marine area under the Marine Scotland Act 2010, which is the parent act under which the present order is made. The order therefore uses the 1999 order to describe the limit of the Solway marine region. In conceptual terms, the landward limit of the territorial sea is the mean high water mark of spring tides. It is a recognised feature of estuary areas such as the river S within the Solway area. This limit can change from time to time. One of the purposes of the 1999 order was to provide a defined boundary which would not change. However, I am examining the high resolution map of the area as it now stands. The boundary line set up in the 1999 order no longer extends fully to the point now reached by the mean high spring tide. It appears that the 1999 order boundary is out of date in this respect. The effect appears to be that there is a small part of the boundary line for the sea within the Solway marine region, which cannot be fully delineated by this order. Does the committee agree to draw this matter to the attention of the lead committee? We certainly should. I do make the observation that, just before coming down to the committee, I looked up the map because I wanted to explore it in more detail. I find that an additional line has been inscribed on the map, which takes the current end of the line, which is a couple of hundred metres short of meeting the Scotland-England border, and joins that point to an extension of the boundary that comes down the River Sark, thus filling that gap on the map. I recognise that there is no effect on the legislative expression of the boundary, which we are talking about, but at least it suggests that the issue that we are talking about appears to be recognised and an attempt on the map to reflect what would be sensible is there. We should make sure that, when we communicate with our committee, as I agree, we should do, we at least draw that to their attention. That might enable them to pursue on what basis officials have added that bit of line, which is sensible in practice, if not necessarily in law. I agree with Stuart Stevenson on that regard. I think that we should write to the Rural Affairs Committee. I commend the investigative qualities of my colleague Stuart Stevenson for having been so diligent as to discover this fact, but 200 metres is quite in law a significant distance, and it is entirely appropriate that this is very much drawn to the attention of the Rural Affairs Committee. Dender Item 3, instruments subject to negative procedure, the local government pension scheme Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-87. A number of points have been raised on this instrument by our legal advisers. Firstly, the drafting appears to be defective, and that there are two errors which the Scottish Government has acknowledged to be errors, and which the committee may consider impede the intent to operation of the instrument or fail to give effect to the policy intention. The committee may therefore wish to report the instrument on ground I as its drafting appears to be defective. Secondly, there are two further provisions, the meaning of which could be clearer, and the committee may accordingly wish to report the instrument under reporting ground H. Finally, there are further five drafting errors which on balance the committee may consider do not impede the delivery of the Government's policy, but which fall to be reported under the general ground. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting grounds I, H, and the general reporting ground? Thank you. The committee may wish to note however the Scottish Government has indicated that the errors will be corrected by an amending instrument to be made after the 1st of April 2015, but having retrospective effect from that date. The Reservoirs Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-90. Regulation 10 specifies the period of appointment of engineers as additional information that must be set out in the controlled reservoirs registered. However, section 92F of the Reservoirs Scotland Act 2011 already requires this information to be included on the register. Specification of an existing legal requirement as additional is not necessary and called course confusion. The committee may consider that there is a statutory charge is imposed, sorry, that where a statutory charge is imposed, the person on whom it is to be imposed should be clearly identified. Regulation 17-2 could more clearly distinguish the liability of the former manager for payment of the cessation fee from the liability of the new manager for the payment of the new manager fee. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground H, as the meaning of Regulations 10 and 17 could be clearer? Jim. Can I just convene the Regulation 17.2? I'm not certain if the Government is intending to do anything about this, which I find disappointing, because this is quite a serious error in as much as the liability for who pays what is definitely unclear. I'm disappointed that the Government apparently, from my understanding of the situation, are not prepared to do anything to address that. It may be that we could roll them up because Regulation 8 is intended to specify the structures which are road and railway embankments. However, the expression roads and railway embankments, which has a different natural meaning, is used in error. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under general ground as there has been a drafting error in Regulation 8? The Government has agreed to address the matters reported in relation to Regulations 8 and 10 at the next opportunity. The committee, following what John Lewis just said, may wish to ask the Government to clarify the drafting of Regulation 17.2 at the same time. The National Health Service pension scheme Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-94, and a number of points have been raised on this instrument by our legal advisers. Firstly, the drafting of the instrument appears to be defective in that there are seven errors that the Scottish Government has acknowledged to be errors and which the committee may consider to impede the intended operation of the instrument or fail to give effect to the policy intention. The committee may therefore wish to report the instrument on ground I as its drafting appears to be defective. There is a further provision, the meaning of which could be clearer, and the committee may accordingly wish to report the instrument under reporting ground H. There are also further seven drafting errors, which on balance the committee may consider to do not impede delivery of the policy intention, but which fall to be reported under the general ground. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting grounds I, H, and the general reporting ground? Committee may wish to note, however, that the Scottish Government has indicated that the errors will be corrected by an amending instrument to be made after the first of April 2015, but having retrospective effect from that date. The committee may also wish to note that while the Scottish Government has explained in its response the limited timing available for the drafting and commission of these regulations, it is very unsatisfactory for the instruments to have been laid before the Parliament containing the number of errors identified above. In particular, several of the errors related to discrepancies in defined expressions, the omission of definitions or omitted or patently incorrect wording, which it appears should have been picked up by the Scottish Government checking procedures. Do members have any comments? John? Yes, I mean, you use the phrase limited timing available and I just wonder, I'm assuming that that starts off with the treasury, that this is not entirely under the control of the Scottish Government, and that doesn't entirely excuse them, I accept, and others might want to comment on that, but I just wonder, if we're recognising that the treasury has not allowed sufficient time going forward, how can we encourage the treasury to allow sufficient time in future? What's fairly made, any other? I feel it would be not without wishing to be unreasonable. I think it's fair to say nonetheless that this is the Scottish Government's liability to get it right. This workload in terms of the whole pension provision, not just in this instrument, but on others, was entirely foreseeable, and it would have been reasonable, in my view, to have made provision for these instruments to be properly checked. In that regard, at the appropriate time, albeit a short or even a truncated timescale, it is nonetheless the Scottish Government's liability. I think it would be fair to say that these instruments are a mess, that the quality control procedures do not appear to have either been put in place at all or they're not working, take your pick. It appears to be falling to our very valued clerks and legal advisers to be picking up the obvious elementary mistakes that the quality control procedures put in place allegedly by the Scottish Government should be picking up, and that that should not be a burden that's placed on our legal advisers to do. Was I asking a question? How can we change this for the future, or is it just totally out with our control? Can we encourage the Government to speak to the Treasury or, presumably, we can't speak to the Treasury directly? I think that your suggestion about us encouraging the Government is basically right, because clearly the Treasury is not responsible to us and it needs not respond to us. The obvious thing to do is simply to write to the Minister for Parliamentary Business, pointing out things that he will, of course, already know, and encouraging him to see if he can get a better working relationship with the UK Government. But, fundamentally, it is about timing, isn't it? Are members agreed that we're going to write about the collection of errors across the whole of this to the Minister for Parliament as well? Yes, certainly that would be my view for the committee, of course, to agree, but there are a succession and a series of not hugely complicated errors throughout all of these orders, as I think I said before, that should have been picked up in the quality control process, do not appear to have been picked up, which leads me to the conclusion that the quality control process has not been used. In which case we will write accordingly. The national health service pension scheme transitional and consequential provisions Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015 at 95. The regulations contain a minor drafting error as regulation 38.1 refers to transitional member in two places rather than transition member, which is the expression defined in regulation 2. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on the general ground? Committee may wish to note, however, the Government has undertaken to address by way of an amending instrument, as and when the regulations are subsequently amended for another purpose. The national health service superannuation scheme miscellaneous amendments Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015 at 96. The drafting of this instrument appears to be defective in two places. Firstly, in regulation 25a there is an error as the provision should have substituted for the scheme year 2015-16 in place of for the scheme year 2014-2015 instead of inserting the formal words in regulation 2c2 of the national health service superannuation scheme 2008 sections Scotland regulations 2013. Secondly, regulation 25c omits regulation 2c23 and 4 of those principle 2013 regulations. There is an error as this has retained regulation 2c25, which refers to the determination of pay bans and contribution rates by the Scottish ministers in respect of each scheme year in accordance with the omitted provision in regulation 2c24. Regulation 2c25 provides that, before determining those rates or bans, the Scottish ministers must consider the advice of the scheme actually. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground i as drafting appears to be defective? The committee may wish to note that Scottish Government is undertaken to correct the errors by means of an instrument which would further amend the national health service superannuation scheme 2008 section Scotland regulations 2013. The instrument would be made after 1 April but would have retrospective effect from that date. The teachers pension scheme Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-97 in the amendment made by regulation 32a of this instrument, the reference to if sub paragraph 1 or 2 applies, should read if sub paragraph 1a or 1b applies. That is the committee therefore agrees to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground as it contains a minor drafting error. I agree with that. I would be grateful if this could be also corrected. The note that we have suggests that it is undertaken to correct. All of these instruments should be corrected at the same time and not in a hap hazard way as the difference responses of the different notes that we have at NRE appears to suggest that some will be corrected as a matter of urgency and some won't. That could I just suggest that we're all reviewed and all corrected at the same time and then we'd have pension schemes that are fit for purpose. Indeed, I'm sure the member will recognise that it won't all come through in the same amending regulation but I take this point. Thank you. The teachers superannuation Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-98, three minor drafting errors have been identified in relation to this instrument by our legal advisers. Firstly, in the amendment made by regulation 5, the incentive text should read regulations G6, G12, G17 or G23 instead of regulations G6, G12, G17 and G23. Secondly, the amendment made by regulation 11B should substitute a reference to regulation G9, G14, G21 or G24, not regulation G82, G13, G22 or G24. Finally, regulation G28 inserted by regulation 13 should have said regulation G24 inserted by regulation 13 should cross revert to part 3 of schedule 12 and not part 2 of that schedule. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on general reporting ground as it contains three minor drafting errors? The committee may wish to note however that the Scottish Government has undertaken to address these errors by way of an amending instrument. Turning now to the Food Scotland Act 2015, consequential and transitional provisions order 2015, SSI 2015-100. Article 2, when read with paragraph 8 of the schedule directs an amendment to the definition of the agency in regulation 21 of the genetically modified organisms deliberate release Scotland regulations 2002. It appears that the amendment should however be to the definition of the food standards agency. It further appears that to substitute the term food standards Scotland for food standards agency within that definition renders it insensible. This is because the food standards agency is defined by the Food Standards Agency as established under section 1 of the Food Standards Act 1999. The definition does not work with the substituted words Food Standards Scotland as the latter body is established under the Food Standards Act 2015. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention under reporting ground I as it appears to be defectively drafted? Some further points have been raised on this instrument by illegal advisers. Firstly, article 2 defines the terms the act, the 2015 act, the 1991 act and the agency. Did I say something different? The 1999 act. I do apologise, it's one of those mornings and the agency none of those terms are used further in the order and therefore superfluous. Secondly, article 2 provides that the regulations specified in the schedule are amended by substituting Food Standards Scotland for Food Standards Agency. The reference to Food Standards Agency should be to the Food Standards Agency in order that the amended regulations read sensibly. Finally, paragraph 26 of the schedule read in accordance with article 2 directs an amendment to regulation 13 to A2. I'm not having a good morning am I? How can I read 16 as 30? 16 to A2 of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies Scotland Regulations 2010. However, no such regulation exists. It appears the reference is a duplication of the latter reference to paragraph 16 to A2 or schedule 7 to the 2010 regulations and is therefore Otis. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention under the general reporting ground? Thank you, convener. You've just illustrated the difficulty, of course, in doing what we do and drafters doing what they do and the difficulty of being accurate. Nonetheless, article 2 in this instrument does not appear to be anyone's finest hour as it ranges from the supplier for us to a lack of making sense completely. I would just encourage everyone to go back and have another go at making sense of article 2. We'd also need to draw this to the attention of the Parliament. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the national health service, clinical negligence and other risks in demnity scheme Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015, 102, nor on the alien and locally absent species in aquaculture Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015, 103. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Which brings us to agenda item 4, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The Food Scotland Act 2015 Commencement Order 2015, SSI 2015, 99. Article 2 specifies the first of April as the date on which the Food Scotland Act 2015 will come into force, so far as it is not already in force. However, it does not include a year. Specifying an incomplete date, the instrument fails to fully achieve its policy objective. Does the committee therefore agree to do all the instruments of the Parliament under a reporting grant, I, as it is defectively drafted? My understanding is that the Government does not intend to do anything other than issue a correction slip in this regard, which I feel is inadequate. I feel that another instrument should not be laid, given that the instrument, as it stands, fails to achieve its policy objective, notwithstanding a correction slip. I will just make a plea for doing it properly when we are doing it. I do think that this is relatively serious in that it could be interpreted in other ways. It could be 2015, 2016, 2017 or whatever. Other amendments or errors, sometimes there is no other meaning, but in this case I think there could be another meaning, which makes it more serious in my opinion. The other thing that I bring to the committee's attention is that I understand that this actually brings into force sanctions, although they are not criminal offences. They will feel a bit like them to be in any way uncertain as to whether or not they have been introduced seems to me to be, well, frankly, bad law and something that we should encourage the Government to avoid. The committee makes it to that it is highly unsatisfactory that the Government has proposed to amend this by way of a correction slip and may therefore wish to call on the Government to lay a further instrument to correct this error as a matter of law before the intended commencement date on the 1st of April. Are we agreed with that? I think we are. Yes, thank you. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, commencement number eight and saving provision order 2015, society 2015, 104. Is the committee content with that instrument, please? Yes. Thank you. Well, it brings us to the end of agenda item four and therefore the public part of this meeting. Thank you.