 I welcome members to the 24th meeting in 2017 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Agender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. It is proposed that the committee takes item 6 in private. This item is consideration of the committee's approach to the delegated powers provisions of the Social Security Scotland Bill. Does the committee agree to take item 6 in private? I should have said earlier that apologies have been received from David Torrance. Agender item 2 instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the renewables obligations Scotland amendment order 2017. Draft is the committee content with this instrument. Agender item 3 instruments subject to negative procedure. The next instrument for consideration is universal credit claims and payment Scotland regulations SSI 2017-227. These regulations provide for two flexibilities in the operation of the claims and payment system for universal credit in relation to Scotland. Firstly, they provide the option for persons to request payments of universal credit twice monthly rather than monthly in arrears. Secondly, they provide the option for tenants to request that any universal credit housing costs element for rent or a service charge would be paid direct to social and private sector landlords. Regulations 2 and 3 refer in various places to the entitlement of a person to request twice monthly payments in arrears of universal credit. In terms of regulation 2-2, the Secretary of State must agree to such a request unless it is considered to be unreasonable to implement. The Scottish Government's policy intention is that in place of the single monthly payment, a person entitled to universal credit should be able to choose to receive two payments during each month, roughly equally spaced apart. However, it is not intended that a person will have entitlement to receive payments on set dates in a month. Accordingly, it is intended that the implementation of the payment dates would be a matter for the Secretary of State. Our legal advisers have identified that the regulations could more clearly implement that policy intention in relation to the payment dates given that, in terms of regulation 2-1, a person has an entitlement to request twice monthly payments. That expression does not specify either the payment dates within a month that those payments should be roughly equally spaced apart or how they may be calculated or who may determine the dates. Accordingly, does the committee wish to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground H as the meaning of the regulations could be clearer in a particular respect? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on SSIs 2017-273 and 2017-274. Is the committee content with these instruments? Agender item 4, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on SSIs 2017-279. Is the committee content with this instrument? Agender item 5, civil litigation, expenses and group proceedings, Scotland Bill stage 1. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider its approach to the scrutiny ei pryd sefydlwy llaoredd respective powers in the civil litigation expenses and group proceedings Scotland Bill at stage one. Specifically, that is an opportunity to identify matters which the committee may wish to raise with the Scottish Government in relation to the delegated powers contained in this bill. The overall policy aim of the bill is to improve access to justice and civil actions. It implements recommendations by Sheriff principal Taylor in his report on the review of expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland published in September 2013. It also enacts some unimplemented recommendations made by Lord Gill in his report on the Scottish civil courts review published in September 2009, relating to group proceedings and auditors of court. It suggested that the committee raises questions on three of the delegated powers in the bill. And bear with me committee, I've got quite a lot to read out. Section 51 provides that a success fee agreement must not be entered into in connection with a matter which may be the subject of A, family proceedings or B, other civil proceedings of a description specified by the Scottish ministers in regulations. Paragraph 20 of the delegated powers memorandum indicates that the Scottish Government's position is that there may be types of proceedings other than family proceedings where the use of success fee agreements would be inappropriate. In those circumstances, the Scottish Government considers that it would be disproportionate for there to have been further primary legislation to extend the categories of proceedings for which success fee agreements are not permitted to be used. However, with the exception of family actions, Sheriff Principal Taylor did not identify any other areas where it would be inappropriate for success fee agreements to be used. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government why it requires a power to exclude other types of civil proceedings in the future? And if there were other such areas, what prohibits the Scottish Government from identifying them now and placing them on the face of the bill? Section 73 provides that the Scottish ministers made by regulations make further provision about success fee agreements. This includes, in particular, provision about the matters listed at paragraphs A to E. Subsection 4 provides that regulations under subsection 3 may modify part 1 of the bill. However, the delegated powers memorandum does not explain why a power of this breadth is necessary or proportionate. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government why the power in subsection 4 is necessary and proportionate and whether the power could be expressed more narrowly and still obtain the policy objective of enhancing the certainty, predictability and transparency of success fee agreements? Why is it considered necessary to take a power to amend all of part 1 of the bill and to request examples of the modifications that the Scottish Government considers may need to be made to provisions in part 1 under section 7. Paragraph 33 and 34 of the delegated powers memorandum indicate that the modifications made by section 12 of the bill to sections 1032 and 1042 of the Courts Reform Scotland Act 2014 will, among other things, clarify that provision could be made by rules of court about the matters referred to in sections 9 to 11 of the bill. However, it is notable that, unlike sections 8, 6, 10, 5 and 113 of the bill, no reference is made in section 9 to the possibility of further provision being made about the matters covered by that section, i.e. in relation to the ordering of expenses to be paid to a Scottish charity by act of sederant under sections 103 and 104 of the 2014 act. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government why section 9 does not include a provision equivalent to sections 8, 6, 10, 5 and 113 of the bill? Okay, I'll now move the meeting into private.