 Ie, welch i ddim yn femyniol ar y 18 agliffau seaweedg warfodd ac yn b contracts o un dd cos? Yr un geneddol anodd maen nhw gwybwysig yn ffraith. Fy fawr, mae'r anodd mwy o ddechrau le synchronolau maen nhwach yn ffraith. Mae'r anodd mwy o ei hyffordd yn ddechrau le synchronolau maen nhw yn ffaith a'r anodd mwy o gwiriaith sydd dod oesfaith. Item 9 relates to correspondence from the Minister for Parliamentary Business on future legislation and the role of the committee. Is the committee agreeable to take in item 9 in private, please? General item 2, then. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the education school lunches Scotland regulations 2015 draft, nor on the Registers of Scotland Voluntary Registration Amendment of Fees etc. order 2015 draft, nor the Water Environment and Water Services Scotland Act 2003 modification of part 1 regulations 2015 draft, nor the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014 ancillary provision order 2015 draft, nor on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 amendment order 2015 draft. However, members may wish to note that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 amendment order 2015 is to be made before the 40 days for parliamentary scrutiny has elapsed taking into account the summer recess which begins on the 27th of June. This ordering council adds a newly created body ILF Scotland to schedule 2 to the Scottish Public Services Ombuds Act 2002. It gives the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman the power to investigate complaints made against ILF Scotland. ILF Scotland will be operational from 1 July 2015 and is intended that its complaints procedure will be fully operational as soon as possible thereafter. The letter from the Scottish Government accompanying the order explains that in order to ensure that the complaints procedures are fully operational as soon as possible after ILF Scotland begins service delivery, the Government's intention is for the order to be laid before Majesty and Council on 15 July 2015, providing the Majesty's fit to make the order it will come into force the following day. The letter further explains that at present the dates of future privy council meetings are unclear and it is therefore desirable that, if possible, the order is laid before Majesty on 15 July. Do members have any comments, Stuart? Thank you, convener. On the substance of the order, I recognise the issues around timetable and nothing really to say. I just say what I've said on one or two occasions in the past. It's something about the construction of the order in that the substance of it is simply to insert a paragraph 25zb, which is the two words and a footnote to ILF Scotland. I would much prefer for good drafting of law that when a list is amended the entire list is incorporated in the order. The fact that it is 25zb gives that hint to the changes that have already taken place and the complexities that might be for people to determine what is on the amended list, which is in a variety of orders and original legislation. Thank you. The point is well made and not for the first time. Is the community otherwise content with those instruments, please? Yes. Gender item 3. Instruments subject to negative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Rural Development Scotland Regulations 2015 SSI 2015 192, nor on the Rural Payments Appeal Scotland Regulations 2015 SSI 2015 194. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Yes. Gender item 4. Instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the historic environment so sorry, I'm starting it. Good day. Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014 commencement number 3 order. SSI 2015 196. Is the committee content with this instrument, please? Yes. Gender item 5. Is the Prisoners' Control of Release Scotland Bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has written to me as convener, responding to the committee's concerns on the delegated powers in the Prisoners' Control of Release Scotland Bill. As you may recall, section 3-2 of the Bill provides that Scottish Ministers may by order bring section 1 and 2 of the Bill into force on an appointed day, and section 3-3 provides that a commencement order may include transitional, transitory or saving provisions. The committee raised concerns about the commencement provisions, given that transitional, transitory or saving provisions may require, which could have a potentially significant effect on certain persons affected by the Bill. The committee therefore recommended that the Scottish Government bring forward an appropriate amendment at stage 2 to make a commencement order made under section 3-2 subject to the negative procedure, where it contains transitional, transitory or saving provisions. The Cabinet Secretary has since written agreeing to amend the Bill to respond to the committee's concerns, specifically as lodged amendments putting the transitional and saving provision for the coming into force of section 1 of the Bill on the face of the Bill, thereby allowing Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise those provisions. Does the committee have any comments or observations? John? I would just like to say that I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's change of heart and I think that this is all to the good. I'm pleased that we stuck to our guns and I think it was you who raised it in debate and thank you for doing so on behalf of the committee. Thank you. Any other comments? No. Do members agree to note that response? Welcome to the fact that, in light of the committee's report, the Cabinet Secretary has lodged amendments which put the transitional provisions on the face of the Bill. Yes. Thank you. Gender item 6, pensions instruments. This item concerns the committee's consideration of pensions instruments and correspondence received from the Scottish Government in relation to those instruments. At its meeting on 28 April, the committee reported on the following instruments. The Firefighters Pension Schemes Amendment, Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-141, and the Police Pension Schemes Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015-142. In so doing, the committee raised concerns about the number of errors contained within those instruments and, with that in mind, the quality control process applied. Deputy First Minister has written to the committee responding to those concerns and has committed to correcting the errors identified by the committee in the firefighter regulations. The response also makes a commitment to improve the quality control process. Do members have any comments or contributions? I welcome the fact that the Deputy First Minister appears to share our concerns and is responding in an inappropriate way. I think that that will encourage the committee to continue with its desire for perfection rather than the disorder of this particular set of regulations. I would just endorse what Stuart Stevenson has said and welcome the First Minister's acknowledgement of our concerns, which were raised with no other objective in mind other than that we want the absolutely best quality drafting to be the way that all the instruments are constructed and manifestly this was not the case. Thank you very much. That takes us to agenda item 7, Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010, part 2, extension order 2015. The committee at its meeting on 12 May raised concerns about the absence of consultation on the Public Services Reform Scotland Act 2010, part 2, extension order 2015. The order was drawn to the Parliament's retention under the general reporting ground. The committee was not satisfied with the justification offered by the Scottish Government for not having consulted and consequently agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister on this matter. Deputy First Minister has now responded to these concerns. Members have a copy of that letter. Do members have any comments, please? Yes, convener, thanks. Obviously, as well as discussing it at this committee, I was at the finance committee when we discussed this with the Cabinet Secretary, the Deputy First Minister. I have to say that I am not completely satisfied with the arguments that they seem to have held firm to the arguments that they were putting forward previously, which I do not actually think answer the points that we were raising, specifically in his letter in paragraphs 5 and 6. 5 suggests that a consultation would not have made any difference to the order, and I accept that it would not have made any difference to anything internal on the order, but it might have made a difference as to whether the order came forward or not, because this was quite controversial when the legislation came forward in the first place. I think that it would have been interesting to hear what some of these outside bodies thought that they had been reassured by the last five years or if they still had concerns. I do not feel that that was a strong argument against the consultation. Secondly, in paragraph 6, where it talks about other public bodies, in the past they have been prepared to state their opinion on the public record, despite the fact that they may well be subject to ministerial control. Again, I do not think that that was a particularly good argument. I remain unsatisfied, although I did not vote against the Order of the Finance Committee. I agree with what John Mason has just said. I would also adhere to my view of last week that the Government should consult where there is a precedent set that they do consult, and I am concerned about the precedent that sets for the future. Is the Government now going to decide when it is going to consult or not? Notwithstanding the reasons provided in the letter, I think that it sets an uncomfortable precedent that we the Government will now decide when we are going to consult or not or when we are just going to say this is how it is going to be, because there is no point in consulting. That puts us in a very slippery slope. OK, thank you for those comments, which I am sure will be read by the appropriate authorities. Thank you, College. I think that completes item 7, at which point I move the meeting into private. Thank you.