 Fy addressed. Welcome to the 17th meeting of the committee in 2014. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting because this is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. Our first item of business today is to consider whether to take the discussion of our approach to the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Bill well as our approach to both forthcoming legislation on community empowerment and our scrutiny of the Scottish Government's 2015-16 draft budget in private at future meetings. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much and we move on to item 2 on the agenda. Which is consideration of the defective and dangerous building recovery of expenses Scotland Bill. I'd like to welcome David Stewart, the member in charge of the bill Derek Mackay, Minister for the Local Government and Planning, who is portfolio responsibility for the subject matter of the bill. Before we move on to consideration of the amendments, I think that it would be helpful if I set out the procedure for stage 2 consideration. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list of amendments that was published on Monday and the groupings of amendments which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to and move their amendment and to speak to all of the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If they have not already spoken in the group, I will invite the minister and then the member in charge to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding up speech. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say, not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only MSPs are allowed to participate in the debate on amendments and committee members are allowed to vote at stage 2. Voting is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We will now move on to the marshaled list of amendments. Section 1 is the extension of charging order to include expenses under section 25 to 27 of the 2003 act. I call amendment 22 in the name of the minister. I agree with amendments 23, 24, 225, 26, 27 and 28. Minister, can you move amendment 22 and speak to all amendments in the group? I move and let me outline the rationale for these amendments. The bill currently only allows charging orders to be made for work in defective and dangerous buildings. Local authorities have other enforcement powers under the building Scotland 2003 act. In some instances, it has to undertake work that the owner does not comply with notices served on them under those powers. Those powers are found in section 25, 26 and 27 and relate to building regulations, compliance notices, section 25, continuing requirement enforcement notices, section 26, building warrant enforcement notices, section 27. The need to provide local authorities with greater certainty of cost recovery applies much to those other sections that do to defective and dangerous buildings. The Government asked the question in the community empowerment Scotland bow consultation whether improved cost recovery powers should be extended to those other sections. There was overwhelming support to do so, and I am pleased that the bill can accommodate them. Amendments 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28 widen the application of the bill to cover the other enforcement powers in sections 25, 26 and 27 of the 2003 act. Amendments 27 and 28 changed the short and long title of the bill, resulting in the proposed title becoming the building recovery of expenses Scotland act 2014. Amendments 25 and 26 cover an issue arising from the widening of the application of the bill to these other enforcement powers. The owner is a person who is liable for the local authorities costs on all sections except 27. In this case, the 2003 act stipulates that the relevant person, in most cases it will be the owner but it could be a tenant. Amendment 25 and 26 clarify that if a relevant person is not the owner, they are still responsible for all the repayable amount. However, under section 46e, a charging order is only enforceable against the owner of the charged building. The remaining amendment 2 removes an unnecessary reference and ensures consistency within section 46b, and a tricess explains the rationale for these amendments and the impacts of them. I move amendment 22. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Thank you, convener. This is not an area that I consulted on, but I am aware that the Scottish Government sought views on making charging orders available to local authorities when enforcing section 25, 26 and 27 of the building Scotland act 2003, which deals with the area of compliance and enforcement. On a practical level, it makes sense to deal with this matter within a single piece of legislation that will assist local authorities when implementing the act. I therefore have no objection to these amendments. Anyone else? In which case, minister, would you like to wind up, please? Thank you. In that case, I will put the question. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister? I agree with amendment 19. Minister, would you like to move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I move amendment 1. The bill currently includes provision that charging orders and discharges are to be in such a form as a local authority may determine and that the content of the charging order includes the information set out in schedule 5 to the bill. This is unless otherwise required by ministers under subsection 3, specifying the form that charging orders and discharges must be in. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee commented during stage 1 that the provision should be amended to provide a power to amend new schedule 5A. The member in charge confirmed that he would amend the provision accordingly. The Government has subsequently discussed this with registers for Scotland, who expressed their preference for local authorities to use standard forms for a charging order and a discharge of a charging order. This view is shared by Government. Having heard their concerns and being support of the bill, the Government has gone with a different route to meet the concerns of the committee, instead preferring to rely on the powers already under the 2003 act, and by bringing forward an amendment to the building's forms Scotland regulations 2005, the Government wishes to develop standard forms alongside the standard forms already set out in the forms regulation, for example the building warrant and completion certificate. Those would be subject to the usual legislative scrutiny and consultation, and, importantly, are not expected to delay the commencement of the act. I thank the minister for his explanation of amendments 1 and 19. Those amendments displace my commitment to amend the bill to address the point raised by the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee in its sixth report as a Government will rely on section 36 of the 2003 act to specify the form and content of the charging order and discharges. I am reassured that development of standard forms alongside the forms already set out in the building forms Scotland regulations 2005 is not expected to delay commencement. I support those amendments. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? No. In which case minister would you like to wind up, please? No further comments. In that case, if we can move on. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. Can I call amendments 23, 24 and 2, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Could I ask you to move amendments 23, 24 and 2 on block, please minister? I move. Any comments from any member? Sorry, I beg your pardon. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 23, 24 and 2? No. In which case can we agree that amendments 23, 24 and 2 are agreed? Thank you very much. If we move on and I'll call amendments 3 in the name of the minister, I agree with amendments 4, 17, 18 and 21. Minister, could you move amendment 3 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. I move amendment 3. I believe that these amendments can be considered as minor drafting changes. If you thought that the others were technical, wait till you hear these. The most significant one is amendment 4. Once a building has been demolished, only the land or site remains. This amendment is to ensure that when a charging order for expenses is made in respect of demolishing a building, references to the building and new sections to be inserted are to be read as the site of the demolished building. The new sections being sections 46A and 46C to 46G. Amendment 18 is consequential to amendment 9, which seeks to remove delegated powers for Scottish ministers to make further provisions about the repayment or early redemption of repayment amounts. Amendment 18 removes an amendment to section 54 of the 2003 act, as found in section 1D of the bill, which makes provision in respect of orders and regulations, which is no longer required. Amendment 3 is a minor drafting amendment. This seeks to change subsection to section 46B1B. Similarly, amendment 17 is a minor amendment. This seeks to clarify the insertion point of subsection 8 in section 47. Amendment 21 is another minor drafting amendment. It is consequential to amendments 8 and 9, which seek to remove the role of Scottish ministers on the repayment or early redemption of repayable amounts. I note that those cover minor and technical points, some of a consequential or tidying up nature, and therefore I have nothing further to add. Does any member have anything to add? In which case, minister, would you like to wind up? In the past comments. We'll move on then. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 4 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 3. Minister, could you move formally, please? It moved. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 5 in the name of David Stewart, grouped with amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9? Mr Stewart could ask you to move amendment 5 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. During the course of stage 1, it became apparent that a number of local authorities had concerns about the fixed 30-year repayment term, particularly for lower sums. The Scottish Government also had concerns and stated in its memorandum on the bill that the terms of repayment should be flexible to take account of the variations in levels of possible expenditure. I readily acknowledge those concerns and as such gave a commitment to the committee to amend the bill to give local authorities greater discretion to set the term of a charging order. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 are a package of amendments that alter the repayment provisions in the bill to provide local authorities with greater discretion to set the repayment period, taking into account the circumstances of the owner and the amount owed. Amendment 5 adds a new subsection to inserted section 46C, repayable amount. New subsection 3 places a duty on local authorities to determine the number of annual repayments an owner must pay. The number of annual repayments can be no less than five and no more than 30. In addition, the local authority must set a date in which the annual instalment is payable. Setting the instalment date does not prevent local authorities administratively, accepting monthly or other intervals of payment, but in that situation, whatever is due, we need to have been paid in full by the annual instalment date. Amendments 6 and 7 are consequential. Amendment 6 revises the repayment information to set out the charging order, which was associated with having a fixed term of 30 years. The order is now to provide that the repayable amount is payable by means of the number of annual instalments and on the date of the year determined by the local authority in accordance with section 46C3, as covered by the principal amendment in this package, which is amendment 5. Amendment 7 takes account of the move to a flexible repayment period by referring to the final instalment rather than the 30th instalment. The committee's stage 1 report welcomes amendments to stage 2 to allow local authorities to recover expenses over a suitable timescale related to the mountain curd and the debtor's ability to pay. I hope that the committee will today support those amendments to address which was overly inflexible repayment provisions in the bill. Amendments 8 and 9 seek to remove the powers for ministers to determine cases where the owner and local authority cannot agree on the settlement amount. I am aware that similar power in the Housing Scotland Act 2006 in relation to repayment charges has not been used. It is not known why this is the case. Taking account of this and my wish to keep the bill straightforward to operate, I am content to support amendments 8 and 9. This makes clear that the repayment is a matter for the building owner and the local authority. I move amendment 5 in my name. I am pleased to see the amendments lodged by Mr Stewart to provide flexibility in the term of a charging order and support them. Key stakeholders such as COSLA, local authorities and the Law Society for Scotland have raised concerns that a 30-year standard term represents a long time period before costs can be recovered and is inflexible. The range of costs incurred by local authorities can vary significantly. That is particularly evident, comparing minor work done on a defective building to the demolition of a number of dangerous buildings. Those amendments would allow local authorities to consider, depending on the cost of the works that they have undertaken, the appropriate level of annual instalments and the ability for the owner to pay when determining the term of a charging order and, as such, the Government supports amendments 5, 6 and 7. Amendments 8 and 9 are government amendments intended to remove an additional unnecessary level of bureaucracy. The local authority, once they have done the enforcement work, will determine the amount repayable from the owner and instigate their cost recovery mechanism. If the local authority then decides to make a charging order, the owner has the right to appeal to the sheriff. Even when a charging order has been registered, the owner can still settle their liability at any time and even agree a lower settlement amount with the local authority if that's appropriate. The amendments seek to remove the power for ministers to determine cases when the owner and the local authority cannot agree on the settlement amount, thereby removing the possibility of owners using ministers to delay or frustrate the repayment of their debt. The repayable amount is a matter between the building owner and the local authority. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Mr McMillan. Thank you. This is a question to Mr Stewart. Just in terms of the amendments, I would assume that COSLA are in agreement with these particular amendments. Thank you for his comments. Certainly COSLA were very keen in terms of representing local authorities that there was more flexibility in the charging order. Many felt that 30 years was far too long for a relatively smaller sum. I think that my amendments are in accordance with COSLA and the local authorities that I have spoken to over the past couple of years. Mr Stewart, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw? No further comments, convener, and I press my amendment. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 25 in the name of the minister, I already debated with amendment 22. Minister, can I ask you to move formally? The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 6 in the name of David Stewart, I already debated with amendment 5. Mr Stewart, could I ask you to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 7 in the name of David Stewart, I already debated with amendment 5. Mr Stewart, can I ask you to move or not move? Move, convener. Thank you. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 8 in the name of the minister, I already debated with amendment 5. Minister, could you move formally please? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister, I already debated with amendment 5. Minister, could you move formally please? Move. boards tatydd iaent—barth ru teallad tro hollwaith lu gyda hyrfa mwy maen combineidaw sylwyddo i Gwyrgyrchu – fyillon wedi gydag — am fawr i sefyd, i dd typiadau producell a meddi—rhyw w meditation newydd sut mae pubbwydod ar gyfer cyn l scalingfunt yw layout i gydag, yn fawr i yw meddwl niferrwy nychleidiol i ddwl hwyledaig aelodלק mleidwad newydd siarad yn digicio ar y err quarantine yn bellig hon whon wouldid y cwb drwaith amendment 10. Those amendments cover various registration issues. Amendment 10 seeks to clarify when the charge is created in respect of the building. The charge is created when a charging order is registered. Amendment 14 covers the discharge of a charging order in a similar way. The charge is discharged when the discharge of a charging order is registered. Amendment 11 seeks to clarify—I hope you caught all that. Amendment 11 seeks to clarify who a registered charging order is enforceable against. It amends new section 46E3 so that a registered charging order is enforceable by the local authority against the owner of the charge building rather than any person deriving title to the charge building. Owner is the term used throughout the building Scotland Act 2003 and is defined in section 56 of the 2003 act. For similar reasons, amendments 12 and 13 amend new section 46E4A and B. A charging order is not enforceable against a third party who acquires right to be charged building and good faith and for value before the charging order is registered. The amendments 12 and 13 are to clarify that a charging order is not enforceable against any person rather than a third party. They similarly clarify that a charging order is not enforceable against any person subsequently deriving title from such a person. This avoids any doubt occurring as to what is meant by a third party. Amendment 16 seeks by inserting new section 46H to provide definitions for register and appropriate land register, those being terms used in the new sections. Those amendments deal with consistency of terminology and provide further clarification in the building relation to the process of registering a charging order. As such, I welcome those amendments. Anyone else wish to enter the debate? Minister, would you like to wind up then, please? No further comments. Thank you. In which case, the question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 11, 12, 13 and 14, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Can I ask the minister to move amendments 11 to 14 on block, please? Thank you. Do any members object to a single question being put on amendments 11 to 14? No, thank you. In which case, the question is that amendments 11 to 14 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 15 in the name of David Stewart in a group in its own? Can I ask Mr Stewart to move and speak to the amendment, please? Thank you, convener. During stage 1, I indicate that I would look at ways of closing the gap between the local authority current outwork and the registration of a charging order. I investigated whether there was potential to register and notice a potential liability in advance of the charging order being registered with the assistance of the Scottish Government, which in turn sought advice from the registrars of Scotland. I have concluded that a mechanism intended to close a gap would in fact create a layer of bureaucracy detracting from the simplicity of the bill and would occur additional costs to local authorities. The cracks of the problem appears to be one of timing. It should be possible for the local authority to register a charging order very soon after work has been carried out. Local authorities would not see charging orders as a tool of last resort, but would be proactive in the use to secure the debt. However, I recognise that liability might become an issue over the longer term as property changes hands, and that is why I have brought forward an amendment to clarify liability to ensure that those who seek to avoid their responsibilities cannot. Amendment 15 therefore represents a significant addition to the bill. It provides that the buyer for property where a charging order has been registered is to be several liable with the seller for any unpaid amounts due by the seller under the charging order. Payment might be made by the seller or the buyer at the point of sale, but if the liability is discharged by the buyer then the provision enables the buyer to pursue the seller for the debt. That might happen where the outstanding liability has not been factored into the sale price of the property in question. The new section 46f brought forward by amendment 15 deals with the liability of a new owner for the repayable amount. It is worth noting that 46f1b provides an important safeguard for the new owner. The buyer would not be liable if the charging order had been registered within 14 days of the new owner acquiring the property. That has been provided for to take account of the possibility that the convincing search process would not necessarily uncover a very recently registered charging order. A buyer would not therefore be aware of it and could not take that factor into account when negotiating the purchase. It is appropriate therefore that, where a charging order has been registered inside 14 days of purchase, the new owner should not, in that particular situation, be liable along with the former owner. As far as the local authority is concerned, it would encourage registration of the charging order at the earliest opportunity. New 46g deals with the continuing liability of the former owner following a sale. It provides that the original owner cannot escape liability by selling on the property and can be pursued by the subsequent owner for the repayable amount if not paid or any part of the repayable amount paid by the subsequent owner. I believe that this new civilly liable provision will strengthen the existing debt recovery powers in the bill, and I therefore move amendment 15. Just for clarification from Mr Stewart, I know that you have made reference to searches and titles in relation to any works that have been carried out, and you are specifying 14 days for registration at about 14-day period. I am just trying to work out in terms of the legal aspects of this between the buyer and the seller of a property and when that becomes relevant, and could we potentially end up in another legal dispute between the buyer and the seller if there has been charging orders placed against the building? Because part of the idea behind this bill and the changes as I understood it was that, particularly if we have a 30-year repayment period, that the repayment would be against the building. It is how we then secure that repayment period against the building if we then get involved in a legal dispute between the buyer and the seller about what charging orders were put in place and when they were put in place, and the notification of those charging orders if they have not been registered in appropriate times when searches have been carried out by solicitors. Thanks, Mr Wilson, for that comment. There is quite a lot in that, convener, so if you don't mind, I will perhaps go into a little bit of detail. The main issue that I would stress to the committee is that charging orders are obviously a well-recognised and well-rehearsed technique going back, I think, to 1959. The great beauty of charging orders are, of course, that they are attached to the title of the building, and it is normally very hard to escape the fact that there is a charge on the title of the building. If I give you an example, if Mr Wilson was buying a property from me, his lawyers would do a search through the convening procedure, and that search would identify normally whether there was a charging order attached to the title of the building. Most new purchasers would rather have a clean title, no complications on that title. Any negotiations, if there was something outstanding, say that the property was worth £200,000 and there was a £50,000 charging order in the property, the price negotiated by Mr Wilson and myself would reflect that there was an outstanding charging order. That is one of the key points. In normal sense, you cannot escape the charging order because it is clearly registered in systems and the various other registrars that are available, so you cannot normally escape that provision. However, if there was a sale made within a very short period of time—for example, two weeks—the fact that there is a charging order would not normally be picked up because of the issue about registration. The key thing is that notices in convening are flagged up, so you are useless to checking my property. There would be a red light saying that this property has an outstanding charging order, so that is the key in the convening procedures. We have taken in the bill quite clear legal advice that we think that this is fairly rock solid. However, if there is a sale made within a two-week period, that red light issue might not be picked up. The provision ensures that the new owner—in which case it would be you and my example, Mr Wilson—would not be liable if it was done within a two-week period, because that red flag would not necessarily be picked up because of the time period. The general advice that I would give the committee is that charging orders are an extremely good way of recovering money by local authorities. I am not suggesting that they are used in every situation, as I said at stage 1. My advice to local authorities is that assessments should be done jointly by building control officers and a legal team, where there is a clear issue that there is a clean title that might be a good candidate for a charging order. However, I would certainly recommend if the bill goes through that local authorities do not sit in their hands on this issue. It is very important that they make sure that they get a charging order as soon as possible in any works that is carried out if they think that that is appropriate. I think that that reinforces the bill, Mr Wilson, and makes it much stronger than it was before. Basically, it is very difficult to avoid a charging order, to avoid the debt, and even if you are selling a property, it would be well flagged up by your lawyer in that case, because that is the nature of the convening system. Following on from your explanation, Mr Stewart, has there been any work undertaken in terms of how many instances where, if that were to have been implemented already over the local cost of the last couple of years, how many instances that that would have been implemented and utilised? I think that that is a very difficult question for Mr Stewart to answer there. If you do not mention that, perhaps you can answer Mr McMillan's point in the generality, talking about charging orders generally and specifying on the two-week issue. I think that, if memory serves me right, the debt was around £4 million of outstanding debt that local authorities had. I am not suggesting that charging orders are the only game in town. I think that they will do a huge job to make sure that, in the future, local authorities have less outstanding debt in the work that is carried out. I will say that there is a precedent for the several liability approach that has been presented today in the Tenement Scotland Act 2004, the Australian Environment and Amendment Scotland Act 2011 and, most recently, one that Mr McDonnell is familiar with, is the High Hedge of Scotland Act 2013. There is a precedent for the several liability approach, but I am totally convinced, Mr McMillan, that if you look in two or three years' time and look at the outstanding debt for local authorities and dangerous and defective buildings where local authorities have used charging orders, the outstanding debt in the whole of Scotland will be dramatically reduced. I would be very happy at that stage to come back to the committee in any form of post-legislative scrutiny and make further comments about that. However, as the convener said, it is very difficult for me to give you a categoric issue around the issue of this amendment. I do think that it closes a little exception that perhaps some more devious owners could try to get around paying local authorities. I think that this is another way that we had captured debt and ensured that, if works carried out by local authority, it is incumbent on owners to pay the local authority the debt that is outstanding. Mr Stewart, anyone else? Minister? Thank you, convener. I am pleased to see the amendment lodged by Mr Stewart to provide a mechanism to ensure that the original owner does not escape liability if the property is sold or transferred. The amendment also ensures that that is subject to certain conditions in respect of registration of the charging order, and that a new owner is severally liable with any former owner. The Government supports this amendment and, as Mr Stewart mentioned, follows the approach in the recent High Hedges Scotland Act 2013 in the Historic Environment, Amendment Scotland Act 2011 to make former and new owners severally liable. That is the right way forward, we believe. It also follows the approach taken in the title Conditions Scotland Act 2003 and the Tenement Scotland Act 2004 and was included in the proposals in the Community Empowerment Scotland Bill consultation. In considering the application of the provisions in the bill, the most influential factor in reducing the likelihood of an owner using avoidance tactics is that local authority does not unnecessarily delay registering a charging order. It is therefore essential that local authority manages effectively the enforcement process from initial investigation through to final cost recovery. Charging orders should be registered at the most appropriate time and should not be seen simply as a last resort. Although early registration of an order turns it into an annuity with annual payments, an owner can still repay the full amount early and can even agree a reduced settlement with local authority, thereby allowing the charging order to be discharged earlier than the full term. Mr Stewart, can I ask you to wind up and press or withdraw, please? No further comments, convener, and I press my amendment. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Minister, can I invite you to move amendments 16 to 19 on block, please? Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 16 to 19? No, in which case. Can I ask that amendment 16 to 19 are agreed to? Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I now move on to section 1. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 20 in the name of the minister and a group on its own? Minister, can I ask you to speak and move the amendment, please? I move amendment 20. This is the last group and only features one amendment. Amendment 20 introduces standard ancillary provisions to enable ministers to give effect to the provisions of the bill, in particular to enable ministers to make any consequential amendments, which may not yet have been identified. The ancillary provisions follow the approach taken on the High Heads Scotland Act 2013 and the Historic Environment Amendment Scotland Act 2011, by way of examples. Without such a power, it could be necessary to turn to Parliament through subsequent primary legislation to deal with a matter that is clearly within the scope and policy intentions of the original bill. That would not be an effective use of either Parliament Committee or Government's resources. The power is limited and can only be used in relation to this act. Importantly, it is also limited to provide the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. Any order made under this section that contains a provision that adds to, emits or replaces any part of the text of an act is subject to the affirmative procedure. Any other order made under this section is subject to negative procedure. I hope that this explains the rationale behind the amendment. I note the minister's point that the power is limited, and that it cannot be used in relation to this act. Any order that adds to, emits or replaces any part of the text of the act will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Are they for support this amendment? In which case, minister, can I ask you to wind up, please? The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 21 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 3. Minister, can I ask you to move formally? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. Can I call amendment 27 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 22. Minister, could you move formally, please? Moved. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Ieithaf. Oedden nhw'n eitio'r byw i'n meddwl o rhai dd crimigau. Rhaid i'n gallu chi'n meddwl o'r ffrwngau. Mae'n meddwl o ffrwngau sydd i amddaskiryllol 28 ryw gael'r byw. Mae'n meddwl o'r bryd o'r byw. Mae'n meddwl o'r byw. Mae'n meddwl o'r byw. Mae'n meddwl o'r byw. Mae'n meddwl o'r byw. reliabilityd is amended, it will be available and print, and on the Parliament's website tomorrow morning. The Parliament has not yet determined the date when stage 3 proceedings will take place but Members can now lodge stage 3 amendments at any time with the legislation team. Members will be informed of the deadline for amendments once it is been determined. I want to thank David Stewart and the Minister for Local Government on planning for attending this morning, and I thank Members for their participation today. The next committee meeting is the next week on Wednesday 11 o'r ffordd 11.30 am, ac rydw i'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio.