 Alex Rowley—It's a good morning everyone, and welcome to the 27th meeting, 2017, of the Delegate of Powers and Law Reform Committee. Monica Lennon has sent her apologies and I'd like to welcome Pauline McNeill to the meeting as her substitute. I'd also like to welcome Dave Torrance-Mack, after being offered for a few weeks. I'd like to welcome Gene Freeman, the Minister for Social Security and our officials to the meeting and it's yn ddano'r cymdeinidol, yn cyffredinol, ddod gyda'r cymdeinidol a'r cymdeinidol yn bwysigol. Rydyn nhw'n ddod i fynd yn y cyfrifolau cymdeinidol i Y Police Act 1997 a'r Prifysgol Bêl Y Grifffordd, Y Scotland Act 2007, yn y Fyffydden y Rhyw Gwyrddiadau, 2018. Mae'r Llawd ysgolgau yng Nghymru yn y cyfnod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i sefydlu cymdeinidol i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i ddod i The contents of the committee's report to the Equalities and Human Rights Committee on the delegated powers in the gender representation on public boards at Scotland Bill and the evidence that we hear from the minister on the social security at Scotland Bill this morning. Does the committee agree to take these items in private? The next item of business is the consideration of the social security at Scotland Bill. The minister is here to speak to us about the bill, and I would like to welcome the minister and Chris Boyland, the legislation team leader of the Social Security Policy Division, Fraser Goff, the Parliamentary Council and Colin Brown, the senior principal legal officer of the Scottish Government. I believe that the minister would like to make an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and can I thank you for the opportunity to be at the committee and I hope to answer your questions productively. I thought it might be helpful to begin by outlining the thinking behind the Government's approach to our bill. We have brought this bill to Parliament with a track record of positive engagement with stakeholders and all those with an interest in ensuring that our future social security system works well. It is by keeping the interests of those who will use the system, advise on the system and operate the system foremost in our minds that we have come to take the approach that we have taken in our bill. The UK Government's approach has been to put their benefit rules partly in primary legislation while at the same time also requiring that their primary legislation has to be read alongside further rules in subordinate legislation. In our view, this makes the UK legislation confusing, difficult to follow and open to different interpretations. By contrast, putting the detailed rules for the operation of our devolved benefits into subordinate legislation allows us to make our legislation clearer and more accessible. It will also ensure that our legislation is flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. I am pleased that the stakeholder community has acknowledged the logic in this approach and the reasoning behind it. For example, citizens such as Vice Scotland have said in their submission to the Social Security Committee that they accept the Scottish Government's view that setting out some of the rules for the new benefits should be made in regulations. Much of the important detail affecting the operation of the social security system is contained in regulations and guidance that are regularly issued and updated. In recognition of the part that secondary legislation will play in our overall approach, we have made a commitment to produce illustrative versions of some of the regulations that we will make under the bill. I am pleased to say that we have already begun to honour that commitment. Committee members will have received the illustrative drafts of our planned best start grant regulations last week, along with a briefing paper that explains the policy intent behind the regulations. Those make clear how we intend to use those powers, both specifically in terms of the best start grant, but also more generally in terms of our indicative approach to drafting regulations across the piece. I have also been mindful, given the emphasis that we intend to place on co-production and developing all of our constituent parts in the overall system in collaboration with others, of the need to ensure that regulations are considered in an open and transparent way that allows stakeholders to provide evidence and feed in their views. That is why we have produced these illustrative regulations so that the wider public and the stakeholder community can see what we intend to do with the powers under the bill. It is also the reason why, with the exception of a small number of areas that mostly deal with administrative matters, regulations that will be made under the bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow for full scrutiny by the committee. I would like to say a little bit more about scrutiny if I may and before I finish. I have been consistently clear in my discussions with stakeholders for some time now that I believe that there is a need for independent expert scrutiny of social security matters in Scotland, and I am happy to make that point clear once again. If we are agreed on the need for scrutiny, then the next question is about when we should be scrutinising. How do we ensure that the right people are involved at the right stage to deliver the most value? In my view, the absence of that represents a failing in the current UK arrangements that we should correct. The statutory rules at UK level, which currently govern the work of the advisory committees, mean that regulations only come to the existing committees after they have been drafted, with a number of exceptions that allow the Secretary of State to circumvent the committee's involvement and the committee's advice that is provided to the Government, not to the Parliament. That is not the only difference between what is the case at UK level and what will happen in relation to our devolved social security system. It is likely that there will also be a difference in the volume of regulations to be scrutinised. When Professor Grain McKeever gave evidence to the Social Security Committee on 14 September, she said that the UK Social Security Advisory Committee has scrutinised 44 pieces of legislation in the previous year. That is a significant volume, but it is not directly comparable to what will happen in Scotland once the initial sets of regulations to establish the new system have been made. My adviser's estimate of the instruments considered by the UK Advisory Committee in 2016-17 is that only around four or five would fall within devolved competence. If you have a commitment to involve stakeholders and experts and you are dealing potentially with a lesser volume of regulations that allows you some time and space to submit regulations to a full and detailed scrutiny process, then the next question is who exactly should provide the scrutiny? I have been clear that I do not think that this is a question that the Scottish Government can answer on its own. It is not for us to decide how our proposed legislation should be scrutinised. It feels to me a bit like marking our own homework. That is what I have done so far. I have met the convener of the Social Security Committee back in May to ask her and her members to consider what role the Parliament should play in filling the space left by the existing UK Advisory Committee. I have since written to Dr Jim McCormack, the chair of our expert advisory group on disability and carers benefits, to ask him to set up a short-life working group from amongst his members to consider how scrutiny of social security matters should work as part of our new Scottish system. I have asked for an initial response from him in line with what I understand to be the timetable for the drafting of the Social Security Committee's stage 1 report. I think that it is important that the expert group's initial findings should, if at all possible, be taken into account at this stage in the parliamentary process. As Jim outlined to the Social Security Committee on 21 September, the expert group plans to engage with the Social Security Committee and also the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee. I would be interested to hear from members today if you feel that the DPLRC could also make a contribution to that work. Once those various groups and bodies have had an opportunity to consider the matter, I expect to be able to say more on how we will ensure that expert scrutiny is built into the system later on during the bill process. In all of this, I would ask that we do not lose sight of the real prize. The prize is a system that works in the best interests of all those who depend on that. To do that, we need scrutiny arrangements that are expert-led, open-minded and forward-looking, that drive improvements in the system and make things better. By the end of this parliamentary process, I hope that this is what we will have in place. I am very happy to take questions that members may have. Thank you very much, minister, for that comprehensive opening statement. I am quite sure that you will have touched upon many of the areas of questioning that I would like to put to you. However, there are a few questions. The number of respondents to the Social Security Committee's call for evidence in the bill have expressed concern about the uncertainty that is created by not including on the face of the bill detail about the eligibility and what will be provided for each of the types of assistance. In light of those concerns, have you given any consideration to including more information on the face of the bill? We have designed the bill to give flexibility for policy development, both now and in the future. However, we have also used a framework that allows Parliament to control what is provided as it sees fit. It is important to keep in mind that the schedules are not aiming to define individual benefits. They are the framework within which benefits will be designed. For some types of assistance, there will be more than one benefit. For example, disability assistance covers currently four benefits. Working within that framework, we intend to co-design policy for our new social security system, working with those who have lived experience of the existing system. That is where the role of our social security experience panels, which involve more than 2,400 people, come into play, people who have recent experience of receiving benefits, to help us to develop our policies and to design and test the new system to ensure that it works for them. Alongside the experience panels, we have our disability and carers benefits expert advisory group, chaired by Dr McCormick, whom I have just referred to. By putting those things together, I am confident that we can come up with the right policy solutions at the right time to ensure the safe and secure transfer of benefits to those who receive them and deliver our overall ambition. To go back to the first part of your question, part of the reason that some UK social security legislation is so confusing is that certain rules are put up front in the primary legislation, reflecting the views that were held when the legislation was made, but then, as things have moved on and perhaps new Governments have been elected, secondary legislation has been made, which qualifies or undercuts those rules initially in primary legislation. By contrast, if you look at the illustrative draft of the early years assistance regulations that we have provided, you will see that the first paragraph in each schedule sets out all the eligibility rules that apply for the different types of grant. People trying to understand the legislation can find everything that they need to know about who is eligible right there in the regulations without having to be concerned that those rules are displaced or altered by some other piece of legislation somewhere else. The committee is certainly grateful for all the illustrative early years assistance regulations that were provided by the Scottish Government, and you touched upon them a few moments ago. The Scottish Government recognises that the final version of the regulations might be different according to any comments that it receives about them. Similarly, a future Government might seek to exercise the powers in the bill in a very different way to those set out in the illustrative regulations. Has any consideration been given to limiting the breadth of powers with a focus on including more detail in the schedules on what regulations must or must not do? We included the schedules precisely because we think that it is important to ensure proper parliamentary involvement in setting the core rules that will govern the giving of assistance under our social security systems. The schedules set out a mixture of rules about things that must be included and things that may be included in the regulations. As they stand, they reflect the Government's view of these matters at the time that the bill was introduced. Through the bill process, Parliament has complete control over the final terms of the bill, including the schedules. It is the Parliament that will decide whether further rules should be included in any of the May or must categories, whether rules presently in the May category should be moved to the must, and whether rules should be added about what regulations must not include. If I can give you an example of that, one of the areas that has come up already in my discussions with stakeholders and I know, perhaps in evidence to the Social Security Committee, is a concern that people should be given assistance in kind and not in finance, not financial assistance. Our policy intent is that individuals should have the choice. I think that it is reasonable to say that there may be a case to be made to see a change in the primary legislation that makes clear that policy choice that individuals should have a choice between assistance received in kind or financially. That is an example of where, as matters come forward to the Social Security Committee and elsewhere, it will be for Parliament to determine whether what is currently there should in any way be changed. Shedule 3 makes provision about winter heating assistance regulations. No mandatory provisions is made in schedule 3, so there does not appear to be any specific limit on what winter heating assistance regulations could provide for. Your response to the committee's written questions explains that this is because no mandatory provision is currently described. Could you please expand on that explanation by explaining why it is considered appropriate that this schedule contains no mandatory provision? It is a bit of a stretch to say that there are no limits on what winter heating assistance can be used to provide for. Section 13 defines it as assistance to help people meet heating costs during the winter months. Any regulations made will have to be consistent with that purpose. I think that my officials' response to the committee made a comparison between all of the other schedules and schedule 3 to illustrate that every other schedule contains what was described as mandatory provision or limits in parts of the other schedules. If we look at what mandatory provision is for, it is about defining the essence of who is to receive each type of assistance. Care is assistance, the individual has to be or have been a carer. Disability assistance depends on the person having a disability. Early years assistance depends on having responsibility for a child and so on. At the moment, winter heating assistance is mostly paid to people of state pension age, but I do not see a reason to rule out the possibility that that might be extended in the future. As we have already said, it will be extended to families with severely disabled children. That is why we have not set the same limits on the rules for who will receive it. Schedules 1 to 7 each contain a provision providing that the generality of the power to make regulations is not limited. In schedule 3, for example, which relates to winter heating assistance regulations, paragraph 7 states that nothing in the schedule is to be taken to limit what may be prescribed in the regulations. For the other schedules, the limitation applies to particular parts of the schedule. Given that the stated purpose of the schedules is to ensure that parliamentary control is not sacrificed in light of the regulation making powers, please explain why that provision is necessary. I think that Parliament has control because if there are rules that it wants to add to the schedules and make mandatory, it can amend the schedules to achieve that during the bill's consideration. Using schedule 3 as an example is misleading. Only that schedule has no limits working because winter heating assistance has no mandatory criteria around who is eligible for help. For all the other schedules, the wording expressly says that the generality does not override what Parliament agrees as mandatory provision. The current balance between which parts of the schedule create mandatory rules and which parts illustrate what regulations it might provide is based on the Government's view at the time the bill was introduced of where that balance should lie. The bill process allows Parliament to change that balance should it wish to. Provision for the types of assistance will be made in regulation, which means that the Parliament will only be able to accept or reject it in its entirety. Does that not limit the parliamentary scrutiny because there is no opportunity to amend the eligible criteria or what assistance is to be provided? How do you respond to the argument that parliamentary scrutiny will be more effective in provision for those types of assistance had been included in the face of the bill? Parliament has a power of veto. It is a bit over stretching the case to say that that is a limited control. Parliament can simply reject draft regulations entirely if members are not happy with what they are hearing about them. Because of that, the onus is on a Government to do the consultative work in advance to ensure that any proposals that it brings forward are ones that Parliament can support. That would be true even if the bill that finally emerges were to contain no express consultation requirements. As we have consistently said, we recognise the bill should say more, most likely, about how proposals for regulations should be scrutinised. We are keen to hear Parliament's views on what role it should have in that process, as I outlined in my opening statement. However, scrutiny of regulations is reactive. I hope that Parliament and stakeholders will play a proactive role in influencing the design and development of the social security system. My reference to the expert group, to the many stakeholder groups that we are engaging with, and in particular to our experienced panels, underlines our commitment to do that. It is a mistake to wait for draft regulations to be issued and regulations to be considered as the be all and end all, if you like. It is the Government's job to ensure that draft regulations that it brings are regulations that have been adequately consulted on, that those views have been heard and that Parliament does not feel obliged to exercise its power of veto. If the rules on agility and assistance to be given are to be contained in regulations, does the Scottish Government think that there would be any merit in applying a super affinative type procedure to regulations so that it gives Parliament the opportunity to shape the regulations and to prove them? If what we are talking about is opportunities for people to feed into the process by which regulations are developed and drafted to identify issues and help to ensure that they are fixed before the regulations become law, then yes, I absolutely think that that should be the case. I think that we have already taken the first steps towards that in producing our illustrative drafts of the best grant regulations. However, there are many models for the super affirmative process. My mind is open to considering what might be the best approach for this bill in this instance. However, as I have said, it is not something that the Government can or should address on its own. I think that Parliament also needs to consider its role in this space. I look forward to having a response not only from the Social Security Committee but also from Dr McCormick and, indeed, from this committee too. Previous appearance, I made that offer here as well. It is not just about the process that attaches to the regulations. There is only a part of the picture, and we need to look more widely at the scrutiny roles in this Parliament and any independent expert-led scrutiny body that may be appropriate to establish. The Scottish Government's delegated powers memorandum refers to the objective of proving accessibility of the rules governing each type of assistance. If the rules on eligibility and the assistance to be given are to be contained solely in regulations, what are you doing to ensure that rules are accessible in terms of language and availability? What counts as accessible differs for different audiences? What the delegated powers memorandum talks about is making the legislation as accessible as possible. I hope that you will find that the illustrative draft of the best art grant regulations that we have provided is drafted in a logical order and in fairly plain English. Of course, it will not be accessible to everyone. The need for legislation to be drafted in a way that delivers legal certainty makes that impossible. Information will therefore be provided and made available in different formats to meet the needs of different audiences. We have been clear throughout that the information that people need to know will be available in whatever format people need it to be in. We have demonstrated that from a year ago in our consultation and through to the work that we are currently doing with our experience panels. In terms of what needs to be legislatively clear, that inevitably will not be accessible to every audience. Therefore, our intent is to provide information that is there in whatever format individuals need it to be in so that they can understand what that legislation is saying. Just before I bring in Pauline McNeill, I want to clarify one point. I know that, a number of months ago, Minister UNI had a discussion regarding the provision of information in various formats as I chaired the Parliament's cross-party group 1 visual impairment. Can I confirm, then, that information will be provided in formats for people who are blind and visual impaired so that we will be able to access the information about the bill? Yes. Okay, thank you. Pauline McNeill. Thank you, good morning. So, section 18.1 provides for short-term assistance, and while section 3 provides for those who are intended to such assistance, there is very little limit on the power in section 5 to set alternative forms of eligibility rules other than that the assistance must be for short-term need. As the power is potentially very wide, the committee wondered if there was any consideration given to either primary legislation being made to provide for other types of short-term assistance or to apply a superaffirmative procedure to instruments making provision for additional eligibility rules. Thank you. I think that, as we have explained in the Delegated Powers memorandum, the power to provide for short-term assistance is being taken to deal with circumstances that at present cannot be fully anticipated. Primary legislation can take up to a year to change and, in my view, is not the best vehicle for dealing with the unexpected. A power to deal with the unforeseen must necessarily be broad because, by definition, the Government does not know what situations it may need the power to deal with. On the question of scrutiny procedure, as I have said, I do not want to repeat myself, I do believe that there should be independent scrutiny. My mind is open to looking at the various models that are available and under the term superaffirmative procedure, but I do not think that it is the role exclusively of government to turn our minds to that. I do think that there is an important role for this Parliament, particularly given the scrutiny responsibilities that our parliamentary committees have. I hope that we will be able to reach a view, as a Government, based on views from certainly the lead committee, perhaps from others and from the expert group, on what we would then propose should be in the legislation by way of independent scrutiny on any Government's exercise of its social security powers. Can I just ask one question on that? In terms of having that flexibility, is that with an eye to say potential that there was a change of rules within the Westminster powers, also with the 85 per cent of social security powers? If there was a change there and if there was to be an effect upon citizens in Scotland, does that flexibility that you are talking about mean that, if there was to be written on the face of the bill, it would be difficult to then potentially deal with any changes, or am I incorrect in thinking that? No. Broadly speaking, I agree with you that the nature of making a provision for short-term assistance is to make a provision to allow a Government to deal with the unexpected. Because it is unexpected, you cannot list what it is going to be. That is why it is not possible—I do not think that it is sensible—that you create a power and then you undercut it. If you say that there is a power in terms of short-term assistance for these things, what about the unexpected? That is the point. Given that, we are talking about, as you rightly said, a legislation that covers 11 benefits and we will still have running a UK welfare system that covers the majority of the spend on benefits and virtually all of the employment related benefits, it is sensible for the Scottish Government to have that power to provide short-term assistance in circumstances that, at this point, cannot be foreseen. I do not know if Colin O'Fraither wants to add anything to that. I suppose that the constraint on short-term assistance is that it has to be for a short-term need, so that you cannot use it to institute a mechanism to replace an entire benefit that had disappeared from the Westminster model. I think that the Government is clear that if you were going to create a whole new type of assistance to run on a long-term basis, that ought to come back before Parliament for proper scrutiny and consideration. For example, if there were short-term needs arising from, say, the UK Government rolling people on to UC credit and leaving them without benefits for six weeks, maybe the Scottish Government might want a power in that kind of unexpected circumstance to step in and just help people out a bit. I would like to ask you about the top-up of reserved benefits. Why does the bill not contain provisions specifying the existing UK benefits that the Scottish ministers seek to top up? Was any consideration given to specifying the relevant existing UK benefits on the face of the bill, while taking a power to amend the bill to respond to future changes in the UK benefits system? The bill does not specify existing reserved benefits that the Scottish ministers seek to top up, because at present there are no plans to top up existing reserved benefits. In addition, if you were to list specific benefits that could be topped up and those were identified on the face of the bill, section 45 would have to be updated every time the UK benefits system changed. Whether that was done via an amending power or in any other way, I do not think that it is a particularly sensible use of parliamentary time to have to keep going back to amend your list on the basis that the UK Government has changed what it is doing about benefits. Again, that is not something that you can sensibly anticipate what may or may not be done at a UK level. At present, the power is provided to top up any reserved benefit within the limits of devolved legislative competence, so we have deliberately framed it broadly to reflect fully the devolution settlement. I think that that is clear and generally understood, although I am happy to commit to ensuring that our new social security agency publishes information that explains very clearly which benefits are delivered by the Scottish Government and which ones remain reserved to the UK. Pauline? I think that you probably partially covered this, but I will ask you anyway. To do with the guidance on discretionary housing assistance that might be issued by ministers on section 52.2, that could contain details relating to a wide range of matters. Those are matters in relation to other forms of assistance in the bill that are set out in the regulations that are subject to a particular parliamentary procedure. You have given the committee a written response that it does not seem to be an appropriate use of parliamentary time to require parliamentary pool of any guidance of this type. It is the same theme, I guess. That remains my view that it is the best use of Parliament's time to make law and not guidance. The obligation on local authorities is to have regard for the guidance, which will be issued under section 52 of the bill. That reflects the current arrangements, which work well without detailed ministerial direction. Guidance is not binding on local authorities in order to allow them a degree of scope to deliver services in a way that suits their particular local needs and circumstances. I think that our preference would always be to allow for that degree of flexibility in terms of local delivery. However, any such guidance will be laid under section 52 of the bill, which also requires a copy to be laid before Parliament. That means that Parliament would be free to take any steps that are appropriate at that stage. I thank you for your opening statement on parliamentary scrutiny. That was very helpful. Given the technical nature of the regulations, you said that there is a very important role for the Scottish Parliament in scrutinising the regulations and the primary legislation as it goes forward. Do you have any view about the balance between an independent scrutiny committee and the Parliament itself? Do you think that, in terms of the Parliamentary scrutiny or scrutiny of the operation of the regulations as a whole, there would be any advantage in having some cross-arrangement with Westminster to use it to any technical expertise that is available there? Can you explain what you mean by the last part about cross-arrangement? I suppose that I was able to ask you about that in my capacity as a member of the Social Security Committee. We have heard from a witness talking about the Irish situation, and she said that it was worth considering whether there should be someone from the independent scrutiny committee at Westminster sitting on any committee that might be set up for independent scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament regulations and vice-verit, because they are dealing with technical regulations all the time. Just on that last point, there are currently two members of the Social Security Advisory Committee operating at UK level on the expert group. Dr McCormick, of course, himself is the chair and a new member who recently joined. What they bring in terms of their experience of the operation of that committee is invaluable. The situation in Northern Ireland is different in that they have a form of powers over the delivery of the entire Social Security System, which of course we do not have, but they have that with a limitation that it is not really possible to change too much between what is implemented in England and what is then delivered in Northern Ireland. The comparisons need to be mindful of the differences. That said, I think that there is value in looking at how we might go forward in terms of independent scrutiny in factoring into that consideration, where it might be helpful to ensure that what is done in terms of social security in Scotland and equally what is done south of the border do not contain unintended consequences. I have said often in other places that the 11 benefits that we will take responsibility for, whatever it is that we do with those in the immediate term or in the longer term—any future government—needs to be able to work in a complementary way to the UK, what remains of the UK welfare system, because individuals will be in receipt at times of benefits from both Governments. We do not want to get into a situation where what one Government does creates an unintended negative impact on what another Government then does. There are some issues in terms of how the fiscal framework seeks to deal with that, for example. As I said to Parliament when I made the statement on the agency, we have recently resolved around abolishing bedroom tax at source. I can see value in making sure that, at that senior level, there is at least co-operation in understanding and in experience between whatever body we have in Scotland and the Social Security Advisory Committee. I think that we are all clear. I have always believed that there is an important role for independent scrutiny on how social security in Scotland is designed and delivered and legislated on in the future. It is not an easy comparison to say that we will simply do what is done south of the border for two reasons. Our Parliament is different. Our committees have a clear scrutiny role that Westminster committees do not. Nor do I believe that it is right to have an independent body at operating at that level to that purpose where ministers of this or any Government can bypass it in terms of what they introduce as is currently the case at UK level. I am keen to reach a final concluded view, I hope, with the input from Social Security Committee, from the expert group, from this committee, indeed, if there are views that allow us, before the legislation completes its final road through this Parliament, to be very clear about what the independent scrutiny arrangements will be, what role that committee will have and what will be the requirements on Scottish ministers in terms of consulting with it and who it might report to. Thank you very much. I just ask one final question just regarding the experience panels, the 2,400-plus people involved. What role do they have in terms of—they will have an input role, do they have a role in terms of scrutiny as well? At this stage—well, in terms of the bill, no, at this point—that is part of what the expert group is considering, so it will want to, as I think I said and certainly Dr McCormick said, it will want to engage with the Social Security Committee and perhaps other committees of the Parliament. It will also want to consider any views from other stakeholder groups, and in that are the experience panels, and it is up to the expert group, which is independent, to work out how exactly it wants to do all that. Thank you for that. Any other questions for the minister? No? Okay, thank you very much, minister, and your team. I'll suspend briefly so we can change the committee. The next item of business is instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. We have the draft, Private Housing Tenancies Scotland Act 2016, consequential provisions, regulations 2017. The Private Housing Tenancies Scotland Act 2016 introduces a new type of tenancy for all future lets in the private rented sector. Regulation 5 to B amends paragraph 82 of schedule 1 of the letting agent code of practice Scotland regulations 2016 visiting and entering property, so that part of the paragraph reads section 184 of the Housing Scotland Act 2006 specifies that at least 24 hours notice must be given or 48 hours notice where the tenancy is a private residential tenancy unless the situation is urgent. Regulation 5 to B could have been drafted more clearly given that the 48 hours notice period is not set out in section 184 but is set out in paragraph 6 of the schedule of the private residential tenancies statutory terms Scotland regulations 2017, which were laid before the Parliament on 14 September. The Scottish Government has undertaken to include a provision to clarify this matter within an instrument which will amend the letting agent code of practice Scotland regulations 2016 SSI 2016-133 prior to those regulations coming into force on 31 January 2018. Does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground H as the meaning of regulation 5 to B could be clearer in a particular respect? Does the committee wish to welcome the Scottish Government's undertaking to clarify this matter within an amending instrument? No points have been raised by legal advisers on the draft Scotland Act 1998 in solvency functions order 2017 and the draft legal aid Scotland Act 1986 amend regulations 2017. Is the committee content with those instruments? Agenda item number 4, instruments subject to the negative procedure. The next item of business are the instruments subject to the negative procedure. It is the agricultural holdings modern limited duration tenancies and consequential extra provisions Scotland regulations 2017 SSI 2017-300. A main purpose of those regulations is to make provision for who is a new entrant to farming for the purposes of whether or not a person's lease of a modern limited duration tenancy and MLTD under the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 can contain a break clause. Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of schedule 2 of the regulations all make provision until the coming into force of section 92 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 for all purposes. Various specified enactments are to be read as if references to certain words as expressed within the quotation marks in each regulation are omitted. Those words are repairing tenancy or are repairing tenancy as the case may be. It is suggested by legal advisers that the provisions could be more clearly expressed if the precise wording within each enactment, which falls to be either omitted or modified as a case may require, is quoted so that the provision as modified reads sensibly. In the case of those paragraphs of schedule 2 of the regulations, that precise wording is not quoted in the provisions. The Scottish Government has acknowledged that it may have been clearer to have drafted the transitory provisions in the mannered outlined. Does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground H as the meaning of various transitory provisions in the instrument? It could be made clearer in a particular respect, and that applies to paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of schedule 2 of the regulations. Does the committee agree to call on the Scottish Government to further consider laying an amending instrument to clarify the drafting of the provisions? No points have been raised by legal advisers on SSIs 2017, 304 and 310 as the committee content with these instruments. Agenda item 5 is instruments that are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. The following instruments that are not subject to any parliamentary procedure are the private housing tenancies Scotland Act 2016 commencement number 2 and saving provision regulations 2017 SSI 2017 293. The regulations commence the remaining provisions of the private housing tenancies Scotland Act 2016 on 1 December 2017, with the exception of paragraph 5 of schedule 4, and makes saving provision for existing short assured tenancies. However, no provision appears to have been made to reflect the terms of section 794A or B of the private housing tenancies Scotland Act 2016 in relation to the commencement of section 1 of that act. The Scottish Government has confirmed that this is an oversight and intends to bring forward immediately an amending instrument to make provision reflecting the terms of section 794. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of Parliament under reporting ground G on the basis that it has been made by what appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the powers confirmed by the parent statute? Does the committee agree to welcome the Scottish Government's undertaking to bring forward an amending instrument immediately to make provision reflecting the terms of section 794? We also have the Land Reform at Scotland Act 2016 commencement number 6 transitory and savings provisions regulations 2017 SSI 2017 299. The main provision of those regulations is to commence a number of provisions of part 10 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016, the 2016 act on 30 November 2017. Various provisions in the regulations make provision until the coming into force of section 92 of the 2016 act for all purposes. Various specified enactments are to be read as if references to certain words as expressed within quotation marks in each regulation are omitted. Those words are a repairing tenancy or repairing tenancies as the case may be. Our legal advisers have suggested that the provisions could be more clearly expressed if the precise wording within each enactment falls to be either omitted or modified as the case may require is quoted so that the provision has modified read sensibly. In the case of regulations 5 to 11, regulations 12A to JMN in respect of section 774 of the 2003 act and regulation 13 that precise wording is not quoted in the provisions. The Scottish Government is undertaking to lay an amending instrument before the Parliament to correct an error in regulation 12 at the earliest opportunity and before those regulations come into force on 30 November 2017. There is a committee that therefore agrees to draw the regulations to the attention of Parliament 1 on reporting ground i as there appears to be defective drafting within regulation 12. A limited duration tenancy is defined for the purposes of the regulations as having the same meaning as in section 93 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016. However, the definition is contained in section 93 of the agricultural holding Scotland Act 2003 and on reporting ground h as the meaning of various transitory provisions in the instrument that could be made clearer in a particular respect. That applies to regulations 5 to 11, regulations 12A to JMN in respect of section 774 of the 2003 act and regulation 13. Given the Scottish Government's undertaking to lay an amendment to correct the error in regulation 12 and its indication that it may have been clearer to have drafted the transitory provisions in the way indicated, there is a committee that agrees to call on the Government to so clarify the provisions by means of the amending instrument. Agenda item number 6 is the consideration of motion S5M7795 relating to the Lobbying Scotland Act 2016 reporting procedures resolution 2017. The purpose of the motion is to agree the terms of the Lobbying Scotland Act 2016 reporting procedures resolution 2017. Illegal advisers have not raised any points on this motion. It is a committee content with the resolution set out in the motion S5M7795. Next item of business is the consideration of seat belts on school transport Scotland bill. This member's bill was introduced by Gillian Martin MSP on 28 February 2016. The bill passed stage 1 on 23 May 2017. Amendments were agreed by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee at stage 2 on 28 June 2017. The committee has before it a paper that considers a revision it made to the sole delegative power contained in the bill at stage 2 that inserted a new subsection into the commencement provisions at section 5. The new subsection requires that regulations making provision in relation to the commencement of section 1 may not appoint a day later than 31 December 2018. Section 1 requires a school authority to ensure that seat belts are fitted to each passenger seat that is used for a dedicated school transport service. Illegal advisers have not raised any issues on the amended power. Does the committee agree to find the commencement power in section 5 of the bill as amended at stage 2 to be acceptable in principle? It is a committee content that regulations made under this section will be laid before the Parliament but will not be subject to any further parliamentary procedure. It is a committee content to report to the Llywodraeth Cymru.