 I welcome members to the fourth meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and asked members to switch off their mobile phones, please. Agenda item 1 is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by illegal advisers on the local government finance Scotland order 2015 draft. Is the committee content with this instrument, please? Intentious. Agenda item 2, instrument subject to negative procedure. Scottish landfill tax administration regulations 2015, SSI 2015 to 3. Regulation 24 to B1 specifies that we're a claimant in relation to documents mentioned in regulation 22. Records required to be kept. Fails to comply with section 99.1 of the Revenue Scotland and Taxpayers Act 2014. Then the claimant shall repay to revenue Scotland. The amount of the claim to which the failure to comply relates. The committee may consider that the meaning of this regulation could be clearer in respect of that. In order for the provision to be fully operable, it appears that regulation should further specify what obligation must be complied with in relation to the documents mentioned in regulation 22. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the attention of the Parliament to the regulations on reporting ground to H, as the meaning of regulation 24 to B1 could be clearer? Two further points have been raised by illegal advisers in relation to this instrument. Firstly, regulation 36.2 provides that the weighing of landfill material shall be carried out at the same time as the disposal, and for this purpose the requirements of section 26 of the act as regards the time at which the disposal is treated as made shall be disregarded. Section 26 has been repealed by paragraph 10.8 of schedule 4 to the Revenue Scotland and Taxpayers Act 2014. The reference to section 26 is therefore redundant and is a failure to follow proper drafting practice. Secondly, regulation 11.7 refers to section 74 of the Revenue Scotland and Taxpayers Act 2014 in relation to the taxpayer's right to amend a return and to sections 100 to 103 of that act in relation to defences by Revenue Scotland of unjustified enrichment. There are drafting errors as those references are incorrect. The references should be to section 83 and to sections 109 to 112. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the attention of the Parliament to the regulations on the general reporting ground on these two points? I would also say that if the Government is going to amend that regulation 11.7, why would they not, at the same time as they are going back to the same piece of work, take out the redundant section 26? Well, indeed. The question that I was about to ask the committee and will is whether we agree to note that the Scottish Government has undertaken to amend the incorrect reference in regulation 11.7 before the regulations come into force on 1 April 2015. I suspect that we will want to note that, but why not do the other while you are there? It seems like a perfectly fair question. Absolutely. Sorry to pre-enter you. That is all right. I think that we have agreed on all of that. The Tweed Regulation Amendment Order 2015, SSI 2015.11, the instrument fails to comply with the requirements of section 28.2 of the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland Act 2010. The instrument was laid before the Parliament on 20 January 2015 and will come into force on 31 January 2015. The instrument does not respect the requirement that at least 28 days should be elapsed between the laying of an instrument that is subject to the negative procedure and the coming into force of that instrument. As you are aware, it is a slightly unusual piece of legislation in that it actually has effect in parts of England because of the need for regulation around the Tweed basin to be uniform for the basin. The Scottish Parliament legislates for that part of the Tweed that is in England, and under English processes we would expect to see 21 days notice given, although it does not appear that legislatively that would be a requirement on that. However, in this case, we have a mere 11 days, so it would be, in my view, good practice in a jurisdiction where 21 days is the norm for us as a matter of preference to exercise that as well, and we perhaps ought to note that too. It meets neither the normal requirements in England nor our own. I identify myself completely with what Stuart Stevenson has just said. More importantly, there is a real risk of people being put in the position of committing an offence without being aware that they are given that the notice of this change has not been properly circulated within the timescales available, and I would hope that, should someone inadvertently commit an offence during this introductory period, that that might be taken into consideration should such an offence be committed—the Government's mistakes. Do members have any other comments? I do have a suspicion, given the debate that has been about this within the Angling fraternity, that there will not be many people who are not aware of it, but, of course, within the context of this committee, it is absolutely committed to the idea that we should get things done properly, and good timing is essential. Does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground J, as it failed to comply with the requirements to section 28.2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Act 2010? Further to this, the committee may wish to report that it finds the failure to comply with section 28 to be unsatisfactory in the circumstances of the instrument, as the instrument creates one new criminal offence and modifies the application of another. No points have been raised by our legal advice on the Local Government Scotland Act 2004 remuneration and severance payment amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-7, nor on the disabled person's badges for motor vehicles Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015-9. Is the committee content with those instruments, please? John? Just for clarification, is that correct to say that this is the first increase for councillors, and it is 1 per cent since 2007? That is eight years. It is not a misprint or anything, is it? I am certainly not qualified to comment. Give me half a moment. John? I think the answer to the question is that nobody can immediately tell you. My comment would just be that it seems incredibly small increase for eight years, but thanks to that, that is not our decision. Indeed, and of course, as a matter of substance, that is not what our committee has found as an interesting observation. Is the committee content with those instruments, please? John? Thank you. Gender item 3, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the disabled person's parking badges Scotland Act 2014, commencement order 2015, SSI 2015-8, nor on the courts reform Scotland Act 2014, commencement number 1, order 2015, SSI 2015-12. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Gender item 4 is the Human Traffiting and Exploitation Scotland Bill. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers in the bill at stage 1. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the Scottish Government on the delegated powers in the bill. It is suggested that these questions are raised in written correspondence. The committee will have the opportunity to consider the responses at a future meeting before the draft report is then considered. Section 8 of the bill requires the Scottish ministers to secure for an adult during the relevant period such support and assistance that are considered necessary, given the adult's need in the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a victim of an offence of human trafficking. The power in section 8 to be one of the bill enables the Scottish ministers to prescribe in regulations an end date to the relevant period during which they are required to secure support and assistance for an adult and they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a victim of offence of human trafficking. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain further why, given the significance of the provision, it is considered appropriate that it should be subject to the negative procedure? Section 38 of the bill confers power to make such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision as ministers consider necessary or expedient for the purposes of or in connection with any provision made by or under the act. The words or under appear to expand the scope of the ancillary powers so as to enable them to make a freestanding ancillary provision for the purposes of or in connection with provision made in subordinate legislation made under the act. Does the committee agree to ask the Scottish Government to explain why this form of wording has been chosen for this bill and what its effect is considered to be? Gender item 5, the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Bill UK Parliament legislation. The purpose of this item is to consider the powers to make subordinate legislation conferred on Scottish ministers in this bill. Members will recall that we considered the bill last week and agreed to write to the Scottish Government for an explanation in relation to the powers in sections 149 to 151 and a proposed new section, the relevant amendments containing the powers were tabled in the House of Lords on 7 January 2015. Those sections provide the Treasury and Scottish ministers with power to make regulations requiring a public sector employee or office holder in receipt of an exit payment as a result of leaving work or the relevant office to return the payment or a proportion of it. Given the potential significance of the powers, the committee asked the Scottish Government why it was considered appropriate that the regulations made by Scottish ministers under section 149 of the bill should be subject to a negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure. The committee may consider that the Government's response does not provide a suspicion to explanation as to why the negative procedure is considered appropriate. Does anyone have any comments? It does strike me, convener, that perhaps on this occasion the use of the negative procedure may make some sense. It is not clear that the requirements that we would normally expect that would lead us to say that it should be an affirmative procedure are present in this case. It does appear to be a matter of detail rather than a matter of creating legislation. I think that it is a fine distinction, but I am not clear that we really should particularly object to it being negative in this case. Members have any other comments? The proposal is that we should suggest to the Government via the lead committee that I should reconsider that being negative. I would propose otherwise, convener, that, while we draw it to the attention, we should make no recommendation as to it being changed. Members might just want to look at it again, and if they with their perhaps deeper insights into the problem can come to a view. Effectively, I have the proposal, John. I do have a lot of sympathy for it being the affirmative procedure because I feel that this is such a sensitive area, and it is of considerable interest to the public. It has been an area where there have been problems in the past, which is presumably why this is coming in, so I would lean towards the affirmative procedure. Can I suggest to the committee that, clearly, there are differences of opinion, and it is certainly not something that we should be voting on. I am not going to even suggest that. I am wondering whether we should simply report to the committee that we are clearly concerned that it is not affirmative, not entirely convinced by the Government's response, and suggest that they might like to consider that from a policy point of view, because that is what they are about, and our concern is processed. Would you be comfortable with that? I think that if we can find a form of words, which is not quite what we normally do, but let us address it like that then, thank you. If you are comfortable with that, I think that that takes us to the end of that, and I think that it takes us to the end of the agenda, so thank you very much, and I will now close this meeting.