 Good morning and welcome to the second meeting of the session 6 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I hope all members were able to get a break over the summer and before we do move to the first item on the agenda, I would like to remind everyone present to switch mobile phones to silent. Agenda item 1 is the decision on taking business in private. Agenda item 2 is the consideration of instruments subject to the made affirmative procedure. An issue has been raised on the health protection coronavirus requirements Scotland regulations 2021, SSI 2021-277. The instrument revokes the health protection coronavirus regulations 2021, SSI 2021-277. The instrument revokes the health protection coronavirus regulations 2021, SSI 2021-277. It does, however, retain some requirements still considered necessary by the Scottish Government and provides that these are applied uniformly across Scotland. The instrument still requires that, subject to some exemptions, face coverings are worn in most indoor spaces. The guidance accompanying this instrument states that face coverings are not required to be worn while dancing in a nightclub or dance hall. However, a specific exemption for dancing is not listed in this instrument. In correspondence with the Scottish Government, it considered that dancing is a form of exercise which reasonably requires that the person is not wearing a face covering, which is an exemption provided for by regulation 5R. Does the committee wish to bring the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground H that its meaning or form could be clearer? Also, the instrument revokes the health protection coronavirus Scotland regulations 2020, but fails to revoke all the other instruments that are amended at that instrument. The Scottish Government was grateful that the instrument has been revoked. Does the committee wish to bring the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground, but, at the same time, welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to revoke the relevant amending instruments at the next legislative opportunity? Does anyone have any questions? If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in the comments below. I agree with everything that you have said, but I think that this highlights a problem of the need to be clear in law about what you mean. If it was the Scottish Government's intention that people in nightclubs who are dancing are not required to wear face masks, then why didn't they just say that? The word dancing appears nowhere. Probably the reason it appears nowhere is that it's actually very difficult, if not impossible, to define what dancing is in law. We've seen an example of dancing in a nightclub in Aberdeen over the weekend. Some people may call that dancing, some people won't. One man's backward walk is another man's dancing. It's very, very difficult to define what dancing is in law. The Scottish Government says that dancing can be taking part in exercise of a type which reasonably requires that the person is not wearing a face covering. Of course, dancing can be exercise, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. It's just a recreational activity. It doesn't have to be exercise. It's not necessarily strenuous, so I think it's very, very difficult this. If we want to be clear in law and we do want to be clear in law, I think it's worth highlighting to the lead committee that there are issues with this. I think the reality, probably in nightclubs, not that I've been to one, I haven't been to one for many, many years, is that my guess is that as soon as people get into the nightclub, they're taking their face masks off, whether they're dancing or not. So I think possibly the lead committee ought to be looking at this and just accepting that as a reality. So in terms of clarity of the law, I think this falls down and I think we should highlight to the lead committee. Just in follow-up to Graham's question, which I think looked at the definition of dancing, I'm just wondering about the issue of using 5R, because it opens a question in relation to the context. Obviously, this regulation governs nightclubs, but hypothetically, if I was to then dance my way around as soon as possible, I think that I would be able to do that. Would that then be a form of exercise that would allow me not to wear a mask? Obviously, there are questions that Mr Simpson raised in relation to the definition of dancing. But I also do wonder whether or not the way it's currently framed opens up an issue that we should be alerting to the lead committee in relation to the context and the premises in which that activity takes place. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Paul? Thank you, chair. I think that there may be potential opportunities to investigate how it interacts with licensing law and potential definitions. There are perhaps the committee could express that through the Government and also perhaps looking at the extent to which their experience is being done. I think that I would be able to do that. Thank you, chair. I think that there may be potential opportunities to investigate how it interacts with licensing law and potential definitions. There are perhaps the committee could express that through the Government and also perhaps looking at the extent to which their explanantia note are covering scenarios that are practical where this is likely to be a consideration. Perhaps there could be better definition in the explanantia notes as well. Okay, thank you. Paul? No, nothing in particular to say on that, except to say that we need to refer it back to the lead community in order to ensure that they are not actually dealing with people dancing in the head of a con. ond it's just done. What dancing is and that's the end of it? It's certainly worthwhile the suggestion to write to the lead committee. We should do that, on the points that Graeme Craggyrch raised. The point that Paul raised should be gyda'i gwybod o'r licenswyr. Felly, maen nhw'n rydw i'n ffyrda'r gwerthbwyl, dwi'n gweithio'r ffyrd ar y dioletr. Rydw i'n gweithio'r licenswyr, rydw i'n gweithio'r licenswyr. Felly, gwybod efallai, gan gael. Gweithredu y gael pethol argei'r licenswyr, rydw i'n gweithredu i'r licenswyr On SSIs 2021, 252, 254, 255, 256, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 275, 278. In relation to SSIs 2021, 275, the committee may wish to welcome that shortly after the instrument came into force during the parliamentary recess, the Scottish Government corrected a referencing error in regulation 3 of the instrument by amendment in SSIs 2021, 278. Is the committee content with these instruments? Next item is under agenda item number six. We are considering instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. No points have been raised on the following draft instruments. The provision of early learning and childcare specified children, Scotland amendment number two, order 2021. The conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change, immunities and privileges, Scotland order 2021. The European Union and European Atomic Energy community, immunities and privileges, Scotland order 2021. The national bus travel concession scheme for young persons, Scotland amendment order 2021. Is the committee content with these instruments? Thank you. Agenda item number four are the instruments subject to the negative procedure. Issues have been raised on four of these instruments. The first is SSI 2021-233, the age of criminal responsibility Scotland act 2019, register of child interview rights practitioners regulations 2021. These regulations make provision for the establishment and maintenance of a register of child interview rights practitioners to provide children with advice, support and assistance in relation to their involvement in investigative interviews. Regulation 3-6A provides that a person who is included in the register must comply with the child interview rights practitioners code of practice published by the Scottish government. However, regulation 3-7 of the instrument when compared against mandatory requirements contained in paragraph 17 of the code of practice appear to provide differing notification timescales and requirements for child interview rights practitioners, yet both must be complied with. In light of this, does the committee wish to bring the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground H when the basis stat is meaning or form could be clearer while also calling on the Scottish government to clarify this issue as soon as possible. In addition, there appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the enabling powers conferred by the parent statute. It would be more usual and expected for the Parliament to be given the opportunity to scrutinise the code of practice where there is a requirement in law to comply with it. Does the committee also wish to bring the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground G when the basis stat has been made by Scottish ministers by what appears to be an unusual or unexpected use of the enabling power? The second negative instrument that has been raised is SSI 2021-241, the national health service travelling expenses and remission of charges Scotland number 2 amendment regulations 2021. The instrument amends the original regulations and provides for free dental treatment for all young people aged between 18 and 25. It was laid on 15 June 2021 and came into force on 24 August, however, as the Parliament was in recess from 26 June until 29 August, during which time the clock stops. It was laid less than 28 days before it came into force. It is therefore in breach of section 28.2 of the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland Act 2010, which requires that negative instruments are laid at least 28 days before they come into force, not counting recess periods of more than four days. Do you have any questions? Thanks very much, convener. The reason for this 28-day rule is to allow parliamentary scrutiny. There are occasions where the Government will breach that for very good reasons. It could be emergency legislation and will often accept that. I do not think that this falls into that category. There is simply no good reason, in my view, for the Government to breach this rule. I think that we should be pushing back very strongly on this. The explanation frankly does not wash. Change of minister is not a reason to breach the 28-day rule in my submission. I think that the point regarding the change of minister, clearly the officials will remain the same unless there is a change there, but they will remain the same. It is a valid point that you raise. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of parliament under reporting ground G as it had been laid less than 28 days before it came into force? The committee's expectation is that the Scottish Government should adhere to the 28-day rule to facilitate proper parliamentary scrutiny. Does it nevertheless wish to note that it is satisfied with the explanation, notwithstanding? The explanation provides a failure to comply with the laying requirements, given the particular circumstances in this instance, but notwithstanding the points that Graham Simpson raised a moment ago. We will have the minister in front of the committee in a couple of weeks' time, so it is a point that we could raise directly with the minister at that time. Two drafting errors have been raised on SSI 22.1.249, the council tax reduction scotland regulations 2021. Before we turn to those errors, I first highlight that the instrument will consolidate the council tax reduction scotland regulations 2012, which together with the council tax reduction state pension credit scotland regulations 2012. The session five committee has called on the Scottish Government to do for a number of years, it's a positive start to the new session. Does the committee wish to welcome that the instrument will consolidate the council tax reduction scotland regulations 2012, as the committee has called for previously? The council tax reduction state pension credit scotland regulations 2012 are, however, yet to be consolidated. Does the committee wish to write to the Scottish Government asking if and when those regulations are also to be consolidated? Turning to the drafting errors, there are two incorrect references in both regulations 23H and regulation 77.1 of the instrument. The full details of those references can be seen in the published paper listing, all of the correspondence with the Scottish Government. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting ground in respect of those drafting errors? Does the committee wish to welcome that the Scottish Government intends to bring forward an amending SSI to correct those errors before it comes into force on the 1 April 2022? An issue has also been raised on SSI 2021-274, the milk and healthy snack scheme Scotland amendment number 2 regulations 2021. The instrument makes a number of amendments to the milk and healthy snack scheme Scotland regulations 2021. It was laid on 28 July 2021. It came into force the following day, so it is clearly in breach of the 28-day rule. A letter from the Scottish Government to the signing officer explains that the need to bring the regulations into force with immediate effect was to enable local authorities to make payments for the launch of the Scottish milk and healthy snack scheme on 1 August 2021. This is the second amending instrument breaching the 28-day rule. The instrument makes provision for the basis for calculating payments under the scheme, which is an important aspect of the operation of the scheme itself. Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the reporting ground G, as it has been laid less than 28 days before coming into force? The committee might wish to recognise the necessity for breaching the 28-day rule in this instance. Does it wish to add in its report that it considers the circumstances of the breach to be unsatisfactory in this instance and emphasise that the Scottish Government should normally comply with laying requirements to facilitate timely parliamentary scrutiny of such important policy choices? Finally, no points have been raised on SSI 2021-251. Is the committee content with this instrument? A agenda item number five, we are considering instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised on SSIs 2021-244 and 250. Is the committee content with these instruments? Thank you. I now move the committee into private.