 I welcome you all to the second meeting of the 2017 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I invite members to turn off their mobile phones, if you have not already done so. We will now move to agenda item 1, which is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that the committee take item 5 in private. Item 5 is the consideration of a draft report on the Limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill. Does the committee agree to consider item 5 in private? Thank you very much. We'll now move to item 2, which is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the draft stop and search code of practice, appointed date Scotland Regulations 2017. Is the committee content with this instrument? Agenda item 3 is instrument subject to negative procedure. The first one is the Seed Miscellaneous Amendment Scotland Regulations 2016 SSI 2016 No. 434. Those regulations implement two commission directors 2016 No. 11 and 2016 No. 317 and a commission decision 2016 No. 320. The regulations also meant the Seed Licensing and Enforcement, etc. Scotland Regulations 2016 SSI 2016 No. 68 to correct drafting errors identified by the predecessor committee on 23 February 2016. The meaning of regulation 8.3 of the regulations could be clearer insofar as it amends regulation 15.2 of the Seed Licensing and Enforcement, etc. Scotland Regulations 2016 SSI 2016 No. 68 to include the words, the person refused a licence in circumstances where no formal decision will have been taken to refuse the licence. Accordingly, does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of Parliament under reporting ground H? The Scottish Government has given an undertaking to further amend regulation 15.2 of SSI 2016 No. 68 at the next available opportunity to make that provision clearer. Does the committee agree to welcome that undertaking? At the same time, does the committee agree to note that it is not wholly satisfactory that a further amending instrument is required to correct regulation 15.2 of SSI 2016 No. 68 in circumstances where regulation 8.3 seeks to amend the effective drafting in relation to regulation 15.2, highlighted by the committee previously, and the amendment contained in regulation 8.3 was not made before SSI 2016 No. 68 came into force on 1 July 2016, despite the committee encouraging the Scottish Government to do so. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the licensing of relevant permanent sites Scotland regulations 2016 SSI 2016 No. 433, so it is the committee content with that instrument. We are now moving to agenda item 4, which is the railway policing Scotland bill. The purpose of this item is for the committee to consider its approach to the scrutiny of the delegated powers in the railway policing Scotland bill at stage 1. Specifically, it is an opportunity to identify matters that the committee may wish to raise with the Scottish Government in relation to delegated powers contained within the bill. The policy objective of the bill is to pave the way for the integration of railway policing for Scotland into the police service of Scotland. The bill does this by providing Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority with new powers in relation to railway policing and by removing existing powers in relation to railway policing in Scotland from the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police Authority. The bill contains three delegated powers, two of which are standard ancillary and commencement powers. In relation to the power in the new section 85C of the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012, inserted by section 1 of the bill, does the committee agree to raise the following three questions? The power in the new section 85C of the Police and Fire Reform Scotland Act 2012, inserted by section 1 of the bill, allows the Scottish ministers to impose a time period within which a railway policing agreement or RPA must be entered into by a railway operator specified in the regulations. The Equivalent Power in section 34 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, the 2003 act, does not allow the Secretary of State to impose such a time period. Given that the general approach of the bill appears to be to reflect the existing model set out in the 2003 act in terms of police service agreements, does the committee agree to invite the Government to explain why it is considered necessary to enhance the existing powers in this way and what problem this is intended to address? Question 2 will be, if agreed, and that at section 342 of the 2003 act provides that a railway service provider who is required by subordinate legislation to enter into a police services agreement and who provides railway services without doing so commits an offence and, if guilty, is liable to a fine. This provision is not reflected in the power set out in section 1 of the bill. It appears that the lack of any sanctions in the bill renders the power in section 1 effectively without teeth, since there is no incentive for a specific railway operator to comply with any requirements set out in regulations. Does the committee agree to invite the Government to explain why this different approach has been taken and, in the absence of sanctions, how it is intended to procure the co-operation of specific railway operators in complying with the requirement to enter into an RPA? Question 3 will be, if agreed, that the delegated powers memorandum provided by the Scottish Government suggests that the choice of the negative parliamentary procedure is appropriate for this power, since the initial exercise of the power is likely to broadly maintain the current arrangements for mandatory policing agreements for railway operators in Scotland and any subsequent exercise of the power is likely to reflect changes of an administrative nature. The committee accepts that there may be circumstances in which the power is exercised in response to purely administrative changes relating to specific railway operators. However, the committee does not consider that the power itself is purely administrative in nature, and the committee notes that the requirement for specific railway operators to enter into RPAs with the Scottish Police Authority is fundamental to the operation of the new model for Scotland and therefore to the delivery of the policy intention of the bill. Similarly, the requirement for operators to enter into RPAs will impose on those operators an on-going contractual obligation, which in turn will have an impact on how their businesses are managed and financed. Further, although the committee notes that the Scottish Government's intention to exercise the power initially in a way that broadly maintains the current arrangements, the committee considers that it would in fact be open to the Scottish Government to exercise the power differently, so as, for example, to introduce a modified railway policing model north of the border. For those reasons, it appears to the committee that the exercise of this power is both integral to the delivery of the policy intention and has the potential to fundamentally affect stakeholder interests under the new model. The DPM suggests that the negative procedure is appropriate since the power may require to be exercised relatively expeditiously to respond to changing circumstances. While the committee accepts that certain administrative changes in relation to specific operators might require to be addressed relatively quickly by exercise of this power, the committee does not consider that this alone justifies the choice of the negative procedure for a power that is not of a purely administrative nature. Other bespoke procedures exist for this type of power, which requires to be exercised expeditiously, but which also merits an enhanced level of parliamentary scrutiny. In the light of those concerns, the committee considers that the negative procedure could not provide a sufficient level of parliamentary scrutiny and invites the Government to consider providing for the affirmative procedure instead. Does the committee agree to that? Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of the meeting, so we will now move the meeting into private.