 I welcome members to the third meeting in 2016 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and ask members to switch off mobile phones please. I welcome James Kelly as a substitute member for this morning's meeting. Agender item 1 is instruments subject to negative procedure, the public contract Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015 446. The purpose of this instrument is to revoke and replace the public contract Scotland regulations 2012 and to transpose into domestic law directive 2014-24 EU on public procurement. The instrument could be clearer in the following respect. Regulation 2 defines the term central government authority as the authority is listed in schedule 1 and where any such authority is succeeded by another authority, which is itself a contracting authority, their successors. Regulation 2 also defines the term contracting authority as the state, a region or local authority body governed by public law or association formed by one or more such authorities or bodies. Directive 2014-24 EU defines central government authorities as the contracting authorities listed in annex 1. However, the definition of central government authority in regulation 2 does not refer to contracting authorities, but only to authorities. The central government authorities listed in schedule 1 of the instrument are intended to be the contracting authorities for the purpose of the regulations, however the definition of central government authority, SSI regulation 2.1, does not make this policy intention clear. The instrument also contains the following cross-referencing errors. A, paragraph 5, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of regulation 4 refer to respectively paragraph 5a, 5b and 5c. The references should instead be to paragraphs 4a, 4b and 4c. Regulation 38.1 refers to paragraph 9a, however there is no paragraph 9 in regulation 38. Regulation 85, 3a and b refer to respectively regulation 43.11 and 43.10. The references should instead be to regulation 43, 14 and 43.13. Regulation 91.2 refers to paragraph 10b, the reference should instead be to regulation 92.1b. Regulation 99.5 defines the term the utilities amendments as the amendments made to the utility contract Scotland regulations 2012 defined as the UCR by paragraph 9 of schedule 6. The reference to paragraph 9 should instead be to paragraph 8. The new paragraphs 10, 1b and 10, 2 of schedule 3 to the rehabilitation of offenders' exclusions and exceptions Scotland Order 2013 is substituted by paragraph 10 of schedule 6 to the regulations. Refer to regulation 80. The references should be to regulation 79. Members have any comments on any of that, please? Given the apparent willingness of the Government, which I welcome to correct the cross-referencing errors, I think that when we are reopening and relaying this instrument, it ought to take the opportunity to take the ambiguity out of section Regulation 2, as already read into the official report by yourself, convener. It seems reasonable that that should be done and the difference between authority and contracting authorities should be made clear. I cannot see for the life of me why the Government would not want to take that opportunity to remove that ambiguity, which certainly our legal advisers tell us exists, and if they perceive it, then I am certain that other legal advisers in future and solicitors and lawyers will also find that ambiguity. Why would we not take this opportunity to make clear legislation when we have it? Where there is potential doubt about what is before us and there is an amenity order coming, there appears to be no downside in making this clearer. I think that we should seek to have the Government change it. That is pretty pretty clearly the view of the committee. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under the following reporting grounds, reporting ground H, as the meaning of Regulation 2.1 could be clearer, and the general reporting ground, given the cross-referencing errors. We would like the Government to deal with both. The Local Government Pension Scheme Scotland Amendment No. 2, Regulations 2015, SSI 2015 of 448. Regulation 29e of this instrument inserts a definition of the transitional savings regulations 2014 in Schedule 1 to the local government pension scheme Scotland Regulations 2014. However, the Scottish Government has confirmed that the policy intention was to insert a definition of the transitional provisions and saving regulations 2014 in that schedule. The committee may wish to note that the Scottish Government has undertaken to correct the error by a further amending instrument to come into force on 2 February 2016. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the Parliament's attention under the general reporting ground? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Public Bodies Joint Working Integration Joint Board Establishment Scotland Amendment Order 2016, SSI 2016 of 2, Noran Health Board's Membership and Procedure Scotland Amendment Regulations 2016, SSI 2016 of 3. The community right to buy Scotland Amendment Regulations 2016, SSI 2016 of 4. A Local Government Scotland Act 2004, Remuneration Amendment Regulations 2016, SSI 2016 of 6. The Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Order 2016, SSI 2016 of 7 and the representation of the people absent voting at the Local Government Elections Scotland Amendment Regulations 2016, SSI 2016 of 8. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Gender item 2, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Scottish Parliament Elections Returning Office of Fees and Charges Regulations 2016, SSI 2016 of 10. Is the committee content with that instrument, please? Gender item 3, the Transplantation Authorisation of Removal of Organs, etc. Scotland Bill, this item of business for the committee to consider the member in charge's response to its stage 1 report. Do members have any comments on that, please? For as much as we have no comments, is the committee content to note the response? Yes. Thank you. Gender item 5, report on instruments considered by the committee during 2014-15. This is for the committee to consider the Scottish Government's response to its report on instruments considered by the committee during 2014-15. Its correspondence also supplements the committee's oral evidence session held with the Minister for Parliamentary Business on 15 December last year. Do members have any comments, please? On page 4 of our papers, the final paragraph is headed, Bill's containing framework provisions. The minister says that, in the second sentence, there is, however, a place for bills that provide an outline within which policy can be fully developed with stakeholders, then implemented by subordinate legislation. I have some reservations about that sentence. It could be taken to mean a few things. I am more happy if it just means that the vast bulk of the legislation is on the face of the bill, and there is a little bit of movement in subordinate legislation, which I think is what we are aiming at. However, I think that we have seen examples and the way that the sentence is written. It seems to me that it could be much, much wider than that. Even to the extent that there is very little policy in some areas on the face of the bill and far too much left to subordinate legislation. I have to say that I do not fully agree with the minister on that point. I do not know whether we should say that to him or just leave it till later. John Mason, please. I would back up exactly what my colleague John Mason has said. I, too, am very concerned about the apparent trend of leaving policy development to subordinate legislation. An engagement with stakeholders, the Parliament exists to create legislation. That is why we are the elected representatives of the people of Scotland. I do not think that this is a trend that has now emerged for the benefit of creating good legislation. I say that it is a trend because we have had the community empowerment bill last year. We have had the land reform bill and I believe the burials and cremation bill, all to be short of policy on the face of the bill and all three of those bills are now to be developed in subordinate legislation. I do not think that that is what Parliament should be happy about. I would once again draw this to the Government's attention for in as much as we have already raised this with the minister. I welcome, of course, his response in other respects in the letter to the committee. Nonetheless, I think that we should write to him again and say that we are not content with this element and ask him to consider. If this is to be the way that legislation is developed in the future now that we have spotted this trend, as it were, he should come out and say so loudly and clearly and publicly because this is certainly a departure from what has been the lawmaking process hitherto. I think that there are a couple of points that we should put on the record. First of all, that if this approach is being taken to remind all who might be watching our proceedings that we would expect these changes in law to be affirmative instruments. That is a point that we have made quite regularly and it is as well to remake it. Equally, there are affirmative instruments that bring forward new policy and that is an important point for committees who are responsible for the policies that are concerned. It may well be in writing to the minister that we seek in assurance that where secondary instruments are the means by which new policy is brought forward, that timetables will be arranged such that subject committees have adequate time to consider the policy issues, because other subordinate legislation in the policy committees are in essence looking to see whether the secondary instrument properly implements policy that Parliament has already discussed and agreed. I think that there is a difference of approach that it would be helpful to get the Government recognising that difference exists and making appropriate commitments to Parliament that it will ensure that there is sufficient time for the policy changes that are being brought forward by secondary legislation to be adequately and properly considered. So maybe the issue is not the traditional conception of a superaffirmative process whereby there is more consultation but actually maybe a process whereby there is more time deliberately specifically beforehand given to ensure that policy is properly considered. I think that it would be not unreasonable for us as a committee to write to the minister and really ask him to explain how he sees this new process evolving essentially whereby we are developing policy through subordinate legislation because there are nuances such as Stuart Stevenson has accurately described and therefore this should really be a matter for Parliament's wider consideration. I think that this is a product of the fact that we are getting towards the end of the session and I think that whatever government or whatever colour was in place we might be seeing this kind of thing happening because we have also seen throughout this session many bills which have been very thoroughly examined before they were even drafted and consulted on all the rest of it and all of that has been laid out in the face of the bill. So I do think that there is a timing thing and I think that we all accept that we need to speed things up towards the end but when it is a major piece of legislation I think that the land reform was one which is really very wide reaching that is where there has to be adequate time for it in my opinion. Right well on the basis of that discussion which of course is on the record and the government will be listening I shall see if I can draft a letter that we might consider and send to the government as a response to Jeff Fitzpatrick's response to us. If members are content with that thank you. I think that that finishes a gender item 4 at which point I can move us into private.