 I welcome members to the 12th meeting in 2016 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I was always asked members to switch off mobile phones, please. Gender item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. It's proposed that the committee takes item 4 in private. This will enable the committee to consider a draft of its third quarterly report for the parliamentary year 2015-2016. Is the committee agreed to take item 4 in private, please? Yes. Thank you. Gender item 2 is the burial and cremation Scotland bill. The item is for the committee to consider the delegated powers provisions in the bill following stage 2. After stage 2, there are a number of new and substantially revised delegated powers in the bill. The majority of the changes reflect the committee's comments at stage 1, and the committee may wish to welcome those changes. Section 66 contains a revised power allowing Scottish ministers to make regulations for or in connection with the licensing scheme for funeral directors' businesses. The revised power takes on board the committee's comments at stage 1 by clarifying that the scheme will apply to the funeral directors' businesses rather than their premises. At stage 1, the committee also considered that licensing schemes ought, as a matter of principle, to be set out in primary legislation rather than delegated entirely to regulations. It was his unchanged after stage 2. Such a licensing scheme could significantly impact on funeral directors. However, it is not possible to assess the impact at present as the bill delegates the making of regulations about the licensing scheme to subordinate legislation. Does the committee agree that the matters relating to the licensing of funeral directors' businesses should be set out more fully on the face of the bill, given their significance? Clearly, one of the very important things that are in the bill is on the back of the ashes from babies and others. If we are going to tackle the sensitive issue and the whole issue of barriers and commissions is sensitive, then we need to have the maximum parliamentary consideration. The Government should certainly be asked to do a wee bit more, but in any event, it is important that we put on the record that the development of a licensing scheme needs to have the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny by whatever means it is achieved. In agreement with that, it is very encouraging that there have been quite a lot of amendments to the bill and taking on board some of the other concerns that we had, but this seems to be the main area where we had concerns and there have not been amendments made. Ideally, I would like to see everything on the face of the bill or as much as possible on the face of the bill. Given the timescales that are happening, that may be difficult, but that would certainly be my desire. I concur with my colleagues in what they have said. I, too, would like to see as much primary legislation on the face of the bill as possible. I do not want to see regulations where they can be avoided. I very much welcome the effort that the Government has made in putting staff on the face of the bill on my loss for words this morning. It is important that the Government is welcomed from being the funeral director's premises to the business. That is a welcome change. I think that, with respect to the power, in a hands-form affirmative procedure, I would be more comfortable with that. I get the impression that colleagues are with me that we need to encourage the Government to set down as much on the bill as it can, recognising the timetables that we are now very obviously operating on. That may be unrealistic. I am wondering whether we should encourage them to see an enhanced form of procedures being appropriate for the regulations when they come forward, given that they are going to be close to the kind of things we would like to see on the statute anyway, and that has by definition an enhanced form of consultation. So I am wondering, clearly I could write to the Government, but even at this stage I am not sure that is terribly helpful, but maybe I should do so. I am just wondering whether we might bring forward an amendment that sets out an enhanced form of procedure for the regulations, in such a way that there is one there to be debated at the very least, rather than run the risk of being, as it were, timed out. I think that, by whatever means it can be achieved, it would be useful for there to be an amendment before Parliament at stage 3, whether it is brought forward by the Government or indeed by you in the name of this committee, so that the matters that are giving us concern can be addressed. If the minister recommends to Parliament the amendment not to be adopted, then that is the position that Parliament takes, at least it would create the opportunity for the record to carry very clear statement of intent of what the Government plans to do in this area. I think that having an amendment from whatever source would be helpful in achieving that. We are very tight for time, but I would be inclined to write first of all to the Government and encourage them to lodge an amendment. However, I suppose that the reality is that we have already suggested that, and they have lodged other amendments and have not lodged this one, so I suppose that I am not wildly optimistic, but I would do that first anyway, and then we should be ready to follow that up with an amendment if we think nothing is happening. It is worth just putting on the record that my understanding is that, convention says that the Government would have put down an amendment by 4.30 this afternoon, which is plenty of time at one level, but not much if you are starting from scratch. Equally, we have until 4.30 tomorrow afternoon to lodge something in the committee's name, which, as I said, I am very happy to do. I would welcome you to communicate with the Government over this issue. If they are not willing to put forward their own amendment, I think that it would be comfortable with you lodging an amendment about the enhanced affirmative procedure in the name on the back of this committee. It is to do with the fact that there are very short time constraints, and it is a stick-and-best outcome. We seem all to be in the same place on this. I do not think that I want to try and draft those words that will be for those around me on reflection to do so. Could I just read you a form of words that you might agree is the principle on which we want to operate? This is principle rather than the actual text, which will very definitely leave to those who are skilled at this kind of thing. However, in order to enable Parliament to properly scrutinise and influence the development of the proposals, the committee would welcome and enhance form of alternative procedure, which includes requirements 4, 1 consultation on draft regulations, 2 consultation responses to be had regard to, and the draft regulations modified as appropriate, and 3 publication of a summary of the consultation responses and any changes that have been made to the draft regulations. Together with the reasons for making those changes prior to final draft regulations being laid before the Parliament, the basis on which we could operate. On that, if it sounds as though the committee is unanimous, that is what I should try and do. Clearly, we will alert the Government to the fact that we are going to do that as a matter of good grace if nothing else, and I will make sure that the committee has drafted and lodged something in our name by 4.30 tomorrow if nothing else appears to supersede that. Members are comfortable with that? Thank you very much indeed. Does that take us everywhere we want to go? Does the committee also agree to report that it is content with the remaining new or substantially revised delegated powers after stage 2? That takes us to gender item 3, which is land reform Scotland bill. This item is for the committee to consider correspondence received from the Scottish Government on stage 3 amendments to part 3 of this bill. The Scottish Government has written to the committee describing its amendments to section 36 of the bill, changing one delegated power and creating one new delegated power. Is the committee content with the proposed delegated powers in section 36, please? Members will also note that we have seen for the first time this morning an amendment, number 140, in the name of Richard Lochhead, which modifies section 89A, relates to land valuations. It seems to be subject to the affirmative procedure, as the committee had desired. Do members have any comments on that, or are we comfortable to acknowledge that? I simply think that it is appropriate to welcome the publication of that amendment and the presiding officer's acceptance of that manuscript amendment. I think that is helpful. Is the proper response to the committee's deliberations and inputs? Is the committee content with the proposed delegated powers? Yes, we are. Thank you very much. That completes agenda item 3, and I now move this meeting into private.