 I welcome members to the eighth meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I welcome, especially for one of the items this morning, British Sign Language interpreters. As always, I ask members to turn off mobile phones please. Agender item one is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Continuing Care Scotland Order 2015 draft. The Aftercare Eligible Needs Scotland Order 2015 draft. The Post 16 Education Scotland Act 2013, Modification of Legislation Order 2015 draft. The Common Financial Tool etc. Scotland Amendment Regulations 2015 draft. The Advice and Assistance Assistance by Wave Representation Scotland Amendment No. 2 Regulations 2015 draft. The Courts Reform Scotland Act 2014 Consequential Provisions Order 2015 draft. Nor on the Single Use Carrier Bags Charge Fixed Penalty Notices and Amendment Scotland Regulations 2015 draft. However, the committee may wish to note a matter which has been raised in relation to the laying of these instruments. As they are subject to the affirmative procedure, in terms of standing orders, the lead committee has a period of 40 days from the instrument being laid to report on whether it is recommending that the instrument be approved or not. The 40th day for these instruments is the 30th of March. They are not intended to come into force on either the 31st of March or the 1st of April. Let me correct that. They are then intended to come into force on either the 31st of March or the 1st of April. My apologies. Little or no time has therefore been allowed by the Government for obtaining a parliamentary resolution where the lead committee to take the full time permitted by standing orders. As a result, the lead committee will be required to report sooner than the period allowed by standing orders in order for the Government's planned timetable to be capable of being fulfilled. A similar issue has arisen in relation to the following instrument, which is the Scottish Landfill Tax Exemption Certificates Order 2015 draft. While no formal points have been raised by our legal advisers, the committee may wish to note that for that instrument the 40th day postdates the date on which the instrument comes into force. In this case, therefore, less time has been allowed by the Government for the lead committee to report prior to the instrument coming into force than the standing orders permit. The lead committee will be required to report sooner than the period allowed by standing orders in order for the Government's planned timetable to be capable of being fulfilled. It is, of course, possible for the Government to seek a parliamentary resolution more quickly than standing orders allow, but the committee may consider that it would be at least courteous to inform the Parliament that this was the case and the reasons for doing so. Do members have any comments on this? The committee may also wish to note that the single-use carrier bags charged fixed penalty notices and amendments to Scotland regulations 2015 were initially laid on 19 February 2015 and were subsequently withdrawn and relayed on 24 February to correct a typographical error highlighted by our legal advisers. With that laying issue that I have highlighted aside, is the committee content with all the aforementioned instruments, please? Thank you. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the general medical council, fitness to practice and overarching objective and the professional standards authority for health social care references to court order 2015 draft, nor on the healthcare and associated professions knowledge of English order 2015 draft, nor on the healthcare professions public health specialists and miscellaneous amendments order 2015 draft. However, the committee may wish to note that the general medical council, fitness to practice and overarching objective and the professional standards authority for health and social care references to court order 2015 draft was first considered by the committee on 17 February and no points were drawn to the attention of Parliament. However, following comment from the joint committee on statutory instruments at Westminster, the order was withdrawn and relayed on 23 February 2015 to adjust a minor matter. The committee may further wish to note that the healthcare and associated professions knowledge of English order 2015 draft replaces an earlier draft, which was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 4 February, but which was withdrawn by the Scottish Government following correspondence with the committee's legal advisers. The instrument was similarly withdrawn from Westminster by the Department of Health. This relayed version corrects these errors, as well as a few minor points, which were also identified by the committee's legal advisers. Is the committee at content with these instruments, please? Agender item 2, instrument subject to negative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the public bodies joint working integration joint boards and integration joint monitoring committees amendment Scotland order 2015 SSI 2015-66, nor on the land and building transaction tax transitional provisions Scotland amendment order 2015 SSI 2015-71. The committee may wish to note that the first of these two instruments corrects a number of drafting errors and inconsistencies to which the committee drew the Parliament's attention when it considered SSI 2014-285 and SSI 2014-281. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Agender item 3, instrument not subject to any parliamentary procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the children and young people Scotland act 2014, commencement number 7, order 2015, SSI 2015-61, nor on the environmental protection act 1990, commencement number 20, Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015-72, nor on the environment act 1995, commencement number 24, Scotland order 2015, SSI 2015-73. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? We turn now to agenda item 4, which is the British Sign Language Scotland Bill. In examining a bill the delegated powers and law reform committee considers matters such as whether the right balance in the bill overall has been struck between primary legislation and delegated powers, whether delegated powers are properly drafted, and whether a delegated power is subject to the appropriate form of parliamentary procedure. The committee also considers provisions in the bill which give power to do something purely administratively, for example by direction or guidance, and assesses whether they are subject to parliamentary procedure. It is not within the remit of the committee to consider the policy merits of a bill or the policy merits of those powers that it delegates. The committee is asked to agree today questions which it may wish to ask the member in charge of the bill, Mark Griffin MSP, on the delegated powers in the bill. It is suggested that these questions are put to the member in writing. The responses received will then be used to help inform the committee report on the bill, which we will consider at a later date. The member in charge of the bill has produced a delegated powers memorandum which provides information on the subordinate legislation in the bill. The memorandum is available in both English and British Sign Language on the Parliament's website. Section 3 of the bill sets out the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to the preparation of authority plans and gives details of what authority plans must contain. Section 3-4B sets out several matters to which an authority is to have regard in preparing its plan. These include, at section 3-4BV, any guidance relevant either to the preparation or revision of authority plans as may be issued by Scottish ministers. The power to issue guidance is not explained in the delegated powers memorandum and it is not a power to make subordinate legislation. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the member in charge of the bill for an explanation of the following four things? One, why the power to issue guidance is being taken. Two, examples of the provision likely to be made in any guidance issued. Three, why it is appropriate for the power to be exercised by way of guidance rather than subordinate legislation. Four, the form in which the guidance is likely to be issued and the manner of its publication. Thank you very much, convener. It is clear that the power to issue guidance that is taken in the bill is essentially a consequence of the bill providing that bodies need to take account of guidance from Governments rather than being a directly expressed intent. On that basis, we perhaps should simplify what we ask for an explanation by not asking why the power is being taken but rather focusing on the use that is likely to be made of any such power and how it might be exercised. Obviously, this is a very welcome piece of legislation and our interest in it is how guidance may influence the way which, if Parliament passes this legislation, it will be exercised. Do you members have any other comments? I think that it is. I was just wondering will it be possible for the member to answer all of those questions or will some of it have to be referred back to the Government? I am sure that the answer to that is that some of it will have to be referred back to the Government who will be much better familiar with what ministers can and should do. In the context of Stuart's question, I am wondering whether we might just simply ask why the power to issue guidance is being taken and how it is expected to be used. I think that we normally ask for writing in the first instance. It is just the simplest way forward. Were there to be an issue after we have got the writing, then clearly we can ask the member to come. John. I am quite happy with the formal words provided by our legal advisers. I am happy with the formal words provided by our legal advisers. I am happy with the formal words provided by our legal advisers. If it is helpful, I am certainly not going to push the point that I raised. I have made the point on the record and it can be read by the member. I think on that basis we will just leave it as it is if you are happy. Thank you. Section 4 sets out the responsibilities of listed authorities with regard to the publication of authority plans, including the timescales for such publications, Broadly speaking, authority plans are to be published as soon as reasonably practicable after publication of the corresponding national plan. The national plan and authority plans are to be prepared in each session of the Parliament. Subsection 6 provides that in publishing an authority plan or a revised plan, a listed authority is to have regard to any guidance issued by Scottish ministers concerning publication. Again, an explanation of this power has not been included in the delegated powers memorandum. Does the committee therefore agree to ask the member in charge for an explanation of why the power to issue guidance is being taken, examples of the provision likely to be made in any guidance issued, why it is appropriate for the power to be exercised by way of guidance rather than subordinate legislation, and the form in which guidance is likely to be issued and the manner of publication? I suggest to the committee that the previous discussion probably applies. I agree. Thank you very much indeed. That brings us to agenda item 5, which is ministerial correspondence. This is an opportunity to consider the Scottish Government's response to our report on instruments that were considered by the committee during 2013-14. Correspondence also responds to the further issues raised in the committee's oral evidence session with the Minister for Parliamentary Business, which took place on 16 December last year. Members will have seen the correspondence from the Minister for Parliamentary Business. Members have any comments? Part of the minister's response, which I particularly welcome, is that relating to consolidation. The minister draws to our attention that there have been ten consolidations in the reporting year and that more will be laid in the current year. I simply respond by encouraging the minister to keep up the good work and indeed find additional resources to do even more. Should that be possible? I just now seen this letter and read it very briefly. I, too, would support what Stuart has said and would note the positive tone from the minister, which I think is to be welcomed in endeavouring to meet the points sensibly and reasonably raised by this committee. I welcome that approach by the Government, I must say. Thank you for those welcoming words. Any further comments? Does the committee therefore agree to note the correspondence? Much obliged, thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the agenda. Our next meeting will be next Tuesday. I close this meeting. Thank you.