►
Description
1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private.
2. Draft Police Act 1997 and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 Remedial Order 2018: The Committee will take evidence on the Proposed Draft Orderfrom—
Lynne McMinn, Policy Manager, Disclosure Scotland;
Ailsa Heine, Senior Principal Legal Officer, Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Scottish Government.
3. Instruments subject to negative procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/326); Council Tax Reduction (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Amendment Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/357); Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (North Lanarkshire Council) Designation Order 2017 (SSI 2017/342); Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (North Lanarkshire Council Parking Area) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/343); Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (North Lanarkshire Council) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/344).
4. Social Security (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will consider the contents of a report to the Social Security Committee.
5. Islands (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will consider the contents of a report to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
6. Draft Police Act 1997 and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 Remedial Order 2018: The Committee will consider the evidence it heard earlier in the meeting.
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
B
A
Right
officials
from
disclosure
of
Scotland
and
the
Scottish
Government
to
the
meeting
agenda
item
1
is
decision
on
taking
business
in
private
as
proposed.
The
committee
takes
items
four
five
and
six
in
private.
Those
items
are
the
contents
of
a
report
to
the
Social
Security
Committee
on
the
Social
Security
Scotland
bill.
The
contents
of
a
report
to
the
rural
economy
and
connectivity
committee
on
the
island
Scotland
bill
and
consideration
of
the
evidence
heard
on
the
draft
police
act
1997
and
the
protection
of
vulnerable
groups.
Scotland
act,
2007
remedial
order
2018.
A
The
proposed
draft
order
is
brought
forward
in
response
to
the
judgment
of
the
Court
of
Session
in
the
case
of
P
versus
Scottish
Ministers,
which
found
that
certain
provisions
of
the
protection
of
vulnerable
groups,
Scotland
Act
2007,
were
incompatible
with
article
8
of
the
eh
CR.
It's
brought
forward
under
the
general
procedure
for
remedial
orders
under
Section
13
of
the
Convention
Rights
compliance
Scotland,
Act
2001.
A
That
section
requires
that
a
proposed
draft
of
the
order
is
laid
before
Parliament
for
60
days
for
comments
before
a
finalized
draft
is
laid
before
the
Parliament
at
a
later
date.
So,
once
again
we
welcome
Lynne
McMinn
policy
manager
from
disclosure,
Scotland
and
Ailsa
Hany
senior
principal
legal
officer
from
the
Scottish
Government
to
the
committee
this
morning.
D
D
D
Therefore,
this
remedial
or
ajar
cease
address
Louis
particular
issues
by
M,
providing
for
a
rate
of
review
to
a
person
with
a
disclosure
which
contains
an
offence
listed
on
shades,
you'll
eat
e
to
the
police
at
1987
that
so
the
list
of
more
serious
offences
and
the
refinement
that
we're
making
will
provide
a
right
of
appeal
to
the
right
to
make
an
application
to
the
share
of
court
to
have
a
conviction
removed.
If
that
schedule.
D
80
conviction
is
more
than
15
years
old
if
the
person
was
18
at
the
age
of
conviction
or
they
after
seven
and
a
half
years,
if
the
person
was
aged
under
18
at
the
age
of
conviction.
So
we
consider
that
addresses
the
the
two
particular
issues
raised
in
in
P
against
Scottish
Ministers,
the
age
of
the
person
at
the
time
of
conviction
and
the
the
length
of
time
since
the
conviction
was
obtained.
Okay,.
C
D
In
relation
to
in
the
choice
of
a
remedial
order,
we
felt
that
that
was
the
most
appropriate
way
of
responding
to
a
court
judgment
which
identifies
a
specific
defect.
The
convention
rates,
Compliance
Act,
the
2000
of
one,
gives
Scottish
Ministers
powers
to
remedy
primary
legislation
in
circumstances
such
as
these,
and
we
are,
the
court
gave
us
nine
months
in
which
to
fix
the
defect.
A
A
However,
the
opportunity
to
seek
an
independent
review
of
disclosure
of
serious
offences
on
the
basis
of
time
elapsed,
since
the
date
of
conviction
will
not
necessarily
guarantee
that
the
disclosure
system
is
in
accordance
with
the
law
and
proportionate
in
every
case.
What
would
your
response
be
to
that.
C
Faculty
of
advocates
comments
and
we
will
review
them
along
with
other
comments
that
we're
getting
from
the
consultation,
and
we
believe
that
the
provisions
do
and
we
meet
the
judgment
that
lourd
pant
leg.
If
for
P,
we
believe
that
that
is,
and
so
far
as
we
can
see
that
they
do
me
mec2ir
compliance.
C
We
believe
that
the
offense
is
and
that
we
aim
to
discourse
are
so
serious
that
they
should
be
disclosed
for
15
years
or
seven
and
a
half
years
we
were
trying
to
balance
safeguard
on
which
is
the
scourge
of
Scotland's
fundamental
position,
a
job
with
an
sculptural
minute
British.
So
we
tried
to
balance
safeguard,
and
these
are
individuals
applying
to
work
with
the
very
most
vulnerable
and
society,
along
with
them,
the
individuals
right
to
private
life,
and
we
believe
that
we've
got
that
balance
with
these
proposed
provisions.
A
C
D
A
C
Bility
issue
today,
we've
heard
it's
11
responses
to
the
consultation
for
have
been
from
organizations.
11
have
been
from
individuals
and
three
of
the
responses
of
raised
concerns
about
the
lack
of
information
being
disclosed
on
certificate.
There's
seven
of
the
respondents
over
Emily
and
support
the
decision
till
they
were
an
appeal
mechanism
for
individuals
with
AE
offenses.
F
C
15
years
in
seven,
seven
and
a
half
years
and
were
derived
under
the
context
of
the
current
rehabilitation,
offenders
and
periods
for
disclosure,
we
also
looked
at
CHS
and
how
long
certify
a
criminal
conviction
has
she's
kept
on
that
criminal
history
system.
We
believe
that
those
were
proportionate
and
in
the
offenses
that
were
disclosing
and
then
are
very
relevant
to
regulated
work
and
working
with
vulnerable
adults
and
children,
and
we
felt
that
the
templates
were
appropriate
and
we
did
look
at
other
time
frames.
C
But
we
believe
that
these
were
the
most
appropriate
and
time
frames
the
nature
of
the
work
and
the
offenses
that
we'd
be
looking
at
the
schools
for
these
time
periods
and
the
2015
order.
There's
a
number
of
offenses
it
and
minor
offenses
that
don't
get
disclosed
as
soon
as
they
become
spent.
So
these
are
just
the
more
serious
offenses
that
are
related
to
regulate
work.
C
D
So
the
provision
in
relation
the
new
provision
relation
to
the
schedule,
8e
offenses,
it
does
to
tie
in
to
some
extent
with
with
the
provisions
that
relate
to
shade
your
b8v,
and
it
is
to
do
with
the
rehabilitation
of
offenders.
Act
periods
after
which
convictions
become
spent,
and
the
long
is
the
longest
period
of
rehabilitation
under
the
rehabilitation
of
offenders.
Act
in
1974
for
someone
aged
over
18
is
10
years.
D
Therefore,
free
to
was
a
period
of
less
than
15
or
less
than
10
years,
then
the
conviction
wouldn't
actually
be
spent
before
the
person
was
able
to
be
appealing.
Therefore,
we
feel
that
with
the
maximum
a
ten-year
rehabilitation
period
15
years
and
is
then
appropriate
for
the
right
to
make
an
application
for
removal
of
the
convictions.
D
F
Certainly,
the
counting
the
issue
of
hard
cases
and
the
cicadas
coming
can
suffer,
but
but
the
hard
cases
fall
very
close
to
the
light
and,
and
will
they
be
adequately
addressed
by
any
proposed
changes
going
forward
and
hard
cases
by
that
I
mean
I'll,
explain
that
just
in
terms
of
up
to
the
15
years
it
may
be,
someone
may
become
one
most
about
fourteen
and
a
half
years,
no
don't
lay
in
office
at
seven
a
half.
Maybe
there
are
seven
years.
So
it's
getting
close
to
the
line
button
just
normal
over.
At
that
point,.
G
D
Months,
yeah
I
think
the
difficulty
is
that
wherever
we
draw
the
line,
there
will
be
a
hard
case
potential
hard
case
that
falls
on
the
other
side
of
that
line.
The
courts
have
been
quite
clear,
though,
that
government
is
entitled
to
draw
brake
lanes
and
a
the
the
courts
have
also
made
it
clear
that
it's
not
necessary
to
provide
a
rate
of
Appeal
in
every
individual
discipline
case.
Therefore,
we.
A
D
E
F
D
Potentially
and
I
mean-
and
the
courts
are
quite
clearly
stated-
that
is
not
that
they
don't
consider
it
necessary
in
the
disclosure
system
that
that
there
is
an
individual
right
of
appeal
for
every
single
person
who
applies
for
a
disclosure
and
therefore
you
know
they.
We
feel
that
each
of
the
lines
can
be
drawn
somewhere.
D
The
courts
have
said
that
it's
appropriate
to
to
have
a
filtering
system,
and
if,
when
we're
looking
I
think
you
have
to
also
be
in
mind,
we're
looking
at
the
schedule
each
ear
fences
which
are
a
list
of
serious
offenses
they're.
They
work
I'm
chosen,
quite
specifically
at
the
time
of
the
2015
remedial
order
as
being
offences.
D
We
are
the
involved
serious
harm
to
picture
into
to
victims
where
there
had
been
declared
as
a
breach
of
trust
where
this
violence,
where
there
such
reckless
conduct,
the
that
that
would
cause
a
potential
harm
or
or
actual
harm,
and
therefore
all
of
the
offenses
in
that
list
are
offenses,
which
someone
employing
somebody
to
work
in
regulated
work
with
children
are
protected,
adults
or
to
work
in
other
professions
or
any
situations
wherein
have
a
where
higher
level
disclosure
is
available.
Those
types
of
that
type
of
behavior
is
highly
relevant.
E
David
Thank
You
convener
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
on
a
level
of
sentence
and
relevance
of
conviction.
The
proposal
draft
order
provides
for
an
appeal
to
Sheriff
against
disclosure
or
schedule
a
offenses
based
on
a
period
of
time
which
has
passed
since
conviction.
The
discourse
government
consider
also
providing
for
the
right
to
appeal,
based
on
a
level
of
a
sentence
imposed
and
on
the
relevance
of
a
conviction
to
employment,
been
sought.
D
Given
the
nature
of
the
of
the
conviction
and
therefore,
which
we
decided
that
it
wasn't
necessary
to
make
any
specific
provision
regarding
the
length
of
the
sentence
or
and
in
relation
to
the
relevance
of
the
offense
to
the
disclosure
because
of
those
offences
we're
all
specifically
chosen
as
offenses,
which
are
serious
and
involving
certain
types
of
behavior,
then
we
consider
they
are
all
relevant.
When
somebody's
seeking
a
higher
level
disclosure.
E
D
Far
their
criteria-
yes,
yes,
I
mean
that
we're
certainly
happy
to
consider
those
kind
of
comments.
But
when
we
lead
the
draft
order,
we
were
of
the
view
that
it
wasn't
necessary
to
make
any
additional
provisions
and-
and
one
of
the
reasons
for
that.
As
we
did
note
in
the
judgement
in
mp
against
Scottish
Ministers
and
one
part
of
his
judgement,
Lord
Pentland
discussed
possible
solutions
to
designing
a
disclosure
system
which
would
be
more
nuanced,
and
he
said
he
said
and
I
quote
from
the
judgement.
D
There
are
other
possible
ways
in
which
some
greater
element
of
flexibility
might
be
built
into
the
scheme,
as
it
applies
to
the
type
of
conviction
which
the
present
case
involves,
which
was
obviously
a
Schedule,
II,
T
conviction
and
a
for
example.
Provision
could
be
made
for
a
cutoff
date
for
automatic
disclosure
of
convictions
such
as
the
petitioners,
after
the
expiry
of
an
appropriate
length
of
time
following
the
conviction
or
there
could
be
a
derogation
from
automatic
disclosure.
Whether
a
was
committed
during
the
offender's
childhood
and
a
suitable
period
has
elapsed
since
then.
D
So
he
described
those
as
options
for
a
solution,
and
that
is
what
the
remedial
order
provides
for
the
cutoff
point,
where
the
after
15
years
or
seven
and
a
half
years
depending
on
the
age
allowing
the
person
to
to
go
to
the
sheriff
for
a
review
of
whether
the
information
in
the
disclosure
is
still
relevant.
Thank.
E
D
So
we
think
that
you
know
we've
addressed
what
Lord
I
mean
the
Lord
Pentland
says
in
his
judgment,
and
you
know
he
said
that
as
possible
solutions
without
its
setting
at
any
further
criteria.
Obviously
it
was
remarks
Orbiter
and
his
judgment,
but
we
have
to
take
some
guidance
from
from
what
he
said
in
his
judgment.
H
The
committee's
concerns
related,
firstly,
to
the
perceived
need
for
practical
assistance
for
individuals
in
understanding
and
negotiating
the
sheriff
review
procedure
and,
secondly,
to
whether
the
sheriff
review
procedure
has
the
potential
to
alert
a
prospective
employer
to
the
existence
of
a
spent
conviction.
Information
have
any
particular
issues
been
identified
with
the
existing
system
for
appeals
to
the
sheriff
I.
C
Think,
specifically,
is
about
any
concerns
or
issues
around
appeal,
appeal
mechanism.
The
numbers
have
been
so
small,
since
the
appeal
mechanism
came
in
is
quite
difficult
to
draw
any
concrete
conclusions.
We
are,
however,
it's
part
of
the
Pvt
Review
and
the
process
of
contacting
individuals
who
have
intimated
that
they're
going
to
review
to
a
sheriff
to
get
some
feedback
on
the
procedure
in
the
process
and
to
see
there's
any
way
that
we
can
improve
it
or
make
it
easier.
Okay,
just.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
answer.
Could
I
now
move
on
to
the
transitional
provisions
and
ask
you
their
proposed
draft
order
contains
two
transitional
provision
dealing
with
a
transition
from
the
existing
regime
to
the
proposed
new
regime.
How
is
it
envisaged
that
these
provisions
will
work
and
what
considerations
inform
them.
C
Do
you
mean
operational
transitional
position,
a
transition
of
arrangements
basically
operationally?
We
will
and
continue
processing
applications
up
until
the
midnight
on
February
16th
under
the
old
regime,
and
then
any
cases
are
in
the
system
and
then
in
new
cases
from
the
favorite
17th
will
be
processed
under
the
new
regime,
and
we
have
internal
procedures
in
place
to
deal
with
that.
A
Jump
back
to
appeals
before
we
move
on
to
your
next
question:
Allison.
So
the
way
the
system
works
is
somebody.
Somebody
applies
for
a
job
that
requires
disclosure.
The
potential
employer
makes
an
application
for
disclosure,
a
form
comes
to
the
person
who's
applied
for
the
job,
and
they
then
appeal
right.
A
C
C
They'll
have
the
other
employers,
and
some
of
them
may
have
already
discussed
her
conviction,
history
with
their
employer,
some
of
them,
even
if
she,
under
their
own
certificates,
an
employer
but--,
and
we
can't
make
any
comment
like
because
we've
had
no
feedback
to
say
that
there's
any
concerns
release
and
relating
to
that,
there's
also
a
number
of
reasons
why
certificates
and
applicant
certificate
might
be
and
delete.
It
may
be
that
they
filled
it
and
then
correctly,
it's
not
necessary.
They've.
Just
intimated
I
want
to
make
an
appeal.
F
C
B
D
The
there
mate
there
could
be
other
reasons
why
a
certificate
is
delayed
in
terms
of
enhanced
disclosures
or
PVG
scheme
records.
The
police
are
asked
for
each
one
of
those,
whether
there's
what
they
call
other
relevant
information
and
if
there
was
to
be
other
relevant
information,
sometimes
that
takes
quite
a
long
time
to
be
processed.
So
that
would
be
another
reason.
So
it's
not.
It
wouldn't
necessarily
be
a
clear
turn
employer.
D
A
B
H
Regime
and
then
the
following
morning,
another
regime
yeah
and
that's
obviously
deemed
the
better
me
forward
to
vote
he's
quite
harsh
you're
allowing
to
be
drawn.
So
would
you
just
stop
at
5
o'clock
processing
that
bundle
and
then
start
that
bundle
under
a
new
regime
the
following
morning,
but
we
process.
C
M7
12
for
everybody
and
disorders,
Colin
so
and
but
yeah.
We
believe
that
that's
the
best
way
forward
to
also
reduce
their
main
of
their
backlog,
and
we
can
just
I'm
sure
that
certificates
are
dealt
with
quickly
and
move
through
the
process
quickly,
and
we
just
have
a
cut-off
d
is
easier
for
us
and
it's
easier
for
the
applicants.
A
B
H
G
Keep
you
know
good
morning.
The
committee
understands
that
the
Scottish
government
proposes
to
Lee
that
acquired
drafts
affirmative
instrument,
which
makes
connector
changes
to
the
requirement
for
self.
The
school
should
have
passive
agencies
under
the
Rehabilitation
offenders
legislation
to
come
before
the
Parliament.
Following
the
end
of
the
initial
secretary
scrutiny
period
for
the
tools
for
the
proposed
draft
order.
In
order
to
assess
the
committee
and
scrutinizing
how
the
newly
amended
hired
school
judge
regime,
including
self
disclosure,
is
intended
to
work
overall.
D
D
Our
intention
is
that
a
when,
when
this,
the
final
remediate
draft
remedial
order
is
laid
that
it
would
be
laid
at
the
same
time
as
the
draft,
a
formative
order
and
dealing
with
the
changes
to
the
rehabilitation
of
offenders
legislation,
so
that
the
parliament
at
that
point
would
be
able
to
consider
both
pieces
of
legislation
together
and
how
they
operate.
But
we
can
say
we
can
consider
whether
it's
possible
to
to
provide
a
draft.
Thank.
G
You
yeah,
I'm
sure
the
committee
appreciate
your
offer
to
take
that
away
for
consideration.
I'm
in
the
statement
of
reasons
supplied
with
the
proposed
draft,
or
did
you
defer
to
a
weight
at
a
view
of
the
higher
level
disclosure
system?
Are
you
able
to
explain
more
about
their
view
and
how
it
made
impacts
on
the
changes
being
made
by
the
proposed
draft
order.
C
The
review
is
taking
place
currently
and
scottish
ministers
made
a
commitment
to
review
the
PVG
scheme
and
the
whole
and
the
disclosure
regime
in
scotland
in
general.
That's
been
terms
of
reference
were
published
in
february
this
year
and
it's
been
ongoing
and
it's
been
a
collaborative
approach
with
a
large
number
of
stakeholders
have
been
involved.
C
Any
outcomes
of
that
review
in
any
change
the
legislation,
if
that's
required
or
unlikely
to
happen
anything
soon
and
any
amendments
that
we're
making
to
legislation
under
this
remedial
order.
The
previous
one,
it
will
also
be
looked
at
like
I,
said
previously
we're
looking
at
you
as
part
of
the
review.
Whether
or
not
the
appeal
mechanism
in
place
is
working
if
it's
appropriate
and
it's
unlikely
and
that
way
as
I
said,
that
there'll
be
any
major
changes
to
the
disclosure
regime
anytime
soon.
C
C
We're
still
engaging
the
stakeholders
determine
and
what
amendments
need
to
be
made
to
the
current
system
if
any
a
we're
trying
a
work
with,
as
I
said,
it's
a
wholly
collaborative
report,
so
we've
been
engaged
in
we've
engaged
with
over
300
individuals
and
organizations
involved
in
this
quarter.
Regime
in
Scotland
and
Chris
individual
members
of
the
scheme,
as
well
as
organizations
that
use
PVG
and
and
there's
an
awful
lot
work.
We'd
still
have
to
work.
C
C
A
A
A
It's
recognised,
however,
that
the
Scottish
Government
takes
a
contrary
view
since
September
last
year,
a
new
exception
10
to
the
Social
Security
reservation
has
given
the
Scottish
Parliament
powers
to
create
new
benefit
schemes
in
areas
of
devolved
responsibility
where
the
requirements
of
the
exception
are
satisfied,
including
that
the
new
scheme
must
be
funded
by
the
Scottish
consolidated
fund.
In
relation
to
the
council
tax
reduction,
Scotland
amendment
regulations,
2017
SSI,
2017,
41,
considered
by
the
Committee
on
March
the
7th.
This
year.
A
The
committee
suggested
to
the
Scottish
government
that
framing
a
new
discrete
scheme
could
avoid
the
committee's
concern
were
that
scheme
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
exception
10,
which
I
referred
to
earlier?
The
committee
also
highlighted
that
a
new
discrete
scheme
would
have
a
further
benefit
of
accessibility
to
readers.
If
consolidated
regulations
could
be
produced.
A
The
principle
regulations
are
well
in
need
of
consolidation,
as
this
is
the
twelfth
amending
instrument
the
cabinet
secretary
for
finance
and
the
Constitution
wrote
to
the
committee
on
October,
the
4th
in
which
he
undertook
to
be
in
touch
in
relation
to
the
potential
to
consolidate
the
principal
regulations
and
to
update
the
Committee
on
that
issue
in
the
next
few
months.
The
members
have
any
comments,
no
okay,
so
some
questions.
F
A
A
G
I
can
be
no
and
I
had
my
hands
up,
but
I
knew
you,
you
didn't
know
it
sis
and
it
was
just
to
add.
You
know,
Matt
my
agreement
with
the
possession
that
you're
taking
for
me
and
they'll
be
advice
as
important,
and
you
know
we
have
to
make
sure
that
the
legislation
is
competent
because
it
does
Anand
is
e
effect.
A
Okay,
so
move
to
the
proposition,
and
that
is
that
the
committee
considers
that
the
regulations
raised
the
devolution
issue
and
should
be
drawn
to
the
attention
of
the
Parliament.
On
that
basis,
I
would
say:
are
we
agreed
we're,
obviously
not
all
agreed,
so
we'll
move
to
a
vote,
so
those
in
favor
of
of
that
proposition?
If
you
could
raise
your
hands.
A
Yep,
okay,
council
tax
reduction,
Scotland
amendment
number
two:
amendment
regulations,
2017
SSI,
2017,
three,
five:
seven,
this
instrument
instrument
makes
a
specific
amendment
of
the
council
tax
reduction.
Scotland
amendment
number
two
regulations:
2017
to
fully
implement
the
policy
intention
underlying
those
regulations.
Ssi
2017
three
to
six,
which
have
just
considered,
includes
amendments
to
the
council.
Tax
reduction,
Scotland
regulations,
2012
to
enable
income
from
the
new
bereavement
support
payment
to
be
disregarded
when
calculating
an
applicant's
level
of
council
tax
reduction.
Ssi
2017
three
to
six
was
laid
on
October.
A
The
6th
the
Scottish
Government
has
explained
that
shortly
after
that
date,
it
was
identified
that
the
regulations
did
not
fulfill
the
policy
intention
that
income
from
bereavement
support
payments
should
be
wholly
ignored
in
the
council
tax
reduction
scheme
when
calculating
an
applicant's
income.
So,
unless
SSI
2017
3
to
6
was
changed,
it
would
have
the
effect
that
only
20
pounds
of
someone's
bereavement
support
payment
was
disregarded
rather
than
the
full
payment
SSI
2017
3
5
7
now
be
considered,
addresses
that
issue.
This
aims
to
ensure
that
the
original
policy
intention
is
met.
A
So
the
income
from
such
support
payments
is
disregarded
in
full
for
those
of
working-age
for
52
weeks
from
the
date
of
the
first
payment.
Our
legal
advisors
make
the
same
suggestion
as
for
SSI
2017
3
to
6,
but
which
I
mean
that
they
consider
that
the
regulations
raised
a
devolution
issue
as
they
may
relate
to
matters
which
are
reserved
by
section
F,
1
of
part
2
of
schedule,
5
to
the
Scotland
Act
1998
and
again
it's
recognized
the
Scottish
government
takes
a
contrary
view.
E
A
A
A
Furthermore,
the
regulations
were
laid
before
the
Parliament
on
October
the
25th
and
come
into
force
on
November
the
19th.
They
do
not
respect
the
requirement
that
at
least
28
days
should
elapse
between
the
laying
of
an
instrument
which
is
subject
to
the
negative
procedure
and
they're
coming
into
force
of
that
instrument.
As
regards
its
interests
in
the
Scottish
Government's
decision
to
proceed
in
this
manner,
the
committee
may
wish
to
find
the
failure
to
comply
with
section
28
to
be
acceptable
in
the
circumstances.