►
Description
1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee will decide whether to take items 7, 8 and 9 in private.
2. European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: The Committee will take evidence on the Legislative Consent Memorandum from—
Chris Skidmore MP, Minister for the Constitution;
Robin Walker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, UK Government.
3. Instruments subject to affirmative procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Registers of Scotland (Digital Registration, etc.) Regulations 2017 [draft]; Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 (Amendment) Order 2017 [draft]; Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 (Authorities) Amendment Order 2018 [draft]; First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Transfer of Functions of the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland) Regulations 2018 [draft]; First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Transfer of Functions of the Scottish Charity Appeals Panel) Regulations 2018 [draft]; First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Health and Education Chamber and Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Composition) Regulations 2018 [draft]; Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Modification of Part 1 and Ancillary Provision) Regulations 2017 [draft]; Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential and Supplementary Modifications) Regulations 2017 [draft].
4. Instruments subject to negative procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber (Procedure) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/328); Development of Water Resources (Designated Bodies: Modification) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/347); Water and Sewerage Services to Dwellings (Collection of Unmetered Charges by Local Authority) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2017 (SSI 2017/348); Rent Regulation and Assured Tenancies (Forms) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/349); Town and Country Planning (Fees for Monitoring Surface Coal Mining Sites) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/350); Section 70 (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/353); Additional Support for Learning (Collection of Data) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/355); Additional Support for Learning Dispute Resolution (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/356); Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Scotland) (Amendment) Rules 2017 (SSI 2017/367).
5. Instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Commencement No. 5, Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2017 (SSI 2017/345 (C.25)); Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 (Commencement No. 3, Amendment, Saving Provision and Revocation) Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/346 (C.26)); Education (Scotland) Act 2016 (Commencement No. 3) Amendment Regulations 2017 (SSI 2017/352 (C.27)).
6. Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will consider its approach to the delegated powers provisions in this Bill at Stage 1.
7. Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will consider the contents of a report to the Justice Committee.
8. European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: The Committee will consider the evidence it heard earlier in the meeting on the Legislative Consent Memorandum relating to the Bill.
9. Report on instruments considered during the first quarter of the parliamentary year 2017-18: The Committee will consider a draft of its first quarterly report for the parliamentary year 2017-18.
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
A
Welcome
Robin
Walker
MP
and
Chris
Skidmore
MP
to
the
meeting
agenda
item
1
the
decision
on
taking
business
in
private
as
proposed
the
committee
takes
items
7,
8,
&
9
in
private.
Those
items
are
the
contents
of
a
report
to
the
Justice
Committee
on
the
civil
litigation
expenses
in
group
proceedings
Scotland
bill.
Consideration
of
the
evidence
heard
on
the
European
Union
withdraw
bill
and
the
committee's
draft
report
on
instruments
considered
during
the
first
quarter
of
the
parliamentary
year.
Does
the
committee
agree
to
take
these
items
in
private.
B
A
So
we'll
move
straight
on
to
agenda
item
2,
which
is
the
European
Union
withdrawal
bill,
welcome
again:
Robin
Walker
MP
parliamentary
Undersecretary
of
State
for
exiting
the
European
Union
and
Chris
Skidmore
MP
Minister
for
the
Constitution
UK
government
to
the
committee
this
morning.
We'll
move
straight
into
questions
I'm,
going
to
take
the
first
few,
so
I
think
we
all
want
to
get
to
a
point
where
all
all
the
parliaments
in
the
UK
can
agree
to
a
legislative
consent
motion.
C
First
of
all,
chair
may
I
thank
the
committee
for
this
opportunity
to
be
able
to
speak
to
you
today
as
the
minister,
the
Constitution
I'm
responsible
for
constitutional
policy
and
democracy
in
the
UK
government.
The
cabin
office
I'm
part
of
the
team
responsible,
taking
this
essential
piece
of
prime
legislation
through
the
UK
Parliament,
and
it's
very
much
in
the
spirit
of
being
able
to
engage
with
you
today
that
I
welcome
this
opportunity.
C
The
process
of
the
bill,
which
is
of
a
SIA
to
reach
the
floor
of
the
House
of
Commons,
is
one
in
which,
as
members
of
the
UK
government,
we
are
extremely
keen
to
engage
all
parties
there
involved
and
while
we
will
be
seeking
initiative,
consent
motion
for
the
bill,
and
that
has
been
stated
repeatedly
by
the
Secretary
of
State
for
Dec
sue,
both
on
the
floor
of
the
house
in
committees,
any
explanatory
notice
to
the
bill.
We
want
to
ensure
that
we
can
work
with
committees
such
as
yourself.
C
We
can
work
with
both
members
of
the
Scottish
Parliament,
with
the
devolved
administration's
with
members.
Scottish
members
of
the
House
of
Commons
I've
recently
had
several
meetings
with
Scottish
members,
the
House
of
Commons,
to
discuss
the
build
on
amendments
we
want
to
ensure
this
is
an
inclusive
process
by
which
we
can
secure
relation
of
consent,
motions
for
this
crucial
piece
of
legislation
which
will
be
needed
in
order
to
ensure
that
come
exit
day.
We
are
prepared,
as
the
United
Kingdom
as
the
internal
market
of
the
United
Kingdom.
C
So
we
have
stability
and
security
for
all
of
our
constituents
across
the
United
Kingdom
for
all
of
those
businesses
who
need
to
ensure
that
you
law
once
retained
into
UK
law,
is
transferred
over
with
the
minimum
possible
disruption,
and
that
is
why
we
want
this
bill
to
take
place
as
rapidly
as
possible
and
to
ensure
that
we
can
obtain
consent,
which
is
why
going
forwards
with
the
committee
process
in
the
House
of
Commons
being
here
today.
We
want
to
ensure
that
this
is
a
conversation
by
which
we
can
pick
up
any
concerns.
Points
of
detail.
D
D
And
so
making
sure
that
we
can
do
that.
We've
as
Chris
said
that
the
consent
that
is
being
sought
is
it's
very
important
in
that
respect,
but
I
think
also
being
clear
that
this
bill
has
been
carefully
drafted
with
a
view
to
preserving
the
devolved
arrangements
as
they
stand
today
and
contains
the
the
mechanisms
for
increasing
the
powers
for
each
of
the
devolved
legislatures.
D
That's
something
that
we've
been
very
clear
that
our
intention,
through
the
whole
of
this
process,
is
for
each
of
the
devolved,
let's
just
seriously,
if
we
can
increase
in
its
powers
and
and
that's
what
we
believe
will
be
the
outcome.
Of
course
you
there
is
the
process
of
committee
stage
to
come
and
you'll
understand
convener,
but
we
can't
preempt
too
much
of
that
process
in
terms
of
discover
discussing
with
detail
of
individual
amendments.
D
Alongside
that,
there
is
also
the
process
of
discussion
which
is
underway
between
the
administration's
and
the
JMC
process,
where
I
think
it's
a
very
positive
thing,
but
we've
seen
agreement
both
on
where
for
common
frameworks
may
be
required,
but
just
as
importantly,
on
the
respect
that
needs
to
be
shown
to
be
existing
devolution
settlement
and
to
protecting
the
powers
for
each
of
the
devolved
legislatures.
Within
that,
okay,.
A
D
Talk
through
that
in
a
bit
more
detail.
Obviously,
we've
had
second
reading
of
the
bill
which
took
place
in
September,
and
we
now
move
into
committee
stage.
The
first
two
days
of
that
committee
stage
have
been
announced
for
the
14th
and
15th
of
November.
There
will,
there
will
be
eight
days
in
all
of
committee
stage,
and
the
devolution
clauses
are
going
to
be
debated
on
the
fourth
and
the
fifth
day
of
that
process.
D
A
We
are
the
committee's
heard
from
witnesses
that
there
are
concerns
about
the
breadth
of
the
powers,
in
particular
wide
reach
of
the
term
deficiencies
and
at
the
same
time,
we
recognize
that
deficiencies
must
arise
from
the
UK's
withdrawal
from
the
EU
in
order
to
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
correcting
power.
So
can
you
explain
how
the
term
deficiencies
is
to
be
understood
in
terms
of
the
powers
in
the
bill
to
prevent
remedy
or
mitigate
deficiencies
in
retained,
EU
law.
D
Simply
the
deficiencies
power
which
is
really
set
out
in
clause
7
is
about
making
sure
that
the
statute
book
works
about,
therefore
recognising,
but
where
there
may
be
references
to
EU
institutions
which
would
no
longer
be
appropriate
in
the
concert
in
the
context
of
our
membership,
for
instance,
but
they're
appropriate
references
made
domestically
in
that
case,
making
sure
that
the
statute
books
are
functional
in
each
part
of
the
UK
and,
very
importantly,
it's
not
about
making
changes
and
I.
Think
it's
one
of
the
things
across
the
whole
approach
to
this
bill
is
that
this
is.
D
C
So
important
to
note
that
when
you're
looking
at
the
deficiencies
that
need
to
be
corrected,
they
have
been
not
only
tightly
defined
in
terms
of
time,
but
also
in
terms
of
scope.
So
there
are
a
list
of
certain
powers
that
cannot
be
enacted
through
the
deficiencies,
power
tax,
raising
powers,
for
example,
and
the
majority
of
these
deficiencies
are
technical.
C
So
when
you
look
at
the
changes
that
are
needed,
this
is
a
process
by
which
we
need
to
ensure
that
the
statute
book
is
ready
for
exit
day
and
to
be
able
to
ensure
that,
with
a
vast
amount
of
legislation
that
needs
to
be
corrected.
This
correction
process
can
take
place
with
a
minimum
possible
disruption.
A
Thank
you.
We've
heard
evidence
that
the
powers
should
be
framed
so
that
they're
available
only
where
necessary
to
correct
deficiencies
in
retained
EU
law
rather
than
where
considered
appropriate
and
I
think
this
was
a
point
raised
in
the
House
of
Lords
delegated
powers
and
regulatory
Reform
Committee
as
well.
So
how
do
you
respond
to
that?
And
what's
your
views
on
that
and.
D
D
C
On
the
point
of
necessary
versus
appropriate,
it's
also
worth
taking
to
account
the
comments
of
the
House
of
Lords
Select
Committee
on
the
Constitution
that,
in
the
night
report
of
their
session,
that
it
will
be
difficult
to
tightly
define
in
advance
the
limits
of
delegated
powers
granted
under
the
bill,
without
potentially
hobbling
the
government's
ability
to
adapt
here
law
to
fit
the
UK
circumstances
following
brexit.
We
do
not
think
it
is
realistic
to
assume
that
the
government
would
have
worked
out
in
advance
of
the
bill
being
said
by
Parliament.
C
What
amendments
we
needed
to
the
corpus
of
EU
law
and
that
being
in
the
case,
it's
unrealistic
to
assume
that
polymer
will
be
able
to
tightly
limit
the
delegated
powers
granted
under
the
bill,
because
it
will
not
be
clear
what
exactly
they
will
be
required
to
do.
So.
It's
in
with
the
you
know
the
context
of
the
negotiations
as
well,
then
also
frame
Sileo.
The
the
question
of
necessary
versus
appropriate.
A
I'll,
just
quote
you
from
the
committee's
report
on
this
subject.
It
says
ministers
have
powers
to
alter
60
years
of
EU
law
when
they
consider
it
appropriate
to
deal
with
deficiencies.
This
goes
much
wider
than
the
government's
white
paper
commitment.
Not
to
make
major
major
changes
to
policy
beyond
those
that
are
necessary
to
ensure
UK
law
continues
to
function
properly.
So
is
this
a
bit
of
a
u-turn?
No.
D
I
think
you
know
we
still
very
much
see
this
as
being
a
bill
which
is
about
pride
in
continuity
rather
than
in
any
way
making
changes
to
policy.
I.
Think
the
the
specific
point
in
terms
of
why
are
purely
using
the
necessary
terminology
in
terms
of
the
drafting
of
the
bill
is
about
making
sure
that
we
are
able
to
act
in
cases
where
there
are
a
number
of
different
options
available
which
is
strictly
necessary,
but
but
I
do
yeah.
D
You've
already
seen
that
in
a
number
of
areas
where
the
government
has
announced
primary
legislation,
and
certainly
after
the
point
of
exit,
there
would
be
further
primary
legislation
to
make
policy
changes,
not
something
that
we
see
as
being
in
the
interests
of
the
United
Kingdom
in
the
meantime,
because
we
recognize
that
people
are
calling
out
for
the
maximum
certainty
and
assurance
through
this
process.
Okay,.
C
To
come
back
on
the
committee
report
in
particular,
they
also
did
state
that
the
bill
itself
will
be
an
exceptional
piece
of
legislation
necessitated
by
the
extraordinary
circumstance
that
breaks
it.
And
while
the
government
may
make
a
wide
case
for
a
wide
array
of
discretion
powers,
it
shouldn't
no
way
be
taken
as
precedent
when
you
considering
the
appropriate
bounds
of
delegated
powers
in
the
future.
C
And
obviously
they
in
that
committee
themselves
went
on
to
recognize
the
sunset
provision
and
the
correcting
power
that
it
could
tell
by
the
sunset
provision
in
subsection,
7,
and
so
therefore,
while
these
are
exceptional
circumstances,
not
to
be
able
to
change
legislation
in
order
to
adapt
to
alleged
of
circumstance
of
leaving
the
EU
I.
Think
the
committee
welcomed
the
fal
of
the
sunset
provisions
were
in
place.
C
A
D
A
D
D
It's
very
it's
a
good
sign,
obviously
with
the
JMC.
The
short
period
of
time
ago
agreed
the
key
principles
of
that
and
I
think
that's
a
very
balanced
agreement
which
reflects
a
respect
for
the
devolution
settlement
and
a
an
agreement
that
there
will
be
a
requirement
for
common
frameworks
in
some
areas.
Obviously,
we
now
need
to
move
forward
with
the
discussions
and
I
know
that
the
Cabinet
Office
is
leading
in
that
process
in
the
GMC
I.
Think.
C
When
it
comes
to
Clause
11,
we've
been
very
keen
to
not
only
state
in
the
clause
itself
that,
when
we
look
at
powers
that
are
currently
held
by
devolved
administration's
that
there
are
no
powers
that
are
currently
held
by
develop,
ministrations
will
be
taken
away
from
those
devolved
administration's.
That's
clearly
stated
in
subsection
4b
of
the
clause
and
when
it
comes
to
subsection
4c
of
the
clause,
there
is
obviously
this
commitment
also
to
releasing
non
common
framework
powers
as
and
when
those
are
suitably
identified,
and
that
was
working.
C
Obviously,
in
conjunction
with
JMC
n
process,
we
have
the
Concordia
degree
Don
the
16th
of
October
to
be
able
to
investigate.
You
know
where
we
understand
common
frameworks,
you
know
will
be
needed.
I
think
it
comes
back
to
this
point
of
certainty
and
understanding
that
we
want,
for
all
of
our
constituents
across
the
UK
to
make
sure
that,
as
we
leave
the
European
Union,
we
do
so
protecting
that
integral
single
market
of
the
UK
single
market
to
ensure
that
we've
got
stability
for
businesses
for
employers
and
I.
C
Think
when
it
comes
to
those
common
frameworks,
that's
the
process,
which
was
there's
another
meeting
of
gem,
C
n
taking
place
in
December
and
obviously
we'll
be
willing
to.
You
know,
get
to
work
as
fast
as
possible
on
this
and
I
think
the
minister
Walker
made.
The
absolutely
vital
point
here
is
that
this
is
work
that
needs
to
happen
now.
This
is
not
work
that
we
will
therefore
create
an
artificial
boundary
and
legislation
to
suddenly
suggest
that
this
work
and
then
be
completed
in
two
years
time.
C
That
can
only
be
delivered
through
having
a
stronger
devolution
process,
and
we
hope
that
by
identifying
you
know
areas
of
non
common
frameworks
that
you
can
be
released.
That
is
why
the
ordering
council
process
the
section
30
process
that
is
already
in
the
Scotland
Act
it
will
be
used
in
future
in
order
to
be
able
to
prove
our
commitment
that
we
want
to
return
more
powers
to
the
Scottish
Parliament
and
to
other
devolved
administration's
the
key.
C
And
this
is
why
I
view
today,
it's
an
opportunity
not
only
to
be
questioned
by
the
committee,
but
to
listen
to
your
concerns
and
to
reflect
on
your
concerns
to
take
those
concerns
back
to
Westminster
and
additionally
to
to
invite
all
members
of
the
committee
that,
if
they
have
any
additional
concerns
that
aren't
raised
today
by
all
means,
do
right
into
the
cabin
office
and
index
you,
because
we
are
in
a
process
of
listening
to
what
needs
to
be
done.
Okay,.
A
D
Think
he
he
was
talking
about
the
the
work
that
is
going
forward
to
move
forward
from
the
last
JMC
to
the
next
one
and
to
look
into
areas
where,
having
agreed
the
principles
on
common
frameworks,
we
can
then
take
forward
some
detailed
technical
work
at
an
official
level
to
begin
to
scope
out
where
common
frameworks
might
be
needed
and
where
they
might
not
I.
Think
it's
really
important,
but
that
work
does
move
forward
and
between
the
governments,
I'm
afraid
I
can't
go
much
further
than
that,
because
I'm
just
reporting
back
on
what
my
colleagues
said.
C
Deep
dive
processes
that
are
currently
being
engaged
and
I
think
you
know
it's
not
betraying
secrets
to
say
that
you
know
there
are
certain
areas
that
are
being
looked
at,
such
as
agriculture
and
justice,
I'm
not
party
to
those
discussions,
but
they
are
taking
place
at
a
regular
if
not
daily,
levels
between
officials
and
yeah,
I.
Think,
as
a
minister
I've
been
struck
by
the
enthusiasm
for
officials
on
both
sides,
it's
devolved
administration's
and
the
UK
government
to
work
together
and
we've
seen
a
significant
levels
of
increased
cooperation.
C
D
Think
the
bill,
obviously
it
holds
the
power
within
the
old,
with
the
orders
in
Council
process
modeled
on
the
approach
taken
in
the
Scotland
Act,
where
common
frameworks
are
agreed
not
to
be
required
to
release
areas
and
where
they
are
required.
Clause
11
provides
for
them
to
be
maintained.
Just
comes
back
to
I
think
the
aims
of
the
bill
really
are
to
provide
continuity,
uncertainty
and
we
need
to
do
that
both
with
regards
to
domestic
statute
books
that
we
have,
but
also
with
regard
to
our
negotiations
with
the
European
Union.
D
In
order
to
show
that
we
can
actually
deliver
on
the
outcomes
that
we
will
commit
to
in
terms
of
any
future
trade
negotiation.
I
think
that's
hugely
in
the
interests
of
all
the
devolved
administration's
and
Parliament's
and
of
the
UK
to
agree
between
ourselves,
and
so
the
fact
that
the
bill
provides
that
mechanism
I
think
is
the
key
thing.
But
of
course,
what
we've,
what
we
said-
and
you
know
what
I
would
have
to
exempt
eyes.
But
we
want
that
conversation
on
common
frameworks
to
move
forward
as
quickly
as
possible.
Okay,.
A
So
one
more
one
more
question
from
me
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
other
members,
so
the
bill
restricts
any
amendment
of
the
Northern
Ireland
Act
1998.
It
does
not
restrict
amendment
of
the
Scotland
Act
1998.
So
why
is
it
appropriate
that
the
provisions
of
the
Scotland
Act
should
be
capable
of
amendment
or
repeal
in
regulations
made
under
the
bill
across.
D
The
whole
range
of
legislation
there
are
references
and
provisions
which
wouldn't
make
sense
when
we
leave
the
EU
and,
unlike
in
other
pieces
of
legislation,
which
would
predominantly
be
corrected
using
the
powers
in
the
bill
through
secondary
legislation.
We
have
recognized
the
special
standing
of
all
three
devolution
acts
and
that's
why
the
bill
corrects
as
many
deficiencies
as
possible
in
the
free
devolution
act
on
the
face
of
the
bill
in
schedule.
3
part
2,
but
you're
right
in
saying
the
bill
maintains
a
correcting
power
for
the
Wales
Act
and
the
Scotland
Act.
D
This
is
limited
only
to
correcting
deficiencies
and
it's
provided
as
a
contingency
arrangement
to
prevent
gaps
in
the
statute
book.
The
Northern
Ireland
act
as
the
main
statutory
manifestation
of
the
Belfast
agreement
and
therefore,
if
it
does
require
correction
that
has
to
be
carried
out
by
primary
legislation,
okey
doke.
C
It
comes
down
to
protecting
the
integrity
of
that
single
market
that
we
want
to
ensure
that
there
is
no
divergence
that
when
we
look
at
you
law,
there
hasn't
been
any
divergence.
They
have
had
those
common
frameworks
and
we
are
just
simply
carrying
on
the
process
by
which
section
2
2
of
the
European
communities
act
1972
operators,
and
that
ensures
that,
as
we
then
look
at
the
establishment
of
where
common
frameworks,
what
we
need
to
not
need
it.
C
D
Mean
I,
just
at
the
point,
I
think.
The
the
key
thing
with
regard
to
schedule,
2
and
close
pen
is
that
this
does
give
important
powers
to
devolved.
This
is
just
to
make
necessary
Corrections
to
bear
statue
folks,
but
it
is
within
the
the
framework
of
existing
EU
frameworks
and
the
approach
that
is
provided
by
those
and,
as
mr.
D
Skidmore
just
said,
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
this
approach
echoes
the
arrangements
that
we
have
at
the
moment
under
European
law,
and
it
returns
to
the
point
that
you
know
the
bill
itself
is
really
about
providing
some
continuity
through
this
process.
Rather
than
making
big
changes,
and
we
certainly
do
think
that
it
reflects
the
existing
balance
of
the
devolution
settlement
in
terms
of
allowing
devolved.
Let's
do
some
administrations
to
take
decisions
in
all
the
areas
where
they
previously
could.
B
Let
me
ask
you
a
sort
of
related
question:
there
is
no
procedure
which
allows
Scottish
Ministers
to
make
regulations
argent
Li,
although
there
is
such
a
procedure
for
available
to
the
UK
Ministers.
Firstly,
can
you
explain
circumstances
in
which
you
would
expect
to
use
this
procedure?
And,
secondly,
why
is
this
procedure
not
available
to
Scot
manners.
C
A
commitment
to
any
when
it
comes
to
delegated
powers
memo
in
for
the
bill.
The
government
has
committed
some
not
normally
using
the
correcting
power
to
amend
domestic
legislation
in
areas
of
devolved
competence
without
the
agreement
of
the
relevant
devolved,
Authority
and
that's
you
know,
commitment
for
engagement
and
consent
that
we
have
looked
at
making
also
in
secretary
David
Davis,
making
the
second
reading
speech,
and
he
comes
back
again
to
that
point
of
certainty
in
control
of
ensuring
that
we
have
a
statute
book
that
is
ready
for
exit
day.
On
that
point
of
exit.
D
Scrutiny
though,
it's
important
to
be
clear
of
it,
we
will
be
absolutely
prepared
to
listen
to
any
suggestions
from
the
Scottish
Parliament
or
the
Scottish
Government
if
they
feel
that
they
approach,
but
we
have
for
the
UK
Parliament
will
be
appropriate.
The
reason
we
haven't
written
that
into
the
bill
is
actually
respect
for
the
fact
that
it
is
the
Scottish
Parliament
at
the
end
of
the
day,
which
sets
its
own
scrutiny
procedures,
and
we
wouldn't
want
to
introduce
a
novel
concept
without
having
had
feedback
from
the
Scottish
Parliament
that
that
would
be
welcomed.
D
Certainly,
if
the
Scot,
if
the
Scottish
Parliament
decided
to
create
such
a
procedure,
it's
got
experience
it's
within
the
competence
of
the
Scottish
Parliament
to
do
that.
But
if,
if
the
committee
feels-
but
this
is
something
that
we
should
be
looking
at
further
from
the
concepts
of
the
bill,
I
would
be
keen
to
hear
that
because
that's
not
something
that
we've
heard
to
date
from
the
Scottish
government
or
the
Scottish
Parliament.
E
You
computer
good
afternoon.
Second,
with
the
same
theme
of
devolved
authorities,
parish,
M,
Clause
17.
There
is
there's
no
equivalent
for
the
devolved
authorities
of
the
power
in
Clause
17
to
make
consequential
or
transitional
provision
and
connection
with
the
Bell.
Are
you
able
to
explain
the
reasons
for
that.
C
Comes
to
consequential
in
transitional
powers,
these
are
usually
actually
standard
powers
that
are
contained
in
most
bills,
so
the
consequential
power
can
only
be
used.
This
in
Clause
17
by
ministers
amend
other
laws,
the
extent
that
they
think
this
is
needed
as
long
as
something
that's
done
by
this
bill.
So
the
transitional
power
is
used
to
manage
the
change
from
the
old
legal
regime
to
the
new
regime
and
shoots
by
the
bill,
and
it's
it's
not
the
normal
practice
to
confer
such
a
power,
an
act
of
parliament
devolved
ministers.
C
For
instance,
in
paragraphs
21
to
23
of
scheduled
aids,
which
introduced
new
definitions
and
the
interpretation
list
form
scotland
acts
as
concepts
created
by
the
bill
which
might
have
been
lost
by
virtue
of
repeating
the
ESEA,
and
we
have
done
so
and
furthermore,
the
devolved
administration's
do
have
consequential
powers
provided
elsewhere
in
the
bill
to
make
consequential
provision
when
the
exercising
their
powers
in
schedule
2,
and
that
means
they
can
make
provision
envisions.
That's
consequential
on
the
secondary
legislation
they
make
using
their
powers
under
the
bill.
C
So
this
in
a
way,
is
it's
not
sort
of
an
exceptional
process.
It
follows
the
existing
pattern
of
legislation
when
applied
to
devolved
administration's,
and
obviously
you
know
that's
what
we
have
done
previously
in
Scotland
and
Wales
acting.
But
if
this
is
so,
you
know
a
concern.
We
welcome
to
to
take
that
back
and
look
again.
Okay,.
C
I
think,
as
Minister
walk
has
said
at
the
beginning,
we
don't
want
to
prejudge
what
takes
place
on
the
floor
of
the
house.
We've
got
committee
stage
and
we
have
I
think
over
a
hundred
amendments
now
made
specifically
around
the
clauses
relating
to
to
devolution
and
I
am
in
a
current
process
by
which
I
will
you
know.
We
are
meeting
some
of
the
authors
of
those
amendments
to
discuss
their
concerns.
C
You
know
it's
our
duty
as
ministers
to
make
sure
that
we
reflect
upon
all
opinions
who
we
value,
input
for
those
people
who
want
to
make
this
bill
work
and
want
to
ensure
that
we
have
HR
dear.
That
creates
stability
and
security
as
we
leave
the
United
Kingdom
and
we
will
listen
to
those
concerns
and
obviously
the
process
of
the
bill
going
forwards.
C
E
You
notwithstanding,
that
of
all
your
mother,
you
know
possible
amendments
and
suggestions,
people
make
and
I
wonder
what
I
shouldn't
sees.
The
ministers
can
give
office
pointing
favorably
and
in
a
timely
manner,
to
requests
from
Scottish
Ministers
for
the
UK
to
exercise
the
powers
in
Clause
17
way,
that's
considered
necessary
I.
E
D
This
is
fundamentally
about
the
question
of
where
frameworks
currently
sit
above
both
Scottish
and
UK
law
at
the
EU
level
and
having
the
conversation
which
we're
having
through
the
JMC
process
about
frameworks.
So
it
is
the
need
in
order
to
provide
the
continuity
uncertainty,
but
is
the
aim
of
the
bill
to
maintain
those
frameworks
where
they're
important,
but
also
to
find
those
areas
where
we
don't
necessarily
need
legislative
frameworks
as
quickly
as
possible
and
agree
between
us.
But
those
can
then
use
the
order
and
council
mechanism
to
move
on.
D
So
this
isn't
an
intention
that
there
should
be
any
permanent
restriction
on
the
powers
that
are
held.
It's
about
making
sure
that
we
have
a
process
in
place
and
to
provide
continuity,
uncertainty
on
the
framework
that
we
have
in
place
and
what
we
also
have
a
process
in
place
to
increase
the
powers
of
each
devolved
administration.
And
that
is
absolutely
our
intent.
That
was
set
out
in
our
white
paper
and,
and
that
will
be
something.
But
we
will
continuing
to
focus
on
through
the
bill.
We.
E
All
appreciate
the
discussions
or
in
common
theme
works
are
ongoing
and
in
terms
of
opportunites
apoo,
the
Minister
for
duty
negotiations
on
Scotland's
place
in
Europe
argued
that
the
Scottish
Ministers
should
have
this
power,
suggesting
that
as
devolution
is
predicated
on
substantiality,
there
should
be
scoped
for
variation
within
the
UK.
What
decisions
me
that
the
appropriate
level?
How
would
you
respond
to
that?
There.
D
Allow
us
and,
of
course,
the
devolved
administration's
already
have
significant
powers
in
some
of
these
areas,
but
they
are
constrained
by
the
frameworks
that
sit
at
an
EU
level
and
what
we're
saying
is
we
want
to
have
a
proper
process
for
agreeing
how
we
treat
those
constraints
going
forward
so
that
there
aren't
some
changes
which
could
disrupt
the
the
functioning
of
what
is
a
very
important
UK
internal
market.
And
so
you
know,
III
I,
think
really.
I
appreciate
that
the
Minister
has
a
different
view
of
what
this
approach
is
set
out.
To
achieve.
D
Our
view
is
that
it
certainly
is
one
that
respects
the
existing
frameworks
of
devolution.
It
respects
the
position
of
the
devolve
letter
to
choose
to
be
able
to
have
their
say
on
on
all
of
these
issues,
but
it
ensures
that
we
have
a
process
for
dealing
with
the
frameworks
that
are
required
to
continue
functioning.
A
B
You
and
fees
and
charges
are
things
that
always
interests
us
schedule.
Four
of
the
bill
confers
a
white
power
on
UK
ministers
and
devolved
authorities
to
create
fees
and
charges
and
connections
with
functions
which
public
bodies
in
the
UK
take
on
exit
and
also
to
modify
those
fees
or
charges.
Now
the
power
goes
beyond
enabling
public
authorities
to
recover
the
costs
of
their
functions.
B
It
is
wide
enough
to
enable
taxation
measures
to
be
imposed,
for
example,
to
cross
subsidize
or
to
cover
the
wider
functions
or
running
costs
of
a
public
body
or
to
lower
regulatory
costs
for
certain
groups
or
sectors.
Why
is
it
appropriate
for
taxation
measures
to
be
included
in
subordinate
legislation.
D
Two
distinct
categories
of
existing
fees
and
charges
relating
to
new
law
fees
and
charges
made
it
an
EU
level
by
institutions
and
agencies
of
the
domestic
fees
and
charges
created
in
the
UK
for
functions
which
UK
public
authorities
perform
stemming
from
EU
law
as
part
of
the
preservation
of
EU
law
directly
affected
provisions
setting
out
how
an
institution
or
agency
can
levy
fees
or
charges
on
individuals
will
be
converted
into
domestic
law.
So
the
bill
enables
us
to
preserve
domestic
UK.
D
Domestic
fees
and
charges
connect
with
EU
law
under
Section
2
2
ECA,
section
57,
Finance,
Act
1973,
but
it
will
repeal
the
former,
and
the
latter
will
no
longer
be
exercisable
in
relation
to
EU
obligations
on
exit,
meaning
your
replacement
power
is
needed
in
order
to
make
and
update
fees
and
charges,
and
this
is
a
very
technical
issue
and
I
can
assure
you
that
there
isn't
any
intention
to
introduce
new
taxes.
And
you
know
broad
powers
are
under
this
area.
It
is
very
much
about
keeping
things
working
in
the
way
that
they
have
done
previously.
D
C
So
powering
for
all
seven
is
also
sunsets
are
not
be
possible
to
keep
these
fees
and
charges
up-to-date
in
line
with
the
changes
to
inflation
and
the
increase
or
decrease
in
the
cost
of
services
and
the
cloth.
7
power
can
only
be
used
for
fixing
deficiencies,
and
not
all
these
fees
will
be
deficient
as
a
result
of
exit
which
is
I.
Therefore
scheduled
for
you
know,
exists,
and
you
know
provides.
C
You
know
to
full
of
Ministers
with
that
power
and
it's
right
that
those
powers
are
there
and
when
it,
boss
fees
and
charges
which
is
set
for
service
on
a
strict
cost
recovery
basis,
aren't
taxes
any
for
your
charge,
which
goes
further
than
direct
cost
recovery.
You
know,
for
instance,
if
it
cross
subsidizes
or
a
compulsory
levy
or
funds.
The
broader
functioning
of
an
organization
you
know
does
suggest
that
you
know
there
are
fees
that
therefore
needs
to
be
flexible
and
therefore
that
power
is
there
in
the
schedule.
So.
D
I
think
this
is
really
about
replicating
the
effect
of
arrangements
that
already
exist
under
the
european
union
and
so
where
there
are
some
bodies
which
are
able
to
apply
fees
and
charges.
Clearly,
it
will
be
necessary
for
us
to
replicate
their
effect
and
it's
allowing
that
maintenance
of
that
effects
to
be
maintained.
But
there's
no
suggestion.
I
think
that
there
would
be
some
litigation
taking
place
in
areas
where
it
didn't
already
take
place
under
the
existing
arrangements
or.
B
To
take
it,
one
step
further
than
the
bill
provides
that
where
regulations
under
this
power
and
pause
a
new
fee
or
charge,
the
affirmative
procedure
will
apply
to
scrutiny
of
those
regulations,
but
where
subsequent
regulations
modify
the
fees
or
charges,
the
negative
procedure
will
apply.
So
in
theory,
then
successive
governments
may
impose
large
or
massive
fee
increases
by
regulation
subject
to
scrutiny
under
the
negative
procedure.
You
know
the
concept
I
think
of
the
10-pound
charge
becoming
a
hundred
later.
Why
is
that
considered?
Appropriate
I.
C
Think
there's
any
change
that
the
government's
aim
is
for
continuity
and
certainty,
and
it's
the
same
Constitution
certainty
that
currently
applies
when
it
comes
to
the
regulation
or
fees
you
know,
as
applicable
so
far
so
I
mean,
for
instance,
when
you
look
at
the
existing
fees
in
charge,
of
course,
the
UK
and
in
fees
the
current
we
made
you
level
by
e
bodies
and
functions
which
will
be
transferred.
You
know
just
take
one
examples
in
the
list
of
example.
C
We
may
negotiate
with
the
EU,
but
the
current
structures
are
fees
and
charging
and
EU
level
are
simply
just
being
carried
over.
So
actually,
what
we've
got
here
is
of
you
know
this
situation
of
continuity
and
stability
rather
than
to
disrupt
a
process
by
which
you
know
we
already
have
arrangements
in
place
as
part
of
our
European
framework
is.
D
The
case
that
again,
just
in
terms
of
this
point
about
replicating
the
current
arrangements,
but
the
scrutiny
procedures
you've
referred
to,
are
also
reflecting
the
current
scrutiny
position
with
procedures,
for
they
exist
for
fees
and
charges.
So
the
creation
of
a
new
one
requires
affirmative
and
the
maintenance
of
those
points
like
updating
them
for
inflation
and
so
on
so
forth
would
only
require
a
negative
procedure,
but
that's
something
that
I'm
happy
to
double-check
and
to
write
back
in
history.
Okay,
maybe.
F
Ok
good
afternoon,
gentlemen,
certainly
the
bill
provides
a
choice
of
three
alleges
of
the
fruits
to
exercise
of
powers
of
Correction
and
regulations
made
by
Yuki
mana
source,
acting
alone,
regulations
made
by
a
devolved
authority,
acting
alone
and
also
regulations
made
jointly
by
the
UK
mana
source,
and
also
the
devolved
authorities,
what
factors
for
determine
the
choice
or
that
it
that's
chosen.
I.
D
C
Take
the
joint
exercise,
you
know
procedure
if,
when
will
be
expected,
joint
sighs
procedure
to
occur,
I
mean
at
the
moment
is
there
to
provide
a
mechanism
through
which
regulations
can
be
scrutinized
by
both
Parliament
evolve
registers.
This
is
light
to
occur.
For
instance,
way.
Devolved
administration
requests
that
the
UK
government
legislate
on
their
behalf,
but
the
appropriate
change
to
retained
EU
law
is
significantly
significant
that
we
agree.
It
would
be
appropriate
for
the
relevant
devolved.
C
Legislations
and
again,
this
is
so
evolutionary
process.
It's
something
that
it's
not
a
sort
of
a
new
creation
of
a
precedent.
So,
for
example,
this
procedure,
the
joint
procedures
been
used
in
by
the
UK
government
and
the
Welsh
government
were
making
the
water
environment
Water,
Framework,
Directive,
England
and
Wales
regulations
2017.
C
These
regulations
consolidated
existing
legislation
and
implemented
the
obligations
to
provide
a
common
strategic
framework
for
the
protection
of
water,
environment,
England
Wales
and
these
regulations
were
made
under
the
to
power
of
the
European
communities.
Act
so
legally
could
have
been
made
by
the
UK
acting
alone.
However,
in
the
circumstances
in
giving
this
significant
policy
content
of
the
stature
instance,
it
was
decided
that
we
appropriate
to
make
them
jointly,
so
the
National
Assembly
for
Wales
could
participate
in
the
scrutiny
process.
C
I
think
there
will
be
a
case-by-case
basis
through
which
we'll
be
looking
at
using
the
joint
procedure,
and
it's
appropriate
also
that
when
it
comes
to
looking
at
sort
of
things
like
that,
you
know
the
conferred
powers
to
UK
ministers
to
act,
we
will
not
seek
to
take
the
that
conferred
power
without
the
agreement
of
the
devolved
administration.
To
start
with,
so
again,
I
come
back.
You
know
to
this
point
of
this
is
the
UK
government.
C
You
know,
on
the
one
hand,
wanting
to
ensure
that,
while
we
take
retained
EU
legislation
forwards
until
we
can
understand
where
the
common
frameworks
need
to
exist
and
where
we
can
further
provide
areas
to
strengthen
the
devolution
settlements,
while
that
process
is
ongoing,
when
it
comes
to
issues
have
retained
to
you
law
Webb.
Traditionally,
there
would
have
been
at
UK
wide
operating
framework.
C
If
we
can
work
together
with
our
devolved
administrations
will
do
so
both
in
terms
of
where
conferred
powers
are
needed
by
asking
for
permission
and
to
try
and
agree
to
a
acceptance
of
that,
but
also.
Secondly,
when
it
comes
to
the
joint
procedure
and
obviously
that's
a
subject
case-by-case
I
said
of
understanding
where
those
significant
issues
arise
and.
F
C
Well,
I
think
when
it
comes
to
the
Scottish
Parliament
I
mean
the
bills
explicit
that
we've
provided
it
for
it's
been
the
legislators.
The
Scottish
Parliament
to
you
know,
change
the
arrangement
when
it
comes
to
scrutiny
and
we
want
to
ensure
that
the
screws
and
the
arrangements
that
are
available
for
the
Scottish
Parliament
obviously
be
decided
by
he
Scottish
Parliament
and
also
with
the
devolved
administration
Scottish
Government,
but
we
want
to
ensure
that
the
Scottish
government
is
able
to
come
up
with
its
own
arrangements.
You
know
for
scrutiny
going
forwards.
You
know
on
these
issues.
C
F
A
follow
on
from
that
then.
Certainly
the
bill
doesn't
provide
for
any
mechanism
for
the
Scottish
Parliament
any
of
regulations
made
by
the
UK
ministers.
Writing
a
wooden
perspective
as
to
whether
the
regulations
are
a
matter
of
significance
of
Scotland
or
a
bit
of
attracted
the
benefit
of
the
sole
convention.
They
hide
that
might
have
been
included
and
remedial
legislation.
Can
you
explain
why
that's
the
case
please?
Well.
C
I
think
the
the
key
point
here
is
to
set
out
as
a
bill.
This
is
simply
the
equivalent
scrutiny
procedures
that
apply
in
the
developed
legislation
and
we've
invited
comments
in
the
Scottish
Government.
They
have
used
the
appropriateness
of
the
scrutiny
arrangements
in
the
bill,
but
when
it
comes
to
defining
scrutiny
in
providing
those
procedures,
so
obviously
it's
an
integral
part
of
creating
a
secondary
legislation
power
and
if
we
don't
have
a
scrutiny
procedure,
that's
specified
when
that
power
has
created.
C
The
legal
position
is
that
power
can
be
exercised
salius
by
the
relevant
authorities
by
simply
making
the
instrument,
without
any
oversight,
for
a
role
for
Leicester.
That
we
believe
would
be
unorthodox
and
irresponsible,
which
is
why
you
know
we
have
created
scrutiny
provisions
in
the
bill
to
ensure
that
the
Scottish
Parliament
provide
for
scrutiny
and
use
of
the
powers.
C
But
we
recognise
the
flexibility
there
that
the
Scottish
Parliament
at
a
later
stage
may
wish
to
tap
those
fruity
procedures
and
I
sad
as
a
government
minister
I
took
through
the
digital
economy
act
last
year
and
just
as
you
know,
give
again
an
evolutionary
principle
by
which
we
have
taken
forward
and
added
into
schedule.
Seven,
you
know
the
sort
of
framework
by
which
scrutiny
should
take
place.
C
So
when
it
comes
to
scrutiny,
yes,
we
have
applied
a
process
of
several
different
kinds
of
you
know:
resolutions
where
they're
affirmative,
where
the
negative
and
whether
made
affirmative,
but
we
want
to
ensure
that
going
forwards.
We
work
with
the
Scottish
government
and
obviously
the
Scottish
Parliament
and
the
Scottish
Government
works
at
the
Scottish
Parliament.
It
also
I
understand
that
we
know
we
recognize
the
Scottish
Parliament
does
have
different
scrutiny,
procedures
and
technicalities.
C
That
obviously
wants
to
be
reflected
in
your
own
ability
to
scrutinize
future
delegated
legislation
regulations,
but
we
want
to
ensure
that
going
forwards
with
the
bill
and
I
think
you
can
see
this
throughout
the
entire
process
of
how
the
bill
has
been
framed.
This
is
about
continuity
and
stability
and
certainty,
which
is
why
we
have
taken
existing
frameworks.
An
existing
legislation.
We've
not
looked
to
create
some
new
constitutional
contexts.
Here.
This
bill
is
a
process
bill
by
which
we
need
to
ensure
that
this
statute
book
is.
C
F
Aspect
regarding
that
minute,
I
didn't
hear
the
issue
of
either
agreement
or
consent
with
Scottish
those
being
mentioned
in
your
reply,
mr.
Skidmore,
and
certainly
with
their
delegated
Perls
memorandum.
You
know
that
states
that
the
UK
government
will
not
normally
use
the
power
to
amend
a
domestic
legislation,
an
idiot
of
the
fourth
competence
without
the
agreement
of
the
relevant
devolved,
Authority
and
I'm,
certainly
very
interested
to
and
more
in
terms
of
what
the
world
normally
actually
means,
and
that
particular
phrase
well.
C
I
think
epsy
rights.
You
know
it's
in
the
delegated
powers.
Member
I
quoted
that
previously
earlier
in
the
session
and
obviously
David
Davis
wrote
to
Mike
muscle
and
Mark
Draper
on
the
13th
of
July
stating
all
commit
at
second
reading.
The
government
would
not
use
these
powers
to
amend
such
legislation
without
first
consulting
you
and
I've
placed
such
commitment
in
the
bills
explanatory
notes,
and
in
second
reading
he
stated
that
the
government
committed
to
ensuring
the
powers
work
for
administration's
and
theirs.
F
C
I
think,
first
and
foremost,
we
have
a
process
now
by
which
we
are
legislating
on
the
II
withdraw
bill.
The
bill,
as
it
exists
in
its
current
form,
is
obviously
subject
to
the
committee
stage
and
the
report
stage
of
the
House
of
Commons.
We
want
a
bill
that
works
for
the
whole
of
the
United
Kingdom.
C
That
works
the
devolved
administration's
that
is
able
to
receive
legend
sent
from
the
devolved
administration's,
and
we
want
to
work
with
you
first
and
foremost,
and
making
sure
we
get
the
bill
rides
and
that
we
take
the
confidence
of
the
Scottish
Parliament
and
the
devolved
administration's
with
us
on
that
process.
So
I
think,
first
and
foremost,
now
we're
here
today
to
listen,
and
we
look
forward
I
think
to
the
committee's
report,
which
feeds
into
the
interim
report
at
the
finance
and
constitution
committee,
which
I
think
is
out
on
the
believe
of
the
23rd
of
November.
A
C
Again,
when
you
look
at
the
bill-
and
you
look
at,
for
instance,
you
Clause
11
I,
said
you
know
when
you
look
at
4c
the
ordering
council
process,
we
put
on
the
face
of
a
bill,
a
commitment
to
ensure
that,
when
it
comes
to
having
established
what
common
frameworks
are
that
we
can
then
use
the
section
30
order,
the
Scotland
Act
to
be
able
to
provide
further
powers
using
the
existing
reserved
powers
model
in
order
to
strengthen
the
devolution
process.
I
want
to
ensure
that
this
legislation
is
seen
as
a
process.
C
This
legislation
is
absolutely
necessary
and
crucial,
but
unfair,
ensuring
that
our
legislative
book,
when
we
exit
the
European
Union,
is
correct
and
is
not
deficient.
That
is
the
purpose
that
this
bill.
The
bill
is
not
to
seek
to
redefine
our
constitutional
processes,
which
is
why
it
has
been
established
on
the
basis
of
the
devolution
settlements
and
successive
devolution
settlements
and
any
reassurances
and
ministers
that
we
can
provide.
We
will
go
away
from
this
committee
and
reflect
upon.
F
Certainly
this
morning,
in
this
session
that
has
been
a
lot
of
positive
comment
which
I
do
welcome,
but
regarding
China
or
trying
to
get
to
a
successful
outcome
for
the
before
nations
within
the
UK
and
some
of
the
core
miss
morning,
mr.
skidmores
talked
about
the
stability
and
security,
also
in
the
process
of
listening
to
what
needs
to
be
done,
and
on
Thursday
and
the
European
Committee
the
sector
State
for
Scotland.
Mr.
Mandel
spoke
of
wanting
to
have
a
united
and
cohesive
approach.
F
It
said
the
scrutiny
is
absolutely
crucial
in
this
and
key
to
this,
and
the
GMC
pros,
which
has
been
touched
upon
by
the
sales
this
morning,
certainly
not
been
a
process
that
has
been
Philly
Philly
but
was
not
been
working.
The
way
it
should
be,
and
in
this
morning
mr.
Mendell
and
and
the
earlier
session
spoke
of,
the
mental
governmental
relations
needs
to
needs
to
do
more
than
is
to
improve
with
that
bit.
F
What
what
which
you
never
said,
what
would
the
UK
government
like
to
do
and,
and
how
do
you
see
the
whole
AGR
process
actually
improving
to
allow
you
not
just
the
the
two
governments
and
now
to
assemble
the
three
covenants?
The
moment
within
the
U
key
to
I
shall
have
a
better
process,
but
also
to
allow
certainly
links
of
the
best
committee
and
also
the
best
Parliament,
to
have
a
bit
of
input
and
take
a
later
input
into
the
process.
I
mean.
D
Probably
a
lot
of
this
fits
within
Chris's
area,
so
I
can
expand
on
this,
but
I
think
from
a
perspective
of
our
department.
We've
recognized
very
much
from
the
start
of
this
process
that
there
is
a
really
important
in
governmental
conversation
to
be
having
around
this
process,
but
we
need
to
be
engaging
with
the
first
ministers,
the
the
relevant
European
ministers.
Of
course,
we've
been.
It
was
been
a
lot
of
direct
contact
between
David,
Davis
and
Mike
Russell,
and
we
need
to
take
that
forward
both
through
JMC
process
and
bilaterally
and
I.
D
Think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
even
whilst
the
JMC
was
not
meeting
for
much
of
this
year,
there
was
a
lot
of
direct
bilateral
contact
going
on
between
ministers.
I
welcome
the
fact
that
James,
he
has
now
reconvened
and
I
think
in
its
nuke
format.
We've
seen
very
welcomed
progress
with
the
statement
on
joint
principles
coming
out
of
that,
but
we
are
very
clear
that
you
know
we
need
to
keep
working
on
this.
D
It
will
be
good
to
be
able
to
detect
it
to
take
that
forward
and
I
can
you
know
both
as
the
minister
responsible,
also
knowing
how
seriously
my
Secretary
of
State's
Exodus.
This
is
a
major
major
priority
for
us,
but
I
know
that
the
Cabinet
Office
is
obviously
leading
on
that
cross.
Government
work,
and
so
Chris
may
want
to
add
on
that
front.
C
I
think
it's
important
to
reflect
on
the
post,
the
vote
in
2016.
The
consequential
effect
of
this
has
been,
you
know,
a
necessary
strengthening
of
that
inter
governmental
process,
not
only
in
terms
of
the
number
of
occasions
by
which
we
can
ensure
that
the
JMC
process
is
enacted,
not
just
JM
C
n,
because
I
was
that
equally
feeds
into
J
MC
P,
but
at
the
same
time,
looking
at
ensuring
we
have
you
stronger
working.
C
We
have
an
opportunity
here
that,
reflecting
upon
the
Union
and
our
understanding
that
we
need
to
protect
the
single
market
that
we
operate
within
the
U
K,
you
know
for
the
livelihood
of
businesses
across
every
border.
At
the
same
time,
when
it
comes
to
not
only
working
together
and
creating
those
strong
bonds
of
cooperation,
we
reflect
upon
the
fact
that
a
strong
union
is
only
as
strong
as
the
devolution
settlement
that
underpins
it
and
I
passionately
believe
that
when
it
comes
to
ensuring
we
have
a
union
that
is
fit
for
the
21st
century.
C
The
rights
and
responsibilities
that
are
reflected
in
devolution
settlements
when
it
comes
to
understanding
sort
of
where
we
may
be
able
to
devolve
further
powers.
That
commitment
is
here
in
this
bill
and
it
will
begin
a
process
by
which
the
common
frameworks
arrangements
and
those
discussions
will
continue,
and
the
concordia
that
was
agreed
on
the
16th
of
october
was
a
huge
step
forwards
in
cross
internet
into
government
or
working
so
I'm,
very
positive
about
the
commitments
of
all
administration's
the
UK
government.
F
Is
that
just
on
that
aspect
as
well,
then
something
that
convener
pause?
The
question
Earley
regarding
the
common
frameworks
on
it
has
been
touched
upon
by
yourselves
this
morning
and
that
clear
was
an
issue
that
was
discussed
and
in
the
constitution
committee
this
morning
and
the
convener
of
that
committee
posed
the
question
of.
Should
the
these
common
frameworks
then
be
placed
on
the
face
of
the
bill
because
they
are
so
important
and
in
the
whole
issue
of
scrutiny
of
these
three
months
should
do
not
have
that
importance
of
ice
being
placed
upon
the
bill.
A
F
Certainly
the
detail,
so
the
detail
of
of
the
issue
of
the
three
mobs
is
absolutely
crucial
for
that
way
of
scrutiny.
Israel
not
just
sitting
within
the
Parliament
was
74
external
organisations,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
the
business
interests,
because
I
think
I
accept
the
comments
medial
of
Smalling
in
terms
of
the
economic
impact
that
let
me
do
November
do
leave
the
EU
to
have
as
less
of
a
negative
impact
as
possible.
F
F
It's
a
test
once
again,
just
regarding
the
issue
of
scrutiny
and
in
terms
of
information
that
that
that
is
available,
the
husband
that
the
discussion
on
the
issue
of
the
58
people's
and
justify
that
they
do
exist
or
don't
exist.
All
the
DT
resolve
these
papers
as
to
whether
the
doer
daughter,
Chester
and
and
the
details
of
of
these
visa.
F
Now
that
this
economic
analysis
and
of
the
sectoral
analysis-
and
this
came
up
also
this
morning
and
the
previous
committee
also
come
up
in
the
European
Committee
here
or
on
Thursday
of
last
week,
and
but
in
terms
of
the
the
details
of
them,
can
you
provide
some
clarity
as
to
what
the
situation
actually
is
regarding
these
peoples?
Do
they.
D
Exist,
I
think
the
most
straightforward
thing
messages
refer
you
to
the
written
ministerial
statement
that
was
posted
by
our
department
earlier
this
week,
which
set
out
some
of
this
detail.
I
also
discuss
some
of
these
things
in
the
debate
in
the
House
of
Commons
the
previous
week
when
we
were
debating
the
original
opposition
motion
on
this
front.
D
So
that's
something
which
I
reiterated
earlier
on.
In
my
evidence
to
the
finance
and
constitution
committee,
there
are,
as
I,
made
clear
in
my
speech
to
the
Commons
debate,
some
legal
constraints
or
ministers
in
terms
of
the
information,
but
we
can
release
and
we
have
to
operate
within
those
legal
constraints
and,
of
course,
because
the
specific
motion
that
we're
dealing
with
asked
us
to
refer
information
to
a
select
committee.
We
do
need
to
make
sure
what
we've
agreed.
The
terms
on
which
information
will
release
with
that
select
committee,
first
and
foremost,
but
I.
Think.
F
D
Certainly
take
note
of
that,
but
I
think
just
you
know.
The
analysis
we're
talking
about
is
sexual
analysis
across
the
UK
economy,
so
I'm
not
I'm,
not
sure
that
would
necessarily
be
a
relevant
consideration,
but
I
will
certainly
need
to
take
note
of
that
and
and
if
that
is
the
case,
we
will
come
back
to
you.
Okay,
thank
you.
Okay,
okay,.
A
C
Think
when
it
comes
to
the
affirmative
procedure
for
call
seven
year,
we
have
establishing
a
new
public
authority
transferring
functions
to
newly
created
public
authorities.
Transferring
alleged
powers
I
powers
to
make
delegates
are
implementing
acts
to
UK
body
if
it
relates
to
fees,
creating
or
amending
criminal
offences
and
creating
or
amending
power
to
legislate,
and
when
it
comes
to
those
restrictions
on
what
could
be
used.
The
affirmative
procedure,
what
then
uses
the
negative
procedure?
I
mean
that
sort
of
does
also
reflect
some
of
the
restrictions
that
are
there
also
in
call
seven
as
well.
C
So
in
terms
of
you
know
the
understanding
that
winning
we've
come
forward
to
take
for
the
secondary
legislation
or
regulations
that
we
have
that
scrutiny
and
the
affirmative
procedure
in
place.
Absolutely
you
know
it's
a
commitment
to
ensuring.
Let's
just
have
that
ability
to
be
able
and
Parliament
has
that
ability
to
be
able
to
monitor
effectively
the
processes
that
are
taking
place
and.
D
I
just
add
in
terms
of
scrutiny,
is
it's
important
that
if
the
bill
as
a
available
for
the
UK
Parliament,
sets
out
a
scrutiny
procedure
before
the
UK
Parliament,
it
echoes
that
for
the
approach
of
a
devolved
Parliament's.
But
we
are
very
clear,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
a
controller
screen
new
procedures.
D
Immutable
parlance
is
further
develop
Parliament's
themselves,
and
so
that
is
something
that
certainly
if
the
tall
pollens
want
to
take
an
approach
to
taking
a
setting
out
kind
of
approach
to
scrutiny
at
their
level,
which
is
different
to
that
set
out
in
the
bill.
There
absolutely
empowered
to
do
say:
okay,.
A
E
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
finish
up
for
in
engagement,
which
likes
into
what
should
be
melons,
been
asking
and
suppose
I.
Don't
scrutiny
and
I'm
aware
that
a
high
volume
of
amendments
and
clauses
and
that
might
just
be
impeached
in
their
job
will
but
I
think
there's
a
feeling
that
there
wasn't
enough
effective
consultation
with
state
row.
E
Stakeholders
during
the
drafting
of
the
bell
desk
committees,
hear
from
some
stakeholders
about
the
needs
for
early
engagement
on
consultation,
drafts
of
regulations
to
be
made
under
their
spell
and
there's
been
a
strong
emphasis
on
how
important
is
ver
stakeholders
and,
of
course,
Parliament
to
have
opportunity
to
propose
amendments
to
draft
legislation.
Today.
Some
of
these
concealed
and
not
should
of
the
ministers,
recognize
them,
but
do
the
minister's
considered
that
there
is
scope
for
strengthened
scrutiny
and
some
areas
along
the
lines
of
I,
suppose
affirmative
procedure.
E
D
I
mean
broadly
in
terms
of
engagement,
I
think
there
has
been
a
huge
amount
of
engagement
around
this
bill.
We
published
a
white
paper
and
we
have
been
engaging.
You
know
up
and
down
the
United
Kingdom
around
the
whole
approach
to
our
EU
exit,
but
within
that
on
this
bill,
this
bill
was
the
approach
to
house
in
this
bill.
Focusing
on
certainty
and
continuity
was
very
much
a
response
to
what
we
have
been
hearing
from
stakeholders
about
the
importance
of
these
matters
and
that's
something
again,
which
is
some
set
out
in
the
government
strategy.
D
So
I
think
there
has
been
a
a
high
degree
of
engagement,
of
course,
you're
right
to
say
there
are
a
very
large
number
of
amendments,
and
we
reason
why
we
have
such
a
long
committee
stage
with
eight
days
in
committee
and
eight
hours
guaranteed
for
each
day
is
because
we
want
to
have
the
opportunity
to
properly
and
fully
respond
to
those
and
recognize
that
there's
been
some.
Some
of
those
amendments
have
been
very
carefully
drafted.
D
It
is
worth
pointing
out,
of
course,
but
a
lot
of
the
large
numbers
of
amendments
are
because
there
are
consequential
amendments
on
some
of
the
key
ones
which
then
have
effect
in
different
parts
of
the
bill.
So
when
we
talk
about
the
devolution
area,
a
large
number
of
the
amendments
are
consequential
or
members
clause,
10
or
11,
which,
which
then
pick
up
in
the
detail
in
the
schedules
but
I
think
with
regard
to
scrutiny,
we
have
to
strike
a
balance.
D
We
want
to
make
sure
that
everything
over
devolves
legislation
was
so
delicate
in
legislation
under
the
bill
can
be
properly
scrutinized
and,
of
course,
there
are
procedures
in
place
to
do
that.
But
we
also
do
need
to
make
clear
that
there
are
a
very
large
number
of
technical
changes
which
need
to
be
got
through
in
the
time
we
have
available
so
a
statute,
but
works
in
time
for
exit,
and
this
is
where
I
think
it's
so
important
that
we
focus
on
getting
the
the
workload
done.
D
I
think
now,
something
which
is
in
the
interests
of
each
part
of
the
United
Kingdom.
We
will
look
very
carefully
at
all
the
suggestions
for
scrutiny
procedures,
but
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
there
are
scrutiny
procedures
that
enable
the
workload
to
be
got
through
in
time
for
our
exit
and
that's
what
that's.
What
one
of
the
mechanisms
by
which
we'll
be
judging
them.
C
To
date,
since
between
the
9th
of
August
1920
4th
of
October
on
my
list
here
when
it
comes
to
UK
government
engagement,
both
its
official
level
and
officials,
talking
with
other
Scottish
government,
Scottish
Parliament
of
Scotland
MPs
or
with
ministers
having
those
discussions,
I
can
count
14
separate
occasions
and
I'm
very
keen
to
ensure
that
there
is
further
engagement
and
certainly
my
doors
open
to
any
Scottish
MPs.
Who
wish
to
to
have
discussed
the
bill
with
me
and
I'm.
C
You
know
have
had
met
with
Tommy
Shepard,
twice
Stephen
Gavin's
once
to
discuss
opposition
amendments
and
I
hoped
you
know
to
meet
with
anyone
who
has
any
issues
with
the
bill
going
forwards.
But
the
wider
point
around
scrutiny
wants
the
bill
is
in
place
and
obviously
we
were
seeking.
You
know
less
of
consent.
Motion
for
the
scrutiny
renders
to
the
bill,
and
that's
why
we've
explicitly
specifically
provided
for
it
to
be
within
the
ledge
of
competence.
C
The
Scottish
Parliament
change
those
arrangements
just
as
its
other
powers
of
the
Scottish
Ministers,
because
that's
in
the
Scotland
that
act
you
know
at
the
moment
the
scrutiny
arrangements
are
simply
the
equivalent
scrutiny
procedures
that
apply
in
the
devolved
legislatures.
They
apply
in
the
UK
Parliament.
But,
as
is
normal
practice,
we've
invited
comments
from
the
Scottish
Government
on
their
views
of
the
appropriateness
of
the
current
scrutiny
arrangements
in
this
bill.
C
We
respect
the
responsibilities
that
evolve
registers
that
they
have
for
how
to
scrutinize
subordinate
legislation
made
by
the
relevant
devolved
authorities,
and
we
remain
open
to
suggestions
or
thoughts
on
how
to
ensure
the
bill
works
in
delivering
a
function
in
statue
book,
including
scrutiny
procedures,
so
very
much
welcome
any
future
engagement.
It's.
E
Helpful
to
know
that
there's
lots
of
conversations
taking
place
between
different
parliamentarians
and
ministers,
but
what
was
thinking?
What
about
in
my
question
is
some
of
the
the
stakeholders
from
outside
of
Parliament
and
could
in
some
environment
organizations
that
we
heard
from
in
this
committee
just
recently
and
whilst
certainty
and
continuities
quite
and
they
start
playing
I,
don't
think
many
of
those
organizations
feel
that
they
have
certainty
and
sympathy
at
areas
of
and
chest
so
again
to
go
back
to
the
question
of
the
super
affirmative
procedures,
nor
some
of
the
government
as
duty
government.
D
We've
made
a
number
of
commitments
publicly
around
the
end,
the
UK
government's
position,
but
we
want
to
be
the
greenest
government
ever
we
want
to
leave
the
environment
in
a
better
state
than
when
Heritage's
and
in
terms
of
our
commitments,
both
international
commitments
and
existing
commitments
on
the
environment
and
certainly
recognize
the
importance
of
the
environmental
stakeholders
in
that
space
I'd
be
meeting
with
many
of
them.
My
Secretary
of
State
has
also
been
meeting.
Many
of
them
I
know.
You've
taken
evidence
from
the
RSPB
in
Scotland,
we've
had
a
number
of
meetings
with
them.
D
Clearly
this
is
an
area
where
we
have
to
make
sure
we're
taking
an
approach
in
the
Bell
which
preserves
the
existing
body
of
environmental
law,
which
it
absolutely
does,
but
we
also
have
to
look
at
what
is
policy
more
broadly
and,
as
my
my
colleague,
Steve
Baker,
said,
to
be
exiting
the
EU
committee
in
this
respect.
Yeah.
D
D
It
is
about
writing
into
place
the
existing
arrangements
and
protecting
those
as
we
exit
the
European
Union
and-
and
that
is
you
know,
I-
think
the
crucial
thing
when
it
comes
to
our
environmental
commitments,
you'll
see
under
Clause
8
there
is,
there
are
powers
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
up
our
commitments
to
international
agreements.
Those
can,
it
would
include
a
number
of
international
environmental
commitments
and
it's
very
important
what
we
do
absolutely
protect
those
as
we
go
through
this
process.
E
You
as
many
things
but
boarding,
isn't
one
of
them
and
I
think
we
all
I
could
importance
of
you
key
ministers
and
Scottish
Ministers
and,
of
course,
officials,
all
working
together
and
having
lots
of
dialogue,
but
I
think
about
using
meteors
is
that
there
is
a
potential
for
overlap
and
sequencing
issues
can
arise
too.
So
I
wondered.
Is
there
an
intent
and
attention
to
establish
a
close
administration
steering
group
I.
C
Think
the
current
process
of
intimate
relations
is
clearly
being
led
through
the
JMC
n
process
and
having
had
that,
Concordia
agreed
on
the
16th
of
October.
That
is
stepping
up
the
level
of
engagement
both
in
terms
of
the
quantity
of
engagement
and
also
the
frequency
of
engagement.
There
will
be
obviously
a
nother
meeting
of
the
gents
en
that
will
be
taking
place
in
December
and
these
processes
all
the
processes
that
have
been
established
and
are
well
used
by
which
engagement
takes
place.
Okay,.
E
C
I
think
I
can
only
read,
you
know,
state
my
willingness
and
the
UK
government's
willingness
to
listen
to
the
Scottish
Government
and
the
Scottish
Parliament
in
terms
of
the
appropriateness
of
scrutiny
arrangements
when
it
comes
to
the
bill,
and
we
respect
you
know
the
responsibility
and
we've
given
the
powers
within
the
bill
that
for
a
later
stage,
obviously
it's
within
a
list
of
competence.
It's
got
a
problem
to
change
those
arrangements,
but
we
want
to
be
in
a
space
where
we
are
listening
to
ideas
that
reflects.
D
Constructively
throughout
this
process
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
system
in
place
that
delivers
for
each
of
the
government's
and
the
devolved
administration's
I
think
you
know
getting
the
statute
books
right
in
time
for
exit
is
a
very
important
duty
on
all
of
us
and
so
therefore
coordinating
the
way
in
which
we
work
on.
That
would
be
welcome.
Of
course,
all
of
that
requires
this
bill
to
move
forward,
and
that
is
something
that
we
need
to
make
sure
we
are
enabling
and
through
all
the
processes
at
hand,
sure.
E
A
D
Think
you
know
formal
and
informal
mechanisms
both
have
their
place
and
they
both
have
their
value.
I.
Think
it's
important
and
I
think
I
mentioned
before
our
focus
through
this
process
is
making
sure
that
we
get
the
statute
book
into
the
right
shape
for
exiting
the
European.
Union
I.
Think
it's
important
in
that
that
we
we
don't
think
that
we
are
aiming
to
rewrite
the
rules
of
the
UK
constitutional
settlement.
A
E
Know-
and
it's
all
every
second
to
tell
you
Matt
I-
can
see
that,
but
there's
going
to
be
a
huge
amount
of
information,
so
I
wondered
what
you'd
be
able
to
see
about
what
the
UK
government
will
do
to
to
share
with
this.
You
know
an
earless
need
to
know
about
the
play
petitions
for
the
volume
and
flow
of
statutory
instruments,
and
when
can
we
expect
to
get
some
information
on
that
I.
D
Think,
that's
a
that's
a
good
question
which
I
think
we'll
have
to
look
into
in
terms
of
when
those
statutory
instruments
have
been
enabled
by
the
bill,
the
best
process
to
deal
with
that.
Obviously,
we
are
looking
at
the
appropriate
mechanisms
with
the
UK
Parliament
for
managing
the
the
volume
of
statutory
instruments
that
we're
talking
about,
and
it
is
a
substantial
volume,
but
it
is
also
as
you'll
appreciate
under
existing
arrangements.
D
We
have
very
large
numbers
of
statutory
instruments,
not
least
under
the
to
powers
under
the
European
communities
act,
and
so
this
is
something
that
the
the
arrangements
are
used
to
handling
certain
amount
of
delegated
legislation
and
I.
Think
in
terms
of
the
approach
we
take
to
the
delegated
legislation
under
this
bill,
it
may
be
that,
as
we
move
forward,
we
will
want
to
find
new
mechanisms
for
communicating
on
that.
C
Understandably,
we're
actively
engaging
with
the
Scottish
Government's
discuss
how
best
to
deliver
the
secretary
legislation
required
for
exit
and
a
behind-the-scenes
of
officials,
building
up
that
shared
understanding
with
develop
administration's
of
where
those
Corrections
to
the
statute
books
what
we
needed.
Obviously
the
Scottish
Government's
best
place
to
assess
their
capacity
and
necessary
resourcing
in
order
to
make
all
of
the
secondary
legislation
required.
C
Prepare
that
statute
book
4x
and
obviously
you
know
we
have
that
commitment
integral
in
the
bill
that
we
believe
that
when
it
comes
to
correcting
deficiencies,
the
Scot,
the
administration's
four
administration's
the
collars
government
knew
our
best
place
to
be
able
to
know
where
those
deficiencies
are.
But
we
want
to
to
work
together,
and
you
know
already,
you
know
we
work
together
frequently
on
ensuring
that
when
it
comes
to
stash
your
instruments,
the
second
legislation
affecting
different
nations
in
the
UK,
you
know
we
have.
C
As
Minister
Walker
said,
you
know,
powers
that
were
modelled
currently
on
the
section
to
to
of
the
European
communities
act
and
we'll
just
see
a
continuation
of
those
working
practices
and
obviously
the
volume
that
will
be
needed
to
be
assessed
of
statutory
instruments.
Obviously,
you
know
will
be
significant
and
we
want
to
understand.
You
know
where
the
Scottish
Government
will
need
assistance
where
possible,
but
we're
determined
to
ensure
that
we
work
this
together,
because
we
know
there's
a
significant
volume
of
legislation
that
requires
deficiencies
to
be
corrected.
C
A
C
Well
he's
my
counterpart,
so
we
cover
all
constitutional
affairs,
so
I
am
in
regular
knowledge.
We've
had
very
constructive
dialog
behind
the
scenes.
Obviously,
when
it
comes
to
the
floor
of
the
house
or
Westminster
Hall
debates
on
other
matters
of
constitutional
theory,
we
may
differ
in
the
UK
government's
position
to
the
Scottish
National
Party's
own
position,
but
so
yeah
I'm
determined
to
ensure
that
we
can
work
together
because
I
believe
in
a
good
mr.
Shepherd.
We
believe
it's
all
in
our
common
interests
of
our
constituents
that
we
do
so
I'm.
A
A
A
2017
is
the
committee
content
with
these
instruments.
Thank
you.
Agenda
item
4
instruments
subject
to
negative
procedure:
the
first
tier
Tribunal
for
Scotland
housing
and
property
chamber
procedure,
regulations,
SSI,
2017,
3
to
8
the
tribunal,
Scotland
Act
2014,
under
which
these
regulations
are
made
created
a
new
structure
for
tribunals,
dealing
with
devolved
matters
and
provided
for
a
first
tier
tribunal
and
an
upper
tribunal.
Within
that
structure,
the
first
tier
tribunal
has
been
divided
into
chambers.
According
to
subject
matter,
one
of
these
is
the
housing
and
property
chamber.
A
These
regulations
make
provision
for
the
rule
a
procedure
for
that
first
tier
tribunal.
Our
legal
advisors
have
drawn
our
attention
to
ten
errors.
Within
these
regulations,
three
of
the
errors
are
recommended
for
reporting
on
significant
grounds.
The
committee
may
wish
to
comment
that,
while
it
notes
the
explanation
given
for
each
of
the
errors
in
the
Scottish
Government's
response,
it's
highly
unsatisfactory
for
the
instrument
to
have
been
laid
before
the
Parliament
in
its
present
form.
The
committee's
role
is
not
to
provide
a
substitute
for
internal
checking
by
the
relevant
scottish
government
department.
A
It's
worth
noting
that
the
government
has
already
responded
to
the
questions
raised
by
our
legal
advisors.
By
laying
an
amending
instrument.
I
should
also
wish
to
point
out
the
committee
expressed
considerable
concern
about
the
last
package
of
instruments
relating
to
tribunals
and
in
that
context,
it's
very
disappointing
that
an
improvement
has
not
been
made.
We've
only
just
been
discussing
the
likelihood
of
a
substantial
increase
in
statutory
instruments.
I
urge
the
government
to
examine
its
quality
control
procedures,
to
avoid
laying
instruments
containing
so
many
errors
in
the
future.
A
Scotland
Act
2014
in
particular,
rule
37
3a
appears
to
preclude
an
appeal
permitted
by
section
46
1
of
the
2014
act
in
relation
to
a
decision
arising
from
a
redesign
didn't
utter
made
by
the
first
tier
tribunal
on
review
on
reporting
ground
I,
as
the
instrument
appears
to
be
defectively
drafted
in
the
following
two
respects.
Firstly,
rule
86
refers
to
the
lesser
making
an
application
under
Section
76
of
the
rent,
Scotland
Act
1984,
and
also
requires
that
the
application
must
be
signed
and
dated
by
the
lessor
or
a
representative
of
the
lessee.
A
However,
as
applications
under
70
Section
76
are
made
by
the
lessee,
those
references
to
lessor
should
be
lessee
seems
a
basic
point.
Secondly,
rule
106,
a
four
and
five
do
not
make
provision
in
relation
to
applications
made
by
landlords
under
section
14,
two
of
the
private
housing
tenancy
Scotland,
Act
2016
on
reporting
ground
H,
as
the
meaning
of
the
instrument,
could
be
clearer
in
the
following
three
respects.
Firstly,
the
term
assured
tenancy
reference
to
the
first-tier
tribunal
and
rule
1.
A
Secondly,
it
could
be
clearer
in
rule
10
for
that
anything
permitted
or
required
under
a
practice
direction,
or
order
may
be
done
by
a
way
representative
on
behalf
of
a
party.
Thirdly,
in
rules
44,
4
and
53,
for
it
could
be
clearer.
The
sufficient
notice
of
an
inspection
should
be
given
in
writing
by
the
first-tier
tribunal
to
both
parties,
rather
than
the
party
on
general
reporting
ground,
the
general
reporting
ground
in
respect
of
the
following
four
issues.
A
Firstly,
subparagraph
F
of
the
list
in
rule
43
one
unnecessarily
duplicates
the
requirement
in
Section
17,
two
of
the
property
factors
Scotland
Act
2011,
which
is
already
referred
to
in
rule
43
1.
Secondly,
the
reference
to
in
rule
69
2,
an
application
under
Section,
36
6,
a
or
6b
the
housing
Scotland
act.
1988
is
incorrect.
Thirdly,
rule
92,
G
in
Chapter.
A
Fourthly,
the
requirements
in
rules
97
1
and
97
2
for
the
first
tier
tribunal
to
notify
both
parties
in
relation
to
the
variation
or
revocation
of
a
letting
agent
enforcement
order,
is
inconsistent
with
rule
96
C,
which
refers
to
more
than
two
parties
and
abet
members,
are
just
grateful
or
not
sitting
in
my
place,
having
to
read
all
these
mistakes
out.
Does
the
committee
wish
to
draw
the
instrument
to
the
attention
of
the
Parliament
on
these
grounds?
A
A
Gender
item
five
instruments
not
subject
to
any
parliamentary
procedure.
No
points
have
been
raised
by
our
legal
advisors
on
SSI
2017,
three
four
five
see
25
three,
four
six
see
26
and
three
five
two
see
27.
Is
the
committee
content
with
these
instruments?
Okay,
in
relation
to
SSI?
Three?
Four:
six:
does
the
committee
wish
to
welcome
that?
The
Scottish
government
has
revoked
and
replaced
the
private
housing
tenancy,
Scotland
knack
2016
commencement
number
two
and
saving
provision
regulations
2017,
which
meets
the
commitment
given
to
the
committee
in
relation
to
that
earlier
instrument.
A
Thank
you.
Gender
item.
Six
housing
amendment
Scotland
bill.
This
is
an
opportunity
to
identify
matters
which
the
committee
may
wish
to
raise
with
the
Scottish
Government
in
relation
to
delegated
powers
contained
in
this
bill.
The
purpose
of
the
bill
is
to
ensure
that
the
influence
which
the
Scottish
housing
regulator
and
local
authorities
can
exercise
over
registered
social
landlords.
A
Rsl's
is
combative,
compatible
with
ourselves
being
classified
by
the
Office
for
National
Statistics
ons
as
private
sector
bodies
in
the
UK's
national
accounts.
There
are
a
number
of
delegated
powers
in
the
bill.
Our
legal
advisers
have
suggested
that
the
following
questions
could
be
raised
in
written
correspondence
with
the
Scottish
Government
question
1
in
relation
to
section
8,
the
delegated
powers
memorandum
indicates
that
the
Scottish
Government
intends
to
use
the
power
in
this
section
only
for
the
purpose
of
providing
the
ons
with
the
basis
for
classifying
RSL's
as
private
sector
bodies
in
the
national
accounts.
A
If
the
bill,
when
enacted,
does
not
achieve
that,
however,
section
8
1
enables
the
modification
of
the
functions
of
the
Scottish
housing
regulator,
which
relates
to
social
landlords,
which
does
not
limit
the
powers
by
reference
to
the
purpose
or
aim
of
securing
the
reclassification
of
RSL's
to
the
private
sector
in
the
national
accounts.
Section
8
2a
also
expressly
enables
different
provision
for
different
purposes.
A
Okay,
question:
2:
the
delegated
powers
memorandum
indicates
that
the
power
in
section
8
would
only
be
used
for
the
purpose
of
providing
the
ONS
with
the
basis
for
classifying
RSL's
as
private
sector
bodies.
Does
the
committee
wish
to
ask
the
Scottish
Government
for
an
explanation
as
to
why
it
is
appropriate
that
section
8
1
enables
the
modification
of
the
functions
of
the
regulator
which
relate
to
social
landlords,
which
includes
local
authority
landlords
and
local
authorities
providing
house
housing
surfaces
in
addition
to
registered
social
landlords?
A
May
it
also
be
asked
how
it
is
anticipated
that
the
power
would
be
used
in
relation
to
social
landlords
apart
from
registered
social
landlords,
okay
and
question
3,
the
delegated
powers
memorandum
indicates
how
specifically
the
Scottish
Government
intends
to
use
the
power
in
section
9.
In
the
first
instance,
it
intends
to
specify
in
regulations
that
local
authorities
may
only
nominate
up
to
a
maximum
of
24
percent
of
the
board
members
of
Norris
L
and
may
not
exercise
control
over
RSL's,
for
example,
through
a
power
to
veto
changes
in
an
RSL's
Constitution.
A
The
Scottish
Government
intends
to
use
the
power
subsequently
if
other
forms
of
local
authority
control
the
amounts
of
public
sector
control
over
RS
else
come
to
light
or
if
the
correct
criteria,
the
ONS
applies
to
determine
public
sector
control
changes
and
such
changes
require
the
powers
of
local
authorities
to
be
amended
further.
To
ensure
that
RSL's
can
continue
to
be
classified
to
the
private
sector.
However,
section
9
1
enables
any
provisions
for
the
purpose
of
limiting
or
removing
the
ability
of
local
authorities
to
exert
influence
over
RSL's
through
a
appointing
or
removing
officers
of
RSL's.
A
And
B
exercising
or
controlling
voting
rights,
section
9
5a
also
enables
different
provisions
for
different
purposes.
Similarly,
to
the
powers
in
section
8,
the
powers
are
not
limited
by
reference
to
the
purpose
or
aim
of
securing
the
reclassification
of
ourselves
to
the
private
sector
in
the
National
Accounts.
A
So
does
the
committee
wish
to
ask
the
Scottish
Government
for
an
explanation
as
to
why
it
is
considered
appropriate
to
draw
the
scope
of
the
powers
in
section
9
in
that
more
general
way
or
whether
the
powers
could
be
drawn
more
narrowly,
while
at
the
same
time
implementing
the
policy
intentions
made?
Also
be
us
so
that
one
thank?
You
may
also
be
asked
why
it
has
been
considered
not
appropriate
to
set
out
the
initial
intentions
for
the
exercise
of
the
power
on
the
face
of
the
bill.