►
Description
www.parliament.scot
-
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
I
can
welcome
everyone
to
the
37th
meeting
in
2018
of
a
delegated
powers
and
Law
Reform
Committee,
and
before
we
moved
to
the
main
item
of
business,
we
just
decide
on
taking
business
in
private
and
it's
proposed
that
we
take
items
5
in
private.
This
is
consideration
of
the
evidence
we're
about
to
hear
from
the
Minister
for
parliamentary
business
and
Veterans.
Does
the
committee
agree
to
that.
B
A
Gender
item
to
consideration
of
the
work
of
the
committee
during
the
parliamentary
year,
2017
218
we
have
before
us
today,
Graeme
dey
Minister
for
parliamentary
business
and
veterans.
The
Minister
is
accompanied
by
Steve
MacGregor
of
the
Parliament
and
legislation
unit,
Luc
McBratney
Constitution
and
UK
Relations
Division
and
Paul
Coquet,
the
Scottish
Government
legal,
Directorate
and
you're.
All
very
welcome
thanks
for
coming
Minister
understand.
You've
got
some
opening
remarks.
Thank.
C
You
with
your
indulgence,
can
be
no,
yes,
I'll
keep
it
brief.
The
last
thing
when
I
appeared
before
you
I
think
I
said
that
the
committee
had
a
hugely
important
role
in
scrutinizing
the
delegated
polls,
that
ministers
and
others
ought
to
be
given
through
new
acts
and
and
in
scrutinizing
the
use
of
existing
pearls.
That
I'm
very
much
the
mean
of
that
view.
I
think
you
carry
a
very
important
duty
for
the
Parliament.
C
With
regard
to
today's
principle
topic,
the
sixth
annual
report,
the
committee
I,
welcome
them
the
fact
that
report
highlights
the
improvements
made
by
the
government
across
a
number
of
aerial
areas
in
the
last
report
in
years,
particularly
pleased
that
the
committee
had
reported
that
the
quality
of
instruments
from
the
government
has
continued
to
improve
the
reports
equated
with
the
fact
at
the
stand
of
the
legislation
brought
forward
is
generally
high,
but
I
absolutely
accept.
That
was
always
room
for
improvement
and
I
intend
to
deliver
on
that
wherever
possible.
A
A
As
you
say,
we
welcome
the
the
overall
improvement
in
the
quality
of
secondary
legislation,
but
we
were
disappointed
to
see
the
number
of
instruments
drawn
to
the
attention
of
the
Parliament
under
the
three
most
significant
reporting
grounds
had
increased
so
and
if
he
can
tell
us,
I
mean
that
they
they
predate
your
appointment.
I
wonder
if
you
can
tell
us
what
you're
doing
to
address
that.
Well,.
C
I
absolutely
take
that
point
on
board
and
well
are
they
pretty
my
appointment
or
not
I'm
responsible
for
them
and
I'm
here
to
answer
to
them?
There's
quite
a
lot
of
walk
going
on
what
was
put
in
place
by
my
predecessor,
Joe
Fitzpatrick,
in
which
I
I'm
ensuring
continues.
It
might
be
useful
to
care
in
to
detail
some
of
that
around
the
impact
of
brexit.
C
Thank
you
talk
to
me
in
the
third
quarter
of
the
reporting
year
to
congratulate
the
government
for
the
lowest
level
of
instruments
reported
on
since
the
production.
The
quarterly
reports
began,
which
was
obviously
a
positive,
but
what
we
do
have
a
comprehensive
and
ongoing
training
program
for
drafters
and
the
boss
checks
put
in
place
at
each
point
in
the
process.
C
So,
ideally
you
wouldn't
have
mistakes
being
made,
but
we're
all
human.
It
happens.
We're
trying
to
drive
those
down
as
much
as
we
can,
but
it
is
important
that
not
just
yourselves
but
other
committees
when
they
spot
something,
they
think
that's
an
issue.
They
draw
our
attention,
so
can't
bring
Paul
and
here
perhaps
to
to
talk
to
what
we're
doing
around
the
brexit.
Yes,.
D
I
mean
it's
worth
perhaps
seeing
a
little
bit
about
the
the
work
I
think
the
committee
know
we
do
already
in
terms
of
quality
assurance
and
the
process
about
them.
Please
and
I
think
from
my
perspective,
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
comes
in
to
two
sorts
of
categories,
one
of
which
other
could
have
technical
steps
and
process
steps.
We
have
to
support
the
quality
of
instruments,
but
also
there
is
endorsement.
D
You
mentioned
examples
of
some
examples:
we're
reporting
drones
have
occurred,
and
it
certainly
am
something
of
very
much
importance
from
from
my
perspective
in
in
cases
where
do
things
do
go
wrong
and
and
and
where
we
accept
that
the
scope
for
improvement?
That's
something
which
is
a
wake-up
call
to
us
as
as
much
as
anyone
in
recognising
the
importance
of
trying
to
ensure
the
maximum
quality
of
the
instruments.
Others
are
there's
a
cultural
aspects
of
what
we
do
in
trying
to
ensure
that
we
aspire
towards
as
high
standard
as
possible.
D
They
in
terms
of
what's
done
procedurally
as
I,
think
the
committee
know,
and
we
have
systems
in
place
to
ensure
them
that
the
drafters
of
of
individual
instruments
or
support
within
their
own
divisions.
We
have
a
process
whereby
there's
a
checking
process
called
styling.
That
has
an
overarching
view
across
the
the
director
to
ensure
a
consistent
quality
and
standards
and
our
responsiveness
to
points
made
by
the
committee
and
previously
and
systems
of
quality
control
involving
senior
lawyers,
doing
checks
of
instruments
before
they
come.
They
come
to
to
the
Parliament
and
that's
of
particular
importance.
D
Right
now,
and
because
we
have
been
in
the
fortunate
position,
I've
been
able
to
have
some
additional
new
staff
of
coming
to
the
Directorate
in
the
course
of
the
last
year.
Most
if
not
all
are
now
in
place,
but
they're
all
new
to
the
government
and
additional
steps
have
been
taken
and
unnecessary
to
be
taken
to
assist
in
the
induction
of
these.
D
We
are
looking
at
the
particular
Peaks
to
try
to
smooth
out
across
divisions
of
where
some
areas
of
activity
with
the
new
legal
Directorate
have
a
higher
degree
of
brakes.
It
related
to,
and
than
others,
and
so
we're
looking
at
ways
in
which
we
can
identify
resource
to
step
in
and
and
provide
that
that
additional
drafting
resource
to
meet
the
requirements
to
total
the
instruments
in
time
for
proper
scrutiny,
and
that
involves
people
who
are
identified
as
being
skilled
and
autonomous
drafters.
D
They
may
not
necessarily
have
expertise
in
the
areas
concerned,
so
we're
taking
some
steps
to
make
sure
they're
trained
in
order
to
understand
the
context
of
what
they're
doing
and
working
closely
with
the
the
your
solicitors
to
the
committee
to
ensure
that
we
can,
we
can
maintain
the
quality
of
of
instrument
and
that's
something.
That's
been
a
key
priority
for
us
in
ensuring
that
the
the
standard
of
of
outputs
with
internal
checks
are
in
place.
D
A
C
Yes
is
the
answer
to
that:
may
not
always
appear
so,
but
yeah
I
mean
absolutely
get
that
point.
I,
think
the
approach
that
we
have
been
planning
to
dot
will
be,
although
from
the
start
of
2019,
which
is
a
simple
two
paragraph,
covering
nought
to
come
with
any
of
the
instruments
to
give
an
understanding
rate
at
the
outset
of
what
the
instrument
seeks
to
achieve
and
that's
taken
onboard
some
of
the
criticisms
and
valid
criticisms
that
came
forward
from
the
convenience
group.
So
that
should
become
apparent
in
the
opening
months
of
next
to
you.
Okay,.
A
C
A
C
Apologies,
if
you've
not
had
that
that
already
yes,
the
situation
is
that
we
are
on
the
case
as
well.
As
you
know,
we
undertake
and
then
for
the
most
part,
to
find
an
opportunity
when
an
opportunity
arises
to
correct
anything
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
The
intention
of
the
government
is
to
address
all
of
the
current
commitments
by
the
end
of
this
Parliament
recession
and
to
address
as
many
as
possible
of
any
new
commitments
which
may
arise
well.
C
I
will
write
back
to
you
formally
and
response
to
you
now
in
your
report
and
I'll
include
in
there
as
much
of
an
update
as
I
can
as
to
the
timings
of
when
we
intend
to
address
these
some
of
them.
We
have
the
it's
ie
in
the
early
weeks
of
2019.
There
are
a
number
of
instruments.
Are
we
aim
to
address
a
number
of
exciting
commitments?
C
Why
we
ain't
address,
then
those
others
were
still
trying
to
identify
a
suitable
opportunity
to
amend,
but
we
are
very
much
on
the
case
and
what
I'll
do
is
are,
as
I
said,
I'll
write
back
to
you
and
respond
say
on
your
report,
but
I
think
if
it's
useful
can
be
not.
We
all
look
to
provide
regular
updates
to
the
committee
and
just
seeing
that
the
officials
this
morning
it
may
be
helpful
if,
as
we
know,
we're
going
to
be
taking
some
action,
we
believe
the
committee
of
that
going
forward.
A
They'll,
be
very,
very
useful,
of
course,
some
of
those
commitments
you
may
feel
that
it's
not
necessary
to
correct
the
legislation
anymore.
So
if
that's
the
case
you
could
you
could,
let
us
know
absolutely
okay,
yeah
right
what
progress
has
been
made
since
you
gave
ever
evidence
to
it
in
September
about
the
quality
of
accompanying
documents.
At
this
point,
I
just
want
to
show
you
an
SSI
which
came
to
us.
A
Have
you
got
that
which
is
on
the
housing
Scotland
out
tolerable
standard
extension
of
criteria
order-
and
this
came
to
the
committee
last
week-
nothing
to
concern
this
committee,
but
there
may
be
questions
for
the
lead
committee.
Now,
if
you
look
at
the
well,
a
the
SSI
is
very
short.
Maybe
that's
a
good
thing.
A
C
And
we
will
take
that.
We
just
heard
the
strong
to
my
attention
in
the
last
few
minutes.
I
do
understand
the
point
you're
making
if
you're
agreeable,
we'll
tailor
we
can
look
into
and
come
back
to
the
committee
I
mean.
Obviously
the
week
committee
will
raise
any
concerns
that
they
have,
but
I
do
take
the
point,
and
we
can
look
at
that.
C
A
yeah
I
think
you're
right,
there's
a
balance
to
be
struck
here
between
responding
to
some
of
the
asks
of
the
parliamentary
committees
and
perhaps
going
too
far
to
if
that's,
okay,
we'll
come
back
to
you
on
this
yeah
in
detail.
With
regard
to
your
initial
question,
we
very
much
have
revised
our
internal
guidance
to
emphasize
the
need
to
provide
accessible,
some
reason
policy
notice
so
sitting
alongside
that.
We've
also
undertaken
a
sample
and
process
ourselves.
C
So
we've
been
looking
at
instruments
to
see
if,
upon
reflection,
they
do
what
they
should
do
simply
enough
explained
and
that
has
thrown
up
and
some
good
whaling
for
us.
We
will
continue
to
develop
that
because
it's
clearly
an
approach,
that's
paying
dividends,
I
mean
I,
could
offer
examples,
but,
as
I
see,
I
think
where
we've
gotten
to
is
we
recognize
internally?
We
can
do
better
and
that's
what
we're
aspiring
to
do
so
those
checking
processes
will
help
hopefully
get
us
they
are.
C
C
So
I
recognize
that
the
committee
has
highlighted
and
increasing
the
number
of
instruments
which
contain,
from
your
perspective,
minor
points
at
issue
when
somebody
says
can
be
them
typos
that
don't
involve
the
registration
in
any
way
and
so
I
I
think
that
they're
very
short
answer
is
we
take
that
on
board
and
and
we
look
to
improve
and
in
terms
of
getting
a
very
details
of
what
that
looks
like
in
practice.
We
were
going
Paul
and
I
think.
D
It
does
the
pains
and
really
on
on
the
kind
of
the
the
impact
of
those
minor
points.
An
assessment
is
clearly
made
of
the
extent
to
which
the
points
would
arise
are
such
we
have
a
create
some
legal
doubts
or
creates
a
real
ambiguity
and
there's
a
lack
of
clarity
and,
in
those
circumstances,
something
we
would
move
to
address
officer
sooner
sooner
rather
than
later.
D
It
can't
goes
back
a
little
bit
into
the
commitment
of
issue,
but
the
commitments
for
a
correcting
instruments
and
the
bounce
at
stroke
there
between
not
wanting
to
to
clog
up
the
the
committee
or
the
statute
book
with
with
with
relatively
minor
errors-
and
we
are
there's
not
regarded
as
being
any-
can
reveal
ambiguity
as
thoughts
arising.
But
if
there
are
questions
of
where
things
our
real
worries
about
whether
something
is
it
creates
an
ambiguity
or
is
wrong,
then
that
would
be
addressed
sooner
rather
than
later.
Thank.
E
You
both
thank
you
for
your
response.
You
know,
I'm
I
appreciate
the
minor
points
that
you
know
they
do.
They
don't
affect
the
validity
of
the
instruments,
but
eighty
four
instruments
lead,
but
a
Scottish
government
over
the
reporting
period
contain
minor
points
and
that
actually
is
a
22.
That's
22
of
an
increase
over
the
previous
reporting
period,
so
I
think
it's
important.
You
know
that
the
government
does
take
steps
to
ensure
that
the
manor
points
I
think.
C
This
perhaps
we
are
the
check
in
process.
Can
we
improve
the
point?
I
human
nature
is
such
that
when
you,
you
have
shaped
a
document
and
you
continue
to
read
it
and
read
it
and
check
it
yourself.
You
tend
to
see
what
you
think's
on
the
page
rather
and
what's
actually
there
and
I
think
that's
a
lesson
for
us
in
how
we
go
about
the
checking
process.
So
I
absolutely
give
a
commitment.
We
have
we're
aspiring
to
do
better
than
that
regard.
Thank.
E
You
I
would
also
like
to
just
ask
that
you
know
well.
The
committee
has
noted
that
some
of
the
bills
currently
being
considered
by
the
Parliament
have
contained
a
high
number
of
delegated
powers.
The
planning
both
Transport
bow
they've
got
over
a
hundred
delegated
powers
between
them.
So
the
committee
aims
to
ensure
that
its
scrutiny
of
delegated
powers
balance
is
the
need
to
give
the
government
legislative
flexibility
while
providing
accountability
and
transparency
in
the
exercise
of
those
powers.
E
But
given
the
high
numbers
of
delegated
powers
in
some
bills,
how
does
the
government
strike
a
balance
between?
You
know
the
flexibility,
the
accountability
and
the
transparency
when
preparing
legislation?
You
know
what
would
you
say
were
the
key
factors
in
deciding
if
a
delegated
power
is
to
be
included
in
the
bill.
Well,.
C
I,
don't
think
those
specific
trend
on
the
part
of
the
government
towards
bills
with
a
high
number
of
delegated
powers,
I
mean
I,
recognize
the
criticism.
That's
me,
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
trend
there,
I
guess
there
are
a
number
of
things
come
into
play.
Practical
application
would
be
one
how
the
bills
and,
of
course
it
may
well
be
the
case
that
you
have
bills
with
a
high
number
of
amendments
being
brought
by
I.
Am
members
of
the
committee's
which
weed
to
delegate
powers
been
brought
into
play
and
that's
not
to
excuse
the
concerns.
C
Excuse
us
sort
of
concerns
that
you're
expressing
I
mean
I.
Think
the
key
thing
here
is
that
a
bill
that
contains
contains
a
sizable
number
to
delegate
purse
isn't
a
blank
check
for
the
government,
because
the
secondary
legislation
will
come
back
to
the
committee's
and
will
be
scrutinized
in
detail
and
there's
the
opportunity
to
bring
ministers
in
front
of
the
committee's
to
explore
that
so
I
think
the
parliamentary
process
is
sufficiently
robust
to
allow
for
those
checks
and
balances,
I
mean
but
I
think
as
well.
C
At
the
outset,
you
can,
on
the
part
of
the
government
we
can
engage
in.
Are
we
with
committees
at
the
outset,
I
mean
perhaps
a
good
example
would
be
the
Social
Security
bill.
Well,
mr.
Freeman
was
heavily
engaged
with
the
committee
and
that's
a
bill
that
will
have
a
lot
of
secondary
legislation
attached
to,
but
I
think
we
got
it
into
a
satisfactory
space.
So
I
think
I
think
there's
a
piece
of
what
to
be
done.
E
A
C
Think
it
comes
down
as
a
city
of
a
practical
application.
The
whole
point
of
legislation
is
to
implement
it
in
a
sensible
way
and
I.
Don't
have
any
sense
that
colleagues
are
desperate
for
REM
barriers,
powers,
I
think
it's
just
how
the
legislation
develops,
but
but
if,
as
I
see,
if
the
committee
has
concealed
specific
concerns,
our
own
trains
and
happy
explore
those
with
them.
B
C
Okay,
so
the
update
figure
is
that
there
are
today
we've
had
56
notifications
covering
91
sis
that
have
been
sent
to
the
Scottish
Parliament,
the
parliaments
agreed
to
the
Scottish
Government
concerned.
He
275
err
size
and,
although
the
numbers
continue
to
fluctuate,
we
have
fluctuated
since
I
walked
in
here.
The
way
things
are
going,
the
remains
approximately
52
notifications
covering
45
sis,
okay,.
B
C
I
mean-
and
this
is
not
to
pass
the
box,
but
we
are
largely
in
the
hands
of
the
UK
government
in
regard
to
some
of
this,
so
the
UK
si
programs
managed
and
run
by
the
Cabinet
Office
and
the
Department
for
exiting
the
EU
as
you're
a
wheel
as
I
say.
That
means
we're
not
entailing
control
the
way
in
dates.
There
are
regular
discussions
with
a
Cabinet,
Office
and
Dec
suit
and
Steven
in
particular.
C
It's
heavily
involved
in
that
perhaps
I'll
bring
him
in
in
a
minute
to
to
update
your
not
that
our
fortnightly
meetings
to
discuss
forthcoming
a
size
at
this
stage
we
anticipate
they
were
currently
in
the
period
from
north
vacations.
I
think
20
air
size
would
approve
by
we
committees
last
week,
but
for
part
halfway
through
the
program.
C
We
think
the
volume
and
notifications
will
begin
to
tail
off,
although
we
still
anticipate
there
will
be
notifications
in
January
and
potentially
beyond
that,
obviously
we'll
keep
it
deep,
LLC
and
individual
committees
updating
through
the
month
will
alert
us
I
provide
for
you
and
through
ongoing
discussions
where
your
officials,
in
addition
to
that,
but
if
it,
if
it
helps
up
bring
Steven
and
they'll,
advise
more
detail.
Yeah.
F
We
work
as
closely
as
we
can
with
the
UK
government
to
understand
what
their
overall
si
program
looks
like
and
where
instruments
with
devolve
and
pollutants
into
that
and
a
little
bit
of
an
advantage
because
of
they
say
protocol
requirement
for
28
days
notification.
So
that
means
you
know,
28
years
ahead
of
you
key
being
an
instrument.
We
have
to
start
that
process.
B
Yeah,
so
there's
a
couple
videos
there
I'll
touch
upon
the
28
days.
First
of
all,
just
regarding
that
particular
issue.
I
think
also.
We
all
understand
that
the
28
days
period,
but
also
there
may
well
be
occasions
where
that's
not
always
possible
to
to
deal
with.
So
by
that
be
the
case.
How
well
the
government
actually,
what
was
they,
the
particularly
the
committee's
to
ensure
that
the
site,
the
stile,
will
do
how
sufficient
time
to
to
actually
consider
the
notifications
that
timetable
is
constrained?
Okay,.
C
It's
a
very
fair
point:
we
always
rated
higher
ed
heat
that
a
spy
off
to
adhere
to
the
28th
do
not
always
in
our
control.
I
think
all
told
we've.
The
91
notifications
we've
sent
74
of
those
have
had
the
28
days.
There
have
been
a
few
instances
where,
regrettably,
the
28th
the
PD
has
not
been
possible.
C
I
mean
the
simple
answer
is
we
are
working
as
hard
as
we
can
with
the
UK
government
its
ensure
that
they
are
aware
of
the
28
d
requirement
from
from
the
under
the
protocol
process
and
we'll
do
whatever
we
can
to
try
and
mitigate
instances
where
that
is
not
possible
of
the
20th
year.
So
we're
writing
out
two
committees.
As
soon
as
we
possibly
can.
It's
advised
I'm
a
bit
of
a
position
we
find
ourselves,
and
so
it's
not
that
we
are
comfortable
with
breaching
the
28
days
and
the
protocol.
B
Thank
you.
You
mentioned
I'm
a
no-go
minister
at
a
garden
that
the
monthly
updates
to
the
committee's
and-
and
that
certainly
has
been
very
helpful
in
terms
of
the
committee,
what
programs
and
and
other
walks
the
committees
I've
got
to
undertake.
But
when
you,
when
you
are
rating
out
to
the
committee's,
do
you
do
you
actually
supply
the
the
expected
10
tables
at
each
of
the
committees
as
well?
Regarding
that
particular
the
essays
article,
the
every
I.
C
Should
say
just
by
way
of
a
final
point,
your
the
last
question.
We
are
actually
the
piece
of
what
as
well
what
profile
and
the
remaining
notifications
to
see.
If
we
anticipate
there's
any
issue,
they
ought
to
give
committees
on
our
heads
officer.
I
just
said
they
are.
We
are
in
terms
of
the
monthly
updates
we
provide
as
much
information
as
possible
to
do.
C
Is
it
as
detailed
in
all
regards
as
we
would
want?
No,
so
there
are
some
instances.
We
are
a
committee
and
some
of
its
work
streams
will
get
very
detailed
information.
So
let
me
get
dates
and
in
in
other
parts
of
it
it
doesn't
get
the
dias
it's
some
way
that
we
don't
have
them.
It
depends
very
much
on
what's
coming
forward
from
the
UK
government
departments
and
that's
not
to
see
or
to
suggest
there's
any
deliberate
policy
in
the
part
of
UK
government
departments
to
be
difficult.
It's
just
simply
where
we
are
at.
C
They
face
the
same
challenges
as
we
do
so
in
some
instances
of
a
fair
bit
of
detail
and
others
does
not
so
much.
What
I
would
give
the
committee
an
assurance
that,
whatever
we
have,
we
we
provide,
because
that's
the
open
approach
we've
been
trying
to
take
to
get,
because
this
is.
This
is
a
situation
where
we're
all
gonna
have
to
pull
together
to
get
the
Parliament
through
with
the
the
consequences
of
of
break
sir
okay.
B
G
F
C
A
F
So
they
wishing
to
go
into
detail
about
that
I've
been
cases
where
any
key
government
plan
play
sis
which
were
given
the
UK.
It's
got
apart
less
than
28
days
and
we
managed
to
work
with
them
and
to
get
them
to
change
their
link
profile
to
me
issue.
The
Scottish
Parliament
does
get
28
days
and
we'll
continue
to
do
that
in
all
cases
would
be
possibly
can
we've.
F
Think
accepting
that
health
and
sport
example
in
relation
to
future
standards
and
I
think
and
virtually
all
cases
to
commit
you've
both
had
as
much
time
as
it
feels
as
it's
needed
to
and
if
because.
If
not,
then
they've
certainly
come
to
us
and
told
us
and
we'll
we'll
work
with
the
UK
government
to
do
what
we
can
to
make
sure
that
the
team
is
available.
Okay,.
H
C
H
G
Talked
to
the
committee
in
the
past,
though,
the
principles
that
the
Scottish
Government
is
applying
to
their
prioritization
exercise,
the
36
exercise
represent
the
Scottish
Government's
judgment
on
the
areas
of
lava
is
essential:
defects
in
advance
of
March
2019.
It
is
the
government's
policy
that
it
will
address
all
areas.
This
is
not
about
doing
some
and
not
others.
It's
about
the
order
in
which
everything
is
done
and
there's
a
necessary
process
of
prioritization
being
applied
to
that.
G
Not
not
not
at
the
moment,
because
I
focus
has
been
on
making
the
essential
Corrections
required
to
that
timetable
in
the
event
of
perhaps
an
implementation
period
being
agreed
and
further
time
being
provided
to
make
the
necessary
preparations
for
EU
exit
we'll
be
able
to
come
back
to
the
committee.
Our
changed
planning
assumptions,
yeah
that'd,
be
helpful.
A
E
Could
I
just
ask
you
that,
in
the
event
of
a
transition
period,
an
implementation
period,
if
that
was
to
be
agreed
as
part
of
any
of
them
withdrawal
agreement
with
the
EU?
Has
the
Scottish
government
made
many
estimates
in
this
instance
of
what
the
impact
would
have
on
any
timings
or
volume
of
EU
exit
instruments?.
E
G
Effect
of
the
agreement
of
an
implementation
period
in
the
first
place
would
be
to
move
the
relevant
date
by
quetch
Corrections
required
to
be
made
from
March
2019
to
December
2020.
In
the
absence
of
an
agreement
for
a
framework
for
a
future
relationship,
the
actual
number
and
content
of
those
Corrections
wouldn't
necessarily
change.
The
first
thing
will
change
that.
We
would
have
more
time
for
at
least
until
December
2020,
the
March
2019
date
is
not
only
the
default
possession
for
EU
X.
G
E
H
C
It's
not
being
held
back
as
a
consequence
with
brexit
as
things
stand,
but
you
know
you
appreciate
that
we
need
to
keep
resource
from
all
of
our
legislation
programs
as
best
we
can,
that
has
to
be
reviewed
where
any
prioritization
becomes
necessary.
Then
the
key
considerations
for
us
would
be
the
public
interest,
but
we
will
also
take
account
of
the
impact
on
the
committee's
because
have
a
wok
program.
Very
often,
it
has
to
dovetail
quite
closely
so
any
decisions
that
we
took.
That
would
imply
it
to
them.
H
C
C
A
C
We
try
to
there's
a
number
of
factors.
Come
into
play,
I
mean
obviously
available
resource
to
draft
the
ssize.
We
have
a
program
across
government
because
it's
not
just
seeing
the
context
of
can
a
portfolio
sales,
the
decision
to
bring
forward
the
exercise
set,
obviously
within
the
individual
portfolio
and
the
minister's
we
keep
on
the
course
review
the
number
of
projected
instruments
and
whether
our
packages
of
instruments
need
to
be
managed
in
certain
ways.
As
I
said
there,
we
are
avoiding
spikes
if
we
can
what
I've
been
doing
over
the
last
few
months.
C
H
Thank
you
and
responsible
equation,
I
think
by
the
convener
and
poke
okay.
He
spoke
about
the
additional
resource.
That's
been
taken
on
to
deal
with
all
of
the
debris
XOM
SSI
is
there
any
other
additional
resource
been
deployed
to
deal
with
all
of
the
instruments
that
are
expected
over
the
coming
months.
Well,.
D
D
So
things
can
come
in
acronym
or
measured.
We
to
you
and
we're
doing
that
in
such
a
way
that
minimizes
the
impact.
As
far
as
we
can
on
the
ongoing
work
of
the
Law
Commission,
but
we
do
know-
and
it's
one
of
the
strengths
of
the
Gov
of
the
the
government
legal
service-
that
opportunities
arise
for
lawyers
not
just
to
work
in
means
to
legal
work,
but
get
opportunities
to
work
elsewhere
in
the
government,
including
places
like
the
Law
Commission.
D
And
it's
times
like
this,
wouldn't
have
had
to
be
imaginative
in
looking
at
utilizing
the
resource
over.
What
is
now
in
fact
of
fairly
short
but
intense
periods
and
that's
been
crucial
and
some
of
the
decisions
were
made
in
recognizing
that
by
doing
such
things-
and
we
can
minimize
the
impact
in
time
periods
and
therefore,
and
ensure
that
as
much
essential
work
of
organizations
such
as
the
Law
Commission
can
continue.
A
I
Much
convene
and
good
morning,
mr.
and
ministers
officials,
we
have
discussed
a
great
deal
ssize
and
inevitably
breaks
it,
but
one
of
the
key
pieces
of
work
that's
committed
is
undertaken
and
recent
months
as
the
proscription
bill,
which
is,
of
course,
an
essay
or
c
bill.
I
was
just
wondering
if
the
minister
could
choose
force
and
why
there
was
no
asao,
see
bills,
included
and
best
years
of
programming
for
government
and
if
it
was
any
particular
reasoning
or
thought
behind
this.
I
C
In
the
context
of
the
SLC,
it
does
remain
intention
to
include
one
vel.
Why
just
a
program
which
would
be
appropriate
for
the
Pharaoh
to
this
committee?
We
thought
there
were
no
suitable
bells
at
an
appropriate
state
of
readiness
and
and
which
the
government
was
confident
would
meet
the
criteria
for
the
Pharaoh
to
the
committee
for
inclusion
in
the
year.
3
we're
just
sort
of
program
is
essentially
where
we
were,
but
we're
still
working
with
slcg
identifying
prepare
appropriate
those.
There
are
potential
candidates
in
the
paper
when
one
of
those
would
be
judicial
factors.
C
I
C
Don't
think
I
would
necessary
use
the
word
barrier,
but
M
I
think
was
a
willingness
and
out
of
parked,
along
with
the
committee's,
perhaps
revisit
the
criteria
for
a
feral
to
the
DPR
RC.
It
is
restrictive,
you
know
and
I
guess
from
our
point
of
view,
if
you're
interested
in
pursuing
the
idea
and
to
examine
this,
then
we
could
have
our
respective
officials
to
work
together
and
to
explore
it
further
and
report
back
on
how
we
could
change
us
for
the
next
session.
I
F
Canaries
this
before
and
we
have
looked
at
and
I,
think
it's
difficult
to
sequence
that
and
the
late
way
in
terms
of
getting
the
law.
Commissioners
reports
done
at
the
same
time
to
enable
us
a
to
forward
two
or
more
topics
in
the
same
bill
and
sometimes
to
get
topics
which
are
related
together
which
might
fit
in
and
to
the
same
bill.
Some
other
thing.
F
F
Again,
this
is
anita's
kept
under
review
and
I
think
the
present
time
in
terms
of
delivering
domestic
priorities
today
except
priorities.
Well,
there
are
potential
candidates
for
consolidation,
I
think
you
know
they
have
to
take
their
their
place
in
the
queue
in
terms
of
prioritization
Paul.
If
you're
aware
of
any
particular
candidates
for
the
nest,
you
think
I'm
a
weird
off
on
the
scene.
Well,.
A
Stem
mopping
up
on
some
of
that
when
we
visited
the
SLC
that
they
made
is
aware
that
there
are
a
number
of
reports
going
back
a
number
of
years
that
they've
produced
which
have
gone
nowhere
is
there
any
I
mean
that
seems
it
was
obviously
a
frustration
for
them.
They've
done
a
lot
of
work
and
nothing's
happened
to
it.
Is
there
any
intention
to
you
know
so
revisit
some
some
of
this,
so
that
you
know
we
can
be
brought
forward
as
legislation
or
not
at
least
let
them
know
what
I.
C
A
A
Get
you
started
yeah
and
just
so
that
you're
aware
we
we've
written
to
the
Law
Commission,
because
they
they
were
asking
about
the
criteria
for
bills
and
whether
those
committees
remit
could
be
expanded,
so
I've
written
as
convener
to
them.
I'll
share
any
correspondence
with
you
and
we
I
guess
we
can
take
it
from
there
cuz
you've
in
your
answer.
Previously,
you've
agreed
to
look.