Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that, Mr Simpson. I note that you are down to ask a question on that issue at topical question time this afternoon.

Mr Simpson’s point notwithstanding, no member has indicated that they are not content. We agree that we are content with the instruments.

Agenda item 6 is consideration of seven instruments subject to negative procedure.

Thank you, Mr Simpson. I see that point now; it relates to agenda item 5.

That is not a technical matter for the committee, but perhaps the legal team can provide advice on that point.

I thank members for their support.

Before we move on to item 3, I want to congratulate and thank the members of the committee in session 5 for the outstanding work that they did. In particular, I thank Bill Bowman, the most recent convener of the committee, for his excellent stewardship. Prior to Bill, Graham Simpson was the committee convener, and I thank him, too.

The next item of business is to choose a deputy convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the SNP are eligible for nomination as deputy convener of the committee. That being the case, I nominate Bill Kidd as deputy convener. Does the committee agree to his taking that role?

No member has indicated that they do not agree, so we are agreed.

Bill Kidd was chosen as deputy convener.

Agenda item 8 is consideration of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s session 5 legacy paper. Given that the committee will look at the legacy paper in more detail as part of its planning work in the coming months, at this point does the committee agree simply to note the paper and to thank members of the session 5 Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee? Does the committee also agree to consider the report as part of our work programme discussions at a future meeting?

I would be happy for us to do that.

The next item of business is to decide whether to take item 9 in private. Is the committee content to take item 9 in private?

No member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, so we are agreed.

An issue has been raised on SSI 2021/236. The instrument brings forward the expiry date of three provisions in the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 that affect the work of the Parole Board for Scotland. It was laid on 10 June 2021 and came into force on 14 June 2021. As it was laid less than 28 days before it came into force, it is in breach of section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, which requires that negative instruments are laid at least 28 days before they come into force, not counting recess periods of more than four days.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (j) as it has been laid less than 28 days before coming into force and, therefore, has breached the laying requirements under the 2010 act?

Does the committee also wish to note that it is satisfied with the explanation provided for failure to comply with the laying requirements?

As no member has indicated that they are not content or that they wish to speak, we are agreed.