 I welcome members to the 33rd meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Boreform Committee. As always, I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. Agender item 1 is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Scottish Parliament elections, etc. Order 2015 draft, nor on the budget Scotland Act 2015 amendment regulations 2015 draft, nor the victims' rights Scotland regulations 2015 draft. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Agender item 2 is instrument subject to negative procedure, and no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the energy performance of building Scotland amendment regulations 2015, SSI 2015, 386, nor on the act of Sederent Fees of Solicitors in the Sheriff's Appeal Court 2015, SSI 2015, 387. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Agender item 3 is instrument subject to any parliamentary procedure, and no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the air weapons and licensing Scotland Act 2015, commencement number 1, order 2015, SSI 2015, 382. Is the committee content with this one, please? Agender item 4, the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill. The item is for the committee to consider whether the consolidation in parts 5 to 8 of the bill correctly restates the enactments being consolidated and also whether the consolidation is clear, coherent and consistent. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the draft on the bill in written correspondence. Section 78.5 deals with the exercise by the trustee of any power conferred on the trustee by the bill in respect of any hereditable estate vested in the trustee by virtue of that person's appointment. Does the committee agree to ask the drafts to consider whether replacing the words that persons with the words the trustees in section 78.5 would enhance the clarity of the provision? Section 78.11 contains the phrase, a copy of the application being served on the trustee. Does the committee agree to ask the draft to consider whether making explicit the requirement in section 78.11 for the applicant to serve a copy of the application on the trustee would aid the clarity of the provision? There are two sections in the bill where words from the Bankruptcy Scotland 1985 act are amended. As amended, the 1985 act are not restated. Does the committee agree to ask the draft.1 why the words whether or not the bank is aware of the sequestration in section 32.6 of the 1985 act are not restated in section 86.8 of the bill and 2 why the word substantial in section 32.7 of the 1985 act is not restated in section 87.1 of the bill. The word or appears at the end of section 89.2c of the bill but does not appear in the equivalent section of the 1985 act. Does the committee agree to ask the draft or why the word or has been included at the end of section 87.2c of the bill and what effect this is considered to have on the meaning of the provision? It appears that a bracket is missing at the end of section 89.3. Does the committee agree to draw this point to the drafter's attention? It appears that the word payment in section 96.5 should be payments. Does the committee agree to draw this to the drafter's attention? Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why the term the recovery provisions is defined in section 103 rather than section 101 where this term is first used? It appears the word arrangements in section 103.2c should be arrangement. Does the committee agree to draw this point to the drafter's attention? Section 103.4 separates subsections A, B and A and B with or and or. Section 103.4 is derived from section 38c4 of the 1985 act. Section 36c4 of the 1985 act does not separate subsections A and B with an or. The same issue applies in section 1064 of the bill. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why subsections A and B of sections 1034 and 1064 are separated by an or when this is not the case in the equivalent sections of the 1985 act and what effect this is considered to have on the meaning of these provisions? Section 1067 of the bill defines the recovery provisions in the context of that section as sections 98, 99, 100, 105, 106 of the bill. However, the phrase the recovery provisions is also used as defined term in section 1037 of the bill to refer to sections 101, 102 and 103 of the bill. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why in sections 1067 and 1037 it is considered appropriate to use the term the recovery provisions to refer to different sections of the bill? Thank you. Agender item 5 is the aforementioned bankruptcy Scotland bill, but this item of business is for the committee to consider the drafter's response to the committee's questions on the consolidation of parts 1 to 4 of the bill. The committee has seen the drafter's comments to the committee's comments. Are we content to note the response and raise any issues arising at next week's evidence session with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Law Commission? Our next meeting will be next Tuesday. At this point, I close the meeting.