 I welcome members to the sixth meeting in 2016 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and, as always, ask members to switch off their mobile phones, please. A general item number one is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the local government finance Scotland Order 2016 draft. Is the committee content with this, please? Yes. A general item two, instrument subject to negative procedure. The National Health Service General Dental Services Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016, 53. The instrument contains some drafting errors. First, regulation 25 inserts new sub-paragraphs 1v and w in part 1a of schedule 2 to the National Health Service General Dental Services Scotland regulations 2010, the principle regulations. As sub-paragraph 1v already exists, the new sub-paragraphs should have been inserted as 1w and x. Secondly, the provisions in part 1a of schedule 2 to the principle regulations apply to those persons who apply to join sub-part a of the first part of the dental list in Scotland. Part 1a, list matters to be included in that application. The sub-part a consists of a list of dentists and bodies corporates who have undertaken to provide general dental services in the health board's area. Part 2 of schedule 2 to the principle regulations applies to those persons applying to join the second part of the dental list. Part 2 lists matters to be included in that application. The second part consists of dentists who are approved by a health board to assist in the provision of general dental services. There is an omission, as the Scottish Government intends that the provisions of the new sub-paragraphs 1v and w, as described above, should have been replicated within part 2 of schedule 2 of the principle regulations. Scottish Government intends to lay an amending order early in the next parliamentary session to correct those errors. Does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground as they contain a couple of drafting errors? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the waste management licensing Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-40, the reservoir Scotland regulations 2016, SSI 2016-43, the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 relevant services in relation to children at risk of becoming looked after, etc. Order 2016, SSI 2016-44, the carbon accounting scheme, Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-46, the public contract, Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-47, the Orkney Islands, landing of crabs and lobsters, order 2016, SSI 2016-50, the water and sewerage services licenses cross-border application, Scotland order 2016, SSI 2016-52, Scottish Sentencing Council, submission of business plan, order 2016, SSI 2016-55, the regulation of investigatory powers, prescription of ranks and positions, Scotland order 2016, SSI 2016-56, the personal injuries NHS, NHS charges, amounts Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-59, the children's hearings Scotland act 2011, safeguarders panel amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-61, the teachers' superannuation and pension scheme Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-62, the Croft House grant Scotland regulations 2016, SSI 2016-63, nor the registration services fees, etc. Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016-64, is the committee content with those instruments, please? Gender item number three is instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, the Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014, commencement number three and transitional provisions order 2016, SSI 2016-30, the order commences amongst other provisions, the schedule to the Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014 and so far is not already in force. As provision is of no effect, as the schedule has already been brought into force on 28 September 2015 by virtue of a previous order, which is SSI 2015-331. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the order to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting conduct as it contains a provision of no effect? Yes, I think that this is unfortunate and I take the point that legally this has no effect. For the ordinary reader of what has been going on, I think that there is scope for confusion. Did this come into force on 28 September, as it actually did, or did it come into force on 18 April this year, as it would have appeared, was going to happen? I just feel that there perhaps should be some way of this being officially noted to clarify it for the public eye. Depending presumably on what somebody looks at first, they could be confused as to whether it came in on 18 April or on 28 September last year. Perfectly fair point. Can I just make the point that this order brings in other provisions which do come in in April? It is not as if the entire instrument is redundant. I support what John Mason has said. I wonder if there is anything that the Government can easily and reasonably do to clarify the situation, not for the experienced reader but for the lay person to try to make it better and more easily accessible to those who might wish to look at this. Indeed. Clearly, that is now on the record. We will draw it to the Parliament's attention and maybe the Government can consider how it might be able to amend the record, as it were, where people will actually address it in order to get there to the right answer. Are we otherwise content to report that? No points have been raised by our legal advisors on the Reservoirs Scotland Act 2011, commencement number 5 in Transitional Provision Order 2016, SSI 2016-42, nor on the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014, commencement number 11, order 2016, SSI 2016-60. Is the committee content with these instruments, please? Yes. That brings us to agenda item 4, the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill. This is for the committee to consider the Scottish Government's response to its stage 1 report on that bill. It is expected that the committee will consider stage 2 on 23 February. Do members have any comments, Stead? I welcome the response from the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, which basically accepts what the committee has said in regard to the bill that is before us. I just raised the relatively small point that I understand that there are going to be some printing changes, which in this particular case I informally understand simply relate to punctuation. Nonetheless, when changes are made, even though there is no decision for us to make in that regard, and I accept that that is the case, I think that it would be helpful if we had a very brief response from the Government simply noting that such printing changes are going to be made and giving us a broad description of what they might be so that, if there are changes occur, that have an unexpected effect or people notice them, they can at least see where they have come from. I have not personally met printing changes at this stage of the passage of our piece of legislation, although I am perfectly comfortable, I am just, as usual, being my pinnickety self about process. I would support what Stuart Stevenson has said, and I think that it might be worth perhaps minister referring to this in stage 3 debate or elsewhere to essentially reinforce the view that while those amendments have been made in terms of essentially punctuation that there is no intention, no policy intention to change any of the meanings that might appear to have been changed, and it would be helpful if that was on the record that the previous act where we should go as a point of reference for the proper meaning, notwithstanding the new changes of punctuation, if that is a reasonable thing to seek at. My understanding, thank you for those comments, my understanding is that we haven't yet seen the changes that are being proposed, so we can't actually comment on whether or not they are only punctuation, but that is clearly the expectation. I had at one point suggested that we might have an amendment that took all the bits of punctuation out, but processes don't allow that because they have to be brought forward at the right point of every bill, so it would be madness to have amendments for dots and commas, so we'll have to see if we can sort this out. I do share the expressed views that we really should have somewhere down in black and white what has been changed, even if it's not actually formally approved within the process. I mean, there is no question that a change in punctuation can change the meaning of a piece of legislation, so while, of course, I am very sure that the Government will have made very taken all precautions note to change the meaning by inserting punctuation where before there was different punctuation or none, it would be good to have that on the record that they have addressed that thought, at least. It is interesting to reflect that a principle punctuation is not supposed to be capable of changing legislation, but there may be occasions where it does. I was just going to make that point that I understand that in reading legislation the punctuation must be ignored, just as indeed the headings are also not part of the legislation and add nothing to the meeting. That's my understanding, but, of course, I am not a lawyer and I will always defer to those who give me legal advice. Right. I am happy to be corrected in that regard and I have raised a spurious point. I don't think that you have raised a spurious point. There might be occasions when it inadvertently does, because without punctuation there is more than one meaning. With punctuation it might have more than one meaning and courts might have to sort it out. John. I think that the Government response is very positive. I think that it is quite an endorsement of the committee's work. The fact that we are all agreed now that restructuring the bill at this stage would not be a good idea, although clearly there are lots of ways that could have been structured. The whole thing about abbreviations is that they are taking on board the comments that we have made, the use of the word forthwith and the use of the word or. I have to say that that is quite a positive response. Okay. Are we content therefore to note the response? I am sure that the Government will have noted our observations about the minor printing changes on the way through. Thank you very much. I think that that completes the agenda and I can now close this meeting.