 I need to welcome the ninth meeting of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. This morning, the committee will be considering a package of instruments, laid before the Parliament in connection with the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016. We'll just wait for a minute while the minister appears. I don't seem like to be taking a big step. As I said this morning, the committee will be considering a package of instruments laid before the Parliament connection with the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016. This act was considered as lead committee by the session 4 delegated powers and law reform committee and as such this committee has been designated as the lead committee for consideration of these instruments. This morning, the committee will undertake both its usual technical scrutiny and policy scrutiny as lead committee for the instruments. Item 1 is an opportunity for the committee to take evidence from the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy and his officials on the instruments. This is an opportunity for the committee to ask questions on all of the Bankruptcy instruments laid by the Scottish Government and to do so from both a policy and a technical perspective. That is my pleasant duty to welcome Minister Paul Wheelhouse, who is the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy. I also like to welcome Graham Fisher, who is the head of branch 1 constitutional and civil law division, the Scottish Government legal directorate of the Scottish Government. I also like to welcome Alec Reid, who is the head of policy development and the accountant in Bankruptcy. I also like to welcome Carol Kirk, who is a policy review team leader to the accountant in Bankruptcy. Minister, if you have an opening statement and I note that you have, so if you would like to make it, we would be very pleased to hear from you. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning, everyone. The regulations before you today represent what we intend to be one of the final instrument installments in the exercise to consolidate bankruptcy legislation in Scotland. Following the successful passage of the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016 through Parliament earlier this year, in which your predecessor committee, as you know, convener, played a crucial role, the next step in the process is to consolidate the regulations that accompany the primary legislation. The consolidation of the regulations will complement the 2016 act to make Scotland's bankruptcy legislation more accessible for those practitioners who use it and for those affected by it. I should say something about our approach to consolidating the regulations. We proposed that the 2016 act will apply to sequestrations applied for on or after 30 November this year and trusted arrangements executed from that date. There are currently 11 sets of regulations that fill out the detail of primary bankruptcy legislation, which we propose to reduce to four for sequestrations and trust deeds falling under the new act. Together with a short set of commencement regulations that will bring the new act in on 30 November 2016. We consulted and draft regulations over the summer, but stakeholders who provided valuable feedback on the proposals for consolidation of these regulations. I note that I cast say that while in some instances we may not agree with the conclusions reached, we would wish to formally record a gratitude to this approach being taken and we consider that such an approach represents best practice and can assist the Parliament to scrutinise legislation brought forward and ensure that legislation introduced is fit for purpose. The first affirmative instrument that you have before you, the Bankruptcy Scotland Regulations 2016, consolidates the main secondary legislation under the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 1985, principally the 140 pages or so of forms used as part of the bankruptcy processes. At this point, I would also like to highlight regulation 14, which makes a minor change to the value of assets at which the simplified minimal asset process ceases to apply to address a discrepancy in how newly identified assets, principally PPI repayments, are treated. The second affirmative instrument, the Protected Trust Deed Scotland Forms Regulations 2016, provides for forms to be used with protected trust deeds under the new act. This instrument also takes the opportunity to bring minor points in the 2016 act forms into line with current practice. The third affirmative instrument, the Protected Trust Deeds Scotland Amendment Regulations 2016, for ease of administration mirrors minor amendments to the forms under the new act for trust deeds under the old act. Although technically beyond the scope of consolidating the existing regulations, it is helpful to have those considered as part of this package as they do the same thing. As part of a consolidation, it is important to stress that, well, with one exception, the regulations do not introduce new policy. However, we think that it is important to clarify legislation or clarify issues that we have sought to do within those regulations, as I have mentioned. The negative instrument on bankruptcy applications and decisions regulations 2016, also before you today, consolidates the rules for proceedings before the accountant and bankruptcy for cases under the new act. I should mention that the bankruptcy fees regulations will be reviewed in the first half of 2017. They have not been consolidated at this time, but continue to apply under the Transitional Continuity Provisions in the 2016 act. The accountant and bankruptcy will, however, publish details of the corresponding provisions under the new act on its website in the meantime. Introducing the package of regulations ensures that references to the new act are changed. Detailed tables of correspondence have also been prepared to assist users of the legislation in making their transition. We have worked closely with stakeholders who have provided valuable feedback on the proposals for the consolidation of these regulations. In particular, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, or ICAS, the Scottish Committee of the R3 Association of Business Recovery Professionals and the Step Change Debt Charity. ICAS, in particular, also provided feedback on issues that we recognise as important and will seek to address, but which we consider to fall out with the scope of this exercise. The Scottish Government and the Accountant and Bankruptcy will continue to work with ICAS and other stakeholders to consider these areas separately. I would acknowledge some relatively minor drafting issues arise with two of the sets of regulations, and for the reasons that we have set out to the committee, we do not see those raising practical difficulties in the meantime. However, it is important to put those right, and I can confirm that I will ensure that those are rectified as soon as is practicable, together with the minor points raised by R3 in the response to the committee's call for evidence. I am, for example, keen to address the request of stakeholders to ensure arithmetic issues are more transparent in the forms, although I do accept that there are some reasons why the forms are laid out in the way they are. I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to consider those instruments. I would just finish on the fact that we have received a reference from the likes of ICAS. Overall, in taking into account the comments that we have received back from the AIB in response to the informal consultation carry-out, we would support the regulations coming into effect, and I believe that R3 has also made similar remarks. We are, of course, and we are happy to take questions. Okay. Thank you very much, minister, for your opening statement. I just advise the minister and our committee that we will start with technical questions and move on to policy questions thereafter. In relation to the draft protected trustees form Scotland regulations 2016, the committee will consider item 2, whether to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament and the general reporting grounds, as the regulations contain two minor drafting areas. It is noted that the Scottish Government tends to correct the errors at the next legislative opportunity. In relation to the draft bankruptcy Scotland regulations 2016, the committee will consider item 2, whether to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting grounds, as they contain drafting errors, and whether to report the regulations underground H, as the meaning of regulation 22 could be clearer. The committee would like to explore that second point with you, minister. Regulation 22 of the draft bankruptcy Scotland regulations 2016 makes provision in respect of the conversion into sterling of a credit as claims stated in foreign currency. Regulation provides that the manner of conversion is to be at a single exchange rate of for that currency, as determined by the trustee with reference to prevailing exchange rates on the date of sequestration. The Scottish Government has confirmed that regulation 22 should refer to a single exchange rate for that currency and proposes to remove the word of as a printing point in the minister's signing copy. The committee considers that errors in the instrument should only be corrected by way of printing point when the error in question is highly self-evident in nature and capable of no alternative interpretation. The error in regulation 22 does not appear to the committee to be self-evident in nature, since a doubt may arise as to the intended meaning of the provision. The erroneous word of might be taken to indicate a figure that is missing from the provision. For example, the provision might be intended to read a single exchange rate of x for that currency. Therefore, it is considered that the meaning of regulation 22 could be clearer. For that reason, the committee, if I may ask you minister, does not consider that the error identified in regulation 22 should appropriately be changed as a printing point at signing. Would you instead consider making the required change to regulation 22 of the draft Bankruptcy Scotland regulation 2016 by an amending instrument, please, in due course? First, I will just address the point at which you very fairly raised, convener, and for the record, I apologise at that. However, having to be raised by the committee, it clearly should have been picked up and recognised that. The typographical error in regulation 22 should refer to a single exchange rate for that currency, just to confirm that, as in regulation 11 of the Bankruptcy Scotland regulations 2014 SSI 2014 stroke 225, which is consolidated and updated. We propose that this is corrected as a printing point, but we are moving off. However, I take the point that you have made, convener, and we are happy to address that through an amendment if that would be to the committee's wishes. Okay, thank you very much. So, I now move to other questions, if that would be all right. We've got a series of questions, minister, and I just invite the first two questions from Stuart. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. By changing the asset threshold at which a debtor must move from the minimal asset process route into bankruptcy to the standard route, what do you think the effect might be on the number of people transferred from the minimum asset process into full bankruptcy? I think that, if I may bring in Alex in this particular point of detail. I think that the numbers will be low, but there have been instances, a low number of instances, where people in a minimal asset process bankruptcy, we've been made aware of PPI compensation payments, which somebody in a full administration bankruptcy that would vest in the estate and vest with the trustee, but with the threshold limit it's not being able to be administered within the bankruptcy, so it's really designed to address that anomaly and introduce greater fairness in the process, although I think we'd acknowledged that the numbers would expect it to be low, but it's something that we felt we needed to address. When you say that you think the numbers will be low, do you have any indication as to do you have any forecasting data in terms of what the final number will be? I don't, I don't. I would have to say that we don't. I know that there have been a low number of cases, at least two cases where those payments have been received within the period of a minimal asset process, but I don't have any way to predict what will happen. Okay. Has there been any information possibly provided by external organisations to maybe provide an indication as to what figures that they could potentially see? I don't have that information to hand. As I say, it's an anomaly that has arisen, but I don't have information as to projecting the number of people within a minimal asset process bankruptcy that are likely to have that sort of compensation or an additional asset coming in. Okay. Okay. Second question, convener. In your view, does the current approach help support financial resilience among those with the lowest incomes? Is there a risk that this change might, which removes assets from this group, might be counterproductive? I mean, it's certainly, convener, in response to the first point as well that I appreciate that we are not furnished with the information. Ideally, we would like to be able to say exactly how many people might be affected and caught up with this. From what I can gather, from the evidence that has been shared with me, is dealing with a potential anomaly rather than a huge wave of people that are being affected. It's difficult, therefore, to say to what extent the current provisions are actually causing any disadvantage or creating difficulty in that respect, but we have committed through the exercise in working with ICAS, R3 and with Step Change and other stakeholders to future review. We can look at picking up some of the issues that have been raised in the consultation that we felt were outwith the scope of this particular consolidation exercise, but we have also taken into account, as the practice, if you like, unfolds of putting through this regulation. If it does appear to be causing any difficulty, we can obviously address that later on down the line. I commit to the member that we will keep that very much on our horizon as something that we will keep an eye out for if it is causing any difficulty for those who are affected. That would be helpful. Thank you. I just want to go back to you again on that minister, if I may. In terms of scale, I appreciate that you don't want to put numbers on it, but would a low number be 1 to 10? Would a low number be 50 to 100? I am not trying to be difficult. I am not close to the detail of what was said in the consultation in terms of engagement with stakeholders. If I may, I deflect that question to Alex again, just in case he is aware of any anecdotal evidence that has been given by any of the consultees that have been involved in the exercise to date. As I said, I am aware of two instances so far where there has been a mineral asset process bankruptcy, where the funds have not been able to be administered within the bankruptcy, where they would have been administered in a full administration bankruptcy. I take the point about disadvantages of people who are in that group, but there is an element of unfairness in a bankruptcy process. Funds are being administered in one route, but not in another. Moving ahead, as I said, I am aware of two cases, but it is difficult to put a figure on the number of cases of compensation or where assets will arise in the future. It is difficult to do that. I suppose that we should welcome your natural caution. I will move on to questions from Monica Lennon. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. You mentioned in your statement that you value the feedback from stakeholders during the consultation over the summer. In the written evidence to the committee, both ICAS and R3 have argued that setting the statutory interest rate for bankruptcy dates at 8 per cent is punitive in the current financial climate and should be reduced. How do you respond to that concern? In the context of current low interest rates, I would agree that 8 per cent seems to be punitive. We are aware of that concern. I have shared my concern with the AIB about that, but there is a proposed consultation that is under way in England and Wales, which we can learn a lot from in terms of the feedback on that. In terms of the interest rate, there have been suggestions around having a 1.5 per cent premium on the base lending rate. The Bank of England might be a more acceptable mechanism that might be fairer. I am sympathetic to those arguments, but we want to learn from the exercise that is being undertaken in England and Wales. We have two separate consultations on the same subject that is running concurrently. We can learn from that, and if we need to adjust our approach based on the evidence that comes forward at that point. I appreciate stakeholders who have said that there is no need for ministers or AIB to have exactly the same approach that is taken in England and Wales, but we can learn in this case from a consultation on this issue and then decide either to take a similar approach to England and Wales or to decide whether we feel that the approach that they take is still too punitive to do something that is more appropriate. I am very much aware of the issue and I agree that 8 per cent is unacceptably high at this point in time, but we want to see the outcome of that consultation and learn from that. It has been the committee's understanding that the Scottish Government did prefer to wait for the results of the review of interest rates in England and Wales before considering changes here, but why not look at it now? Do we know how long that could take and is consideration being given to setting the Scottish interest rate separately? As I was saying, we have not set out in a path where we are deliberately going out of a way to have a different approach to doing than Wales. I do accept the principle that 8 per cent does seem unusually high given that we have very low base rates at this moment in time and it does not seem to have moved in line with the move down in terms of base rates. Therefore, it means that people are paying perhaps a higher rate than might be justified in the current circumstances. I think that we can learn from the exercise that is being done in England and Wales and once we have the outcome of that, if England and Wales decide to themselves reduce the rates, then in theory we could either go and set a similar level to England and Wales or, if we feel that the rate that they conclude is appropriate, it is still too high, we can do our own thing and have a different rate. However, I certainly give the member a commitment that we will be looking at this issue and, if need be, we will take a different path to that in England and Wales. However, we can learn from the consultation that is involving the same stakeholders that we would be consulting with in terms of the professional bodies, those advising individuals on debt issues and we can learn from the submissions that they make to the England and Wales exercise and take that forward. Is there a timescale for that? If it starts to take too long in England and Wales, is there a point where Scotland really cannot wait to learn from our neighbours? On the general principle, if it was taking too long, yes, we could potentially act, but maybe I will consult colleagues on the precise timing of that consultation just to make sure that the committee are informed of when that is likely to conclude or that Alex will address it. We have been advised that it is due, but I do not have a specific, we have asked for timings, but I do not have a specific timing yet. But clearly, if it was relatively soon? Yes, we would. No reason to believe that it will be delayed unduly by the authorities in England and Wales. I have a question now about conflicts of interest and given concerns amongst the holders about conflicts of interest in the accounts in bankruptcy's decision making roles, was any consideration given to introducing new procedures in those regulations to avoid such conflicts of interest? I certainly note the points that have been made by ICAS in particular on this and in regard to the appointment of those to the review panel. The potential that there is to, if not an actual conflict, turn to the perception of one to exist. It is an issue that I am quite keen to ensure. Because I think that AIB is a very impressive organisation doing an excellent job, I do not want any potential mud to be slung at the organisation, fair or unfair, and it would be in their interests as well as the wider interests of transparency to have that addressed. I do not think that there is any suggestion, convener of any impropriety, but I think that the fact that, as I understand it, the members of the panel are appointed by AIB, although they are perfectly good individuals, I am sure, to have them appointed and at least overseen to some extent by whatever mechanism independently validated would be helpful in ensuring that there was no potential for any conflict of interest to be perceived. That falls out with the role of the consolidating regulations that we are discussing today, but it is something that we could take forward under the future review that was discussed as well. You would look at that in future, so you do not really accept ICAS and R3's view that an opportunity has been missed here to make it process more transparent and whiter than white? I think that, convener, I would accept that it is a legitimate point to address. Because of the need to ensure that we have regulations through and time for the 30th November, timing may not be perfect to address that at this point in time, but I certainly commit to the committee that we will look at that issue and address that issue as soon as it is practicable in terms of the forthcoming review that has been proposed by AIB. My question involves a point that a number of stakeholders have drawn to our attention that regulation 5.1g of the draft bankruptcy, Scotland regulations 2016, requires that a money adviser must be licensed to use the common financial statement by the Money Advice Trust. ICAS and R3 suggest that money advisers will, in effect, be regulated by the Money Advice Trust as a result of this requirement. They suggest that it is inappropriate for this matter to be in control of an unaccountable third party, as opposed to a public body. Does the minister share those concerns? I certainly recognise the point that has been made. I have tried to understand myself why that has arisen, and I will invite colleagues to comment on this shortly if it may, convener. However, it is important to recognise that we are represented by the Scottish Government on AIB through AIB as an organisation, so we have a voice. If there were specific Scottish cases that came forward, we would have an expectation that the perspective of AIB would be listened to as to the circumstances of that money adviser being called into question or the use of appropriate regulation being called into question. I am confident that Scottish cases would be dealt with having listened to the evidence around the circumstances as they applied in Scotland. However, I accept that it may look somewhat odd to a third party audience that this is the situation that has arisen. I will ask colleagues to come in on this, but I understand that it is because of the various tools that are being used by money advisers in terms of collecting the evidence, whether it is the financial tools that are themselves regulated by MAT. There is a logic in having MAT oversight of the conduct of the individuals who are giving the money advice, but I can perhaps bring in Graham Fisher and Alex Whedon on this just to provide some background as to why we have ended up with MAT in this particular role, if that would be helpful, convener. I think that this goes back to the consultation from the Bankruptcy in Dead by Scotland reforms and the general approach that having a common financial tool to assess income and expenditure introduced a level of consistency and transparency in the process so that, where possible, debtors were being treated fairly. There are a number of different mechanisms for calculating income and expenditure, so that was part of the consultation. The consultation agreed that the common financial statement, which is available through licence from the money advice trust, was the most appropriate tool to use and to be adopted and prescribed in legislation as the common financial tool. That has been operating. Now, because access to the common financial statement becomes critical in the process of undertaking the function of money advisory in bankruptcy, it becomes a prerequisite of undertaking that function. To the best of our knowledge, we do not think that the money advice trust has revoked a licence. They have not informed us of that and we are certainly not aware of it having been an issue in the past. As I say, we would need to react to anything that happened in the future on that basis. However, we are where we are because that tool was accepted as being the most effective way to introduce some consistency and transparency across those calculations. Can I push you on how you will monitor the situation and ensure that you have accountability? Well, within the legislation, we have to ensure that, for example, we are setting debtor contribution orders. We have to ensure that income and expenditure, the common financial tool, is being applied properly and appropriately. That happens on an on-going basis when we are dealing with debtor application processes or where we are dealing with variations in debtor contributions or looking at the contribution levels in protected trust deeds, which are also calculated using the common financial tool. On an operational basis, that happens on an on-going basis. In fact, if we had particular concerns about a money adviser or a money advice organisation, we would most certainly raise those concerns with the organisation. Ultimately, it could be raised with a money advice trust, but we have not had to deal with that situation yet. Clearly, on a case-by-case basis, we have queries that go backwards and forwards in terms of the way that the common financial tool has been applied. However, in terms of monitoring it, that happens on an on-going basis. If I could add, convener, I think that it is important. It is important to recognise them. I understand Rachel Hamilton's point there, and I think that it is a fair point to say whether you will keep an eye on whether this is working in practice. It is certainly something that we could look at again during the future policy review. We could come back and understand if there have been any examples of this not working in practice. If there have been concerns about perhaps the decision not taking account of circumstances as they apply in Scotland and that we have not had a chance to intervene or to have a say, then those are the opportunities that might lend themselves to us to actually review whether this is still appropriate for us to go forward on this basis or should we do something differently? We can have a look at that at the time of the future policy review, if that would be of help to the committee to give reassurance around the role of MAT and to ensure that it is actually acting in the interests of good governance of the policy in Scotland in that intent. That would be helpful for reassurance on that point. ICAS has raised concerns about the absence of the appeal process against a decision by the accountant in bankruptcy to withdraw a money advisor's approved status. Does the minister think that money advisors should have a right of review against an accountant in bankruptcy decision to remove their approved status? On the general principle, everyone deserves a right to have their say if they are charged with something to be able to rebut the charges and the principles of good natural justice, if they like, that apply in our courts. That is something that is very important in our court system. Yes, I agree that that is important. That is something that I have asked colleagues who are with me today to have a look at in the context of the future policy review. The more we can design out the need for someone to use a judicial review as a means of questioning a decision that has been made about them, it is a very heavy-handed approach to potentially—some GRs can be very expensive for those involved. I think that we would like to ideally have a route that is more of an administrative justice-type route, which is lower cost and fact-based and hopefully less contentious and can be dealt with quickly. We will have a look at what can be done there. To provide reassurance, there is some protection through judicial review. I am saying that there is a route for someone to appeal or to raise concerns about the process that has been undertaken in terms of having their licence revoked, but I do not think that it is necessarily the most efficient means of doing that from a point of view of being a relatively onerous process to go through a judicial review. I am certainly happy to look at that under the future policy review and see if there is some improvement. Again, it will provide confidence in the system if there is an appropriate course to appeal if you feel that you have been done in justice. Do you have a timescale on what you are proposing? In terms of the future policy review, not as yet, but I will happily come back to committee on something that I want to discuss with the IBE myself and see if we can get some certainty around that. Unless, in the passage of time, Alex can update me on something that has been determined already, I am not aware of a fixed timescale. We have discussed the need for a policy review on all aspects of the reforms that were introduced. The reforms are quite wide-ranging, so some of the policies that were introduced, for example, on debt or discharge and variation on debt or contribution order, although it has been introduced since April 2015, some of those processes do not have a great deal of experience to learn from, because they happen some way down the line within the administration of IKs. However, we are not recognising the need that, as a significant amount of change was introduced at that time that will be subject to policy review and we are discussing the appropriate time that we should be undertaking that, but it has not been fixed just yet. I may add that this is one issue that falls into a family of issues that we have already discussed today, which are perhaps beyond the scope of the secondary regulations and legislation itself in terms of regulations, but are worthy issues that would be worth taking forward and having further discussion around them. Future policy review will mop up a number of those issues and hopefully come to a constructive place in terms of addressing them. We recognise that the legitimate issues that are being raised by IKs, R3 and others and the committee today, but we feel that it is more appropriate to deal with it separately than through the regulations, because they are really bringing into effect the intent of Parliament when it passed the act unanimously. We can deal with other issues that arise through the consultation in a separate vehicle. That you've finished, Rachel. Anyone else got anything further to add? If not, we'll now move on to the debate on the motions recommending approval of the affirmative instruments, which is also agenda item 2. We will consider the three motions recommending approval of the three affirmative instruments. I remind officials that they are not able to participate in this formal debate on the motions and advise that, in accordance with rule 10.6.3 of standing orders, the debate on the motions can last no longer than 90 minutes. I now invite the minister to move and speak to motions S5M-02136, S5M-02137 and S5M-02138. I have no further comments to make. Are there any contributions that members wish to make or not? That was a relatively short debate, minister. I'm sure that you're very glad about how you might wish to respond and move matters forward if you'd like to. I'm grateful for the committee's consideration of the regulations and I'm happy to take forward the points that we've discussed today in terms of further work that needs to be done. It's very helpful to have the committee have such detailed oversight of the regulations, and that's helpful to us and to EIB, so thank you for your consideration. Okay, thank you very much. I now advise you that I intend to go through each of the instruments and associated motions in turn. In terms of the protected trusted forms Scotland regulations 2016 and references to section 171i of the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016 in the entry for form 3 in the list of forms used in connection with protected trust deeds contained in the schedule and in the heading to form 3 in the schedule that should be referenced to section 171i. Does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the attention of Parliament on the general reporting grounds as they contain two minor drafting errors? Does the committee agree to welcome the Scottish Government's intention to correct the errors at the next legislative opportunity? Motion S5M-02136 invites the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the draft protected trust deeds forms Scotland regulations be approved. Does the committee agree to that motion? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the draft protected trust deeds Scotland amendment regulations 2016. Is the committee content with this instrument from a technical perspective? Motion S5M-02137 invites the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the draft protected trust deeds Scotland amendment regulations 2016 be approved. Does the committee agree to the motion? Turning now to the draft Bankruptcy Scotland regulations 2016, Regulation 22 makes provision in respect of the conversion into sterling of accreditors claims stated in a foreign currency. The regulation provides that the manner of conversion is to be at a single exchange rate of for that currency as determined by the trustee with reference to prevailing exchange rates on the date of sequestration. The Scottish Government has confirmed that regulations have agreed to amend that and amending instruments, so we welcome that. Does the committee agree to draw, nonetheless, the draft instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting grounds 8, as the meaning of Regulation 22 of the instrument could be clearer? In addition, the draft instrument contains the following drafting errors. First, the definition of common financial tool in Regulation 22 refers incorrectly to Regulations 14 to 16. The reference should instead be to Regulations 15 to 17. The committee may wish to accept the Scottish Government's proposals to correct this error as a printing point in the minister's signing copy since the error is minor and highly self-evident. Form 27, in schedule 1 of the regulations, refers incorrectly to section 141 of the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 1985, as amended. The reference should instead be to section 141 of the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016. Committee may wish to note that the Scottish Government intends to correct this error at the next legislative opportunity. Thirdly, in the notes to form 26, the third bullet point should refer to a fine imposed in a justice of the peace court or a district court rather than to a fine imposed in a district court only. Committee may wish to note that the Scottish Government intends to correct this error at the next legislative opportunity. Does the committee agree to draw the draft instruments to the attention of the Parliament under the general reporting grounds on account of the drafting errors? Does the committee agree to welcome the Scottish Government's intention to correct those errors? Finally, motion S5M-02138 invites the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the draft Bankruptcy Scotland Regulations 2016 be approved. Does the committee agree to the motion? Excellent. It only remains now for me to thank the minister and his officials for their evidence and for coming here to be with us today. We are very grateful, minister, and I now allow you to leave if you would like to suspend the meeting just for a few minutes while the minister and his team take their leave. Thank you, minister. Everyone, we will now move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of a negative instrument, which is part of the package of instruments connected to the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Bankruptcy applications and decisions Scotland regulations 2016 SSI 2016-295. Is the committee content with this instrument from a technical perspective? Is the committee content to note the instrument and make no recommendation? We now move to agenda item 4, which is consideration of an instrument not subject to any parliamentary procedure, which is part of the package of instruments connected to the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016 Commencement Regulations 2016 SSI 2016-294. Is the committee content with this instrument from a technical perspective? Thank you. From a lead committee perspective, is the committee content to note the instrument and make no recommendation? Thank you. In relation to all the instruments, does the committee wish to draw to the attention of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee the policy evidence that we have taken today? Before we move on to the next item on agenda, I am remiss in as much as we have received apologies from David Torrance today, which we did not announce at the beginning of the meeting, so I will put that on the record now. We are sorry that he cannot be with us. We now move to agenda item 5, which is consideration of an instrument subject to affirmative procedure and no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the following affirmative instruments. The draft Air Weapons Licensing Exemptions Scotland Regulations 2016 or the Draft Crofting Commission Elections Scotland Amendment Regulations 2016. Is the committee content with these instruments? Thank you. Agenda item 6 is the consideration of instrument subject to negative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the following negative instruments. The Act of Sederent Fees of Solisters and Shorthand Writers in the Court of Session, Sheriff Appeal Court and Sheriff Court Amendment 2016, SSI 2016 slash 316 or the General Pharmacutical Council Amendment of Miscellaneous Provisions Rules Order of Council 2016, SSI 2016 slash 1008 is the committee content with these instruments. Agenda item 7 is the consideration of instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure and they are the act of Sederent Sheriff Court bankruptcy rules 2016, SSI 2016 slash 313. Form 6.1-A in schedule 1 of the instrument contains the following drafting errors. Some text is missing from the second and alternative sub-paragraph B of paragraph 3, where petitioner is a trustee under a trustee of the statement of facts. The paragraph should read that it would be in the best interests of the creditors that an award of sequestration be made. The first sub-paragraph B of paragraph 3, where petitioner is a trustee under a trustee of the statement of facts should refer in the italicised note to the debtor rather than to the respondent. Does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the intention of Parliament on general reporting ground, on account of these drafting errors? Does the committee also agree to welcome that the Lord President's private office plans to correct those errors before the instrument comes into force on 30 November 2016? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the following instruments, the act of Sederent Rules of the Court of Session, Sheriff Appeal Court Rules and Sheriff Court Rules Amendment, Bankruptcy Scotland Act 2016, SSI 2016-312, or the act of Sederent Rules of the Court of Session, 1994, and Sheriff Court Rules Amendment number 4, simple procedure, 2016, SSI 2016-315, or the act of Sederent Rules of the Court of Session, 1994, amendment postal administration, 2016, SSI 2016-318, or the act of Sederent Rules of the Court of Session, 1994, and summary application rules, 1999 amendment, serious crime prevention orders, etc. 2016, SSI 2016-319, or the Scottish Fiscal Commission Act 2016, commencement and transitry provision regulations 2016, SSI 2016-326. Is the committee content with these instruments? Thank you. In relation to SSI 2016-315, does the committee agree to welcome that in respect of an undertaking previously given by the Lord President's private office, various provisions in the instrument promptly correct errors reported upon by the committee in relation to the act of Sederent Simple Procedure 2016, SSI 2016-200? Will we welcome that, please? We come to the end of the meeting. I thank you very much for your attention and help this morning. I'll close this meeting.