 We have a full house this morning but Patrick Harvey has indicated that he needs to leave the committee fel I. Item 1 on the agenda. Can I ask you members are content that we take item 7, discussion of evidence heared in private at today's meeting? Is that agreed? Thank you. Can I ask if the committee are content that we take consideration of our draft annual report in private at future meetings? That's agreed. Thank you. Item 2 on the agenda, we are going to take some evidence on the question the economic impact of creative industries. I'd like to welcome our panel witnesses this morning. We are joined by Janet Archer, who is the chief executive of Creative Scotland, and Natalie Usher, who is director of film and media, also at Creative Scotland. We are also joined by David Smith, director of creative industries at Scottish Enterprise and Ian Hamilton, head of creative industries at Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Welcome to you all. We've got about an hour for this session. We need to finish at 11 or just shortly thereafter because of other business that we have to attend to. What we wanted to do this morning is some follow-up work on the report that the committee produced in March last year, so nearly a year ago, which had a list of recommendations around creative industries, particularly looking at the fields of film, television and computer games. We've had responses at the time from Scottish Government and Australia's agencies. I wanted just to see how the landscape had changed and whether any of our recommendations had been progressed in the interim period. Before we get into questions, Janet Archer, I think that you wanted to say a little bit just to set the scene perhaps at the start, so maybe just take a couple of minutes if you would and do that. Thank you, convener. We're very pleased to be given the opportunity to report to the committee today, alongside colleagues from Highlands and Scottish Enterprise. Members will be aware that Creative Scotland refreshed its approach to planning in 2014. We produced a 10-year plan and, underneath that, we made a commitment to produce individual strategies for arts, screen and creative industries. We published our screen strategy in October 2014. I'm very pleased with the way that we've been able to take up on those drivers for change. We're hoping to have the opportunity to tell you in more detail today what exactly has been achieved, except against that. We will be publishing a more fulsome report that will make available to you too, which gives you an illustration of the extraordinary amount of new productions, of new talent, the work that we're doing in terms of marketing Scotland as a location for the world to come to, so a very positive story to tell there. Creative Industries, we're treating separately, which obviously covers the 16 areas of the Creative Industries that we're tasked with supporting. We've been working very hard in partnership with all of our partner public sector bodies, which include Highlands, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Funding Council, who jointly fund our director of Creative Industries Post. We're shortly going to be working on that, and we're shortly going to be publishing our Creative Industries strategy, and the arts strategy will sit alongside that too, which deals with all of those organisations, which are very much part of the Creative Industries, but which will always require a level of public subsidy in order to exist. A big example of that is the Edinburgh International Festival, which is our largest client. The connect across both the cultural side and the Creative Industries side is increasingly recognised. Creative Scotland is increasingly recognised both within Scotland, but outside of Scotland, as being quite groundbreaking and bringing those two pieces together. Thank you very much for that introduction. There are really three areas that we cover. There was film, television and computer games. I think that I'm trying to provide some focus that we want to start off with film and then we'll move on to the other areas. If I recall the report that we did in March last year, when we took evidence, the biggest concern in the film sector was the lack of a film studio in Scotland. We've had a number of submissions that have come into the committee just over the last week or so in advance of this session, which I've reinforced the message that, from the producer's point of view, there continues to be a concern about the lack of a film studio and the sense that we're a year on from that report. We don't seem to be any clearer as to what's happening with the delivery of a film studio, which so many people believe is so vital for the industry to develop. Are you able to give us an update today of where exactly we are with a film studio for Scotland? We are, to an extent. I'm going to hand over to David Smith, who will talk about that. Thank you. The first thing that he says is that there's a huge amount of work going on behind the scenes, which we'd love to be in a position to share, but we can't share a lot of that detail for reasons of commercial confidentiality. However, we are and remain absolutely committed, along with the career of Scotland and the Scottish Government, through the film studio delivery group work to ensuring that there is additional screen infrastructure developed and put in place in Scotland. As we've touched on before, particularly because of the state-age rules, we are very dependent on the private sector leading investment in the studio infrastructure, but there is progress and we're continuing to negotiate with a private sector developer on a like proposal. We, from the Scottish Enterprise Point of View, particularly are bringing our knowledge and expertise in infrastructure and commercial matters and negotiation to those talks. Care of Scotland, colleagues Natalie Janet and her team are obviously bringing their considerable knowledge and expertise and knowledge of the sector to bring to bear in helping with those negotiations. ACT 10 is an advocate for the sector and I've been working considerably on developing the ecosystem, funding, production, skills needs and so on, all of which is helping. We appreciate the sector's patience on this matter. We've been working, as I know you realise, with this developer for some time. There have been a number of iterations on the proposal in order to ensure that it meets EU state rules and public and private sector interests and requirements. I want to emphasise to the committee today that we're navigating incredibly complex and shifting to aim with this proposal. Studios, as we've said before, are notoriously difficult to make work commercially, which is why we're taking time to get this absolutely right. Meanwhile, there is a great deal of progress that's been made in the film sector more generally. I'm sure that Janet and Natalie in particular want to touch on that, but over a period of about six or seven years, if I recall rightly, film production spend in Scotland has pretty much doubled. Natalie, I'm sure, will want to comment more on that. We're seeing newly coming towards the end of the completion of series to United Kingdom, which has been terrific, has generated a lot of economic benefit and employment and is definitely one of our really successful productions. Recently, we've seen really exciting announcements, like a robot war starting to film here in Scotland on some of the additional technologies and cutting-edge technology that that will bring here to Scotland. Janet and Natalie may want to comment and follow those. Yes, I think that the point that David is making in relation to the acceleration in terms of production spending in Scotland tells quite a powerful story. Of course, that is in the main due to Outlander, but what that has done is create a new confidence and the number of new productions that are coming to us very clearly signals that the world sees Scotland as being open for business in a very proactive way. We're very pleased about that. We have a location service at Creative Scotland with a team who proactively work to sell Scotland as a place to come and make movies. I don't know, Natalie, whether you want to embellish that in any way. Yes, I support that. We have always said that one of our priorities is to deliver studio facilities infrastructure for Scotland, and we are absolutely working to do that. But I think that we want to be clear that there are a number of studio facilities available already in Scotland. We have a really, really large US production in Outlander in a facility that has been developed by the owner of that property. We market conversable studio space, which is something that US studios want. We surveyed them at the end of last year and said that it's a truism, but if you were offered a fantastic studio brand new spec at this price or a big barn that you could convert at this price, which would you prefer? It depends on their budgets as to which one they will choose, but we are able to offer a number of options to US studio spaces or productions coming, which is still good. We are seeing the benefit of the new £1.75 million production growth fund, which we announced last October, which is a non-recoupable grant to people coming here and spending their budgets in Scotland. We have seen increased US studio interest as a result of that. They are looking at the UK anyway because of the UK tax credits, and they also say that we have this production, we need this build, what can you do for us for Scotland? What we can say is that we have all those spaces that you could use to convert them. That has an impact on budgets for those facilities, but they would potentially choose to do it, as Outlander did. What we want to be able to offer them is a greater choice, and we are working really hard to do that, but it's not as if we have to turn people away because we haven't got the shiny new studio. I think that I would just really want to emphasise that we absolutely see that as something that we want to deliver. We've said that and we're working towards it, but it's one of a number of things that Creative Scotland and alongside our partners in the film studio delivery group are working on alongside other things. It's not the only answer to making a really growing sector in Scotland, it's one of the things that we're focusing on. Maybe I could come back, Mr Smith, to your original comments. I think that the committee understands the issue of commercial confidentiality. Nevertheless, I think that you'll appreciate that there is a real sense of frustration that comes out of the submissions that we've had that we are now a year on from the evidence that we took—more than a year on from the evidence that we took in relation to our report last year. People just don't see anything happening, there are press reports about planning applications for the studio at Pentlands, and it's all confidential and nobody can talk about it, so nobody really understands are we actually making any progress at all. Just to read you something that came in in the submission that we got from the Association of Film and Television Practitioners in Scotland, that they make the case very clearly that Wales has two major film studios with six stages, Northern Ireland has two major studios with six stages and plans for more studios in development, these two small nations of the UK, both of them smaller than Scotland, substantially smaller than Scotland and both population and land mass, have four studios with 12 stages and we've got none currently that match that facility. Is there anything that you can say today that will give reassurance to people in the industry who are deeply frustrated that they just don't see anything happening? We've been hearing for 50 years about the need for a film studio in Scotland. Are we any closer today than we were even a year ago? Well, as Natalie just touched on there, the first thing that I would say is that we do have active operating studio infrastructure today in Scotland. We have seen a very substantial increase in production spent in that area of the last few years in particular. The challenges, particularly in relation to this current proposal, have been many in complex in nature and we've been working through them. We can't circumvent them, but we've been working through them. We are being as creative as we possibly can be with taking very innovative approaches to addressing the challenges. I can assure the committee that we continue to have encouraging and productive negotiations with the developer. I hope that you'll appreciate that because of commercial confidentiality, I can't go into the detail of some of those challenges and issues. I do understand that, Mr Smith, but I think that what we're looking for and what the stakeholders are looking for is some reassurance that we're going to get a resolution of this and some understanding of a likely timescale for that. Can you give us any reassurance? I can point to the fact that it's great appetite and interest in the part of the developer to try and put all the elements in place to try and secure a positive outcome here. We're of a similar mind and we're providing every support. We're very dependent, as I said earlier, on the developer themselves and helping to support the end-to-pew to find a proposal in place. When is it going to happen? I can't. It would be inappropriate for me to put a timescale on something that is going to be determined by the developer. As I mentioned earlier, we are very dependent on the private sector and the private sector developer in taking forward investment proposals around studio infrastructure. You pointed earlier to the examples in Wales and Northern Ireland. In all of those instances, private sector developers have played a leading role in taking forward the development of the infrastructure in those locations. We have had across Europe, as I mentioned in the previous committee sessions, where particularly developments that have been led have had to be unwine through Theodad de la Llyw, for example, in Spain, which was in a highly publicised EU a couple of years ago. That whole stated investment had to be repaid back. We're absolutely determined to develop studio infrastructure here in Scotland, but we're determined to get this right and to do this in conjunction with the private sector. I think that you understand the frustration that we've been told and, for the time and memorial, we are absolutely determined and we will do, but that doesn't seem to me to be any progress, to repeat the point. I think that the concern of the industry, and I might get a concern today, is that you're explaining it away. You're saying on the one hand that you're determined, but we're doing all those other things. There are spaces and people need not to worry, but in the sense that I get from that, I wonder if you are faring this, that, while you think that the studio might be a good thing, you don't think that it's absolutely critical. Please don't misunderstand our determinations on wavering and our determination to work with the private sector to put in place additional and more studio infrastructure here in Scotland. It's not a case of one or the other, it's very much both. It's a case of taking forward our efforts to secure even more investment in studio infrastructure, as well as some of the work that Janet and Natalie have outlined, developing the overall ecosystem, the conditions within which more productions, more private sector investment will be attracted to Scotland. The different industry, there would be a different approach, because the fact of the matter is that industry is critical to the economy. The figures that we were showing were that we're falling behind all of these other parts of the United Kingdom. If you appreciate the importance of the sector economically, as well as creatively, surely you would be giving more of a priority to dealing with the main ask of the film industry, which is a studio that's fit for purpose, placed somewhere that will draw people in. We absolutely do appreciate the importance of the sector of this industry. As Natalie has commented on and I may want to comment further, there has been substantial progress made, new investment in production, incentive funds, skills funds, development of other activities that are helping to grow and develop the ecosystem of support around the film and screen sector. We recognise that there is a real opportunity there. We have been saying that for a long time for private sector to come and lead investment in additional studio infrastructure, but the approach isn't really any different than the approach that we have taken in other sectors where we always look to get alongside private sector-led investment. Is it reasonable to put an end date on this? I presume that when people develop projects, they say that by this stage we will have got there and by this stage we would expect it to be a studio and then work back. Do you have an end date at all? It's difficult for us to put a specific date on and impose a date on a private sector developer. I think that you could just simply say this when the project has to be finished. If we can't do it by then, if we can't get agreement by then, we'll go somewhere else. I would have thought that it's a very important sector economically. I can't imagine that there are not people out there who would want to see and be able to drive it through. In my experience, the Government negotiates with whom it's with, so it's a timetable, and if we can't match the timetable and the expectation, we would move to somebody else. We feel that we are very close here. We are continuing to have very productive conversations and negotiations with the developer. There are a couple of important commercial considerations for the developer that they are working through in the next month or two. I would hope that, as those become clearer in the outcome of those commercial considerations, we will be able to move to a closing investment. In the meantime, as we have said, we do continue to remain open and very open to other expressions of interest, so it's not as if we're completely placing all our bets on this one set of negotiations. So are there other negotiations going on? No, we remain open to other expressions of interest, so we're continuing to— Okay, okay, okay. I'll need to bring other members in. There's a film studio delivery group. Can you update us on who's on it and when it last met? Yes, the film studio delivery group, the working group last met Heller on this week. For discussion, we have an executive group meeting once a month and a working group meeting every four night. The members of the group are members from our three organisations, Scottish Enterprise, Cate of Scotland and the Scottish Government. On the executive group, it's senior members of the Scottish Government culture division, myself, Janet, Natalie and Alan McQuid, our director of business infrastructure at Scottish Enterprise. What action points came out of that last meeting? Well, we—I guess they have a vote for me to go into detail, but we discussed the progressive negotiations, some of the further work that needs to be done to help the developer to finalise the business plan that they're working on. We also discussed other actions and opportunities that we can take to try to encourage more expressions of interest in studio infrastructure. We also get an update from Natalie and her colleagues on what's happening more generally in terms of demand for studio space for infrastructure and what's going on in the sector, so those are the kind of topics that we discussed. The convener mentioned that we have received a lot of submissions from people in the industry about this topic, and one of the things that comes up repeatedly is the proposal for Pentland. I'm aware that there's a panning issue around that. How much can you see about your involvement in that particular project? Or create a Scotland involvement? I'm happy to say that we continue to remain in regular contact with the developers there, but the planning application has been called in by the Scottish Government, and the outcome of that, as I understand it, is due to be determined on in the early part of the spring. There's not much more I can say at this point until that has been determined. There's obviously a lot of frustration out there at the call-in and at the timing of the call-in. It's quite clear that people feel very frustrated by it. Can I add to that? Just for clarity, Ian Monroe, our deputy chief executive, represents Creative Scotland on that group, and I see all of the minutes and I listen into meetings whenever I can. In relation to Pentlands, we've met the Pentlands team three times over the course of the journey of the development of that proposition, where clearly they have got to be able to, as a commercial developer, develop at their own pace. Creative Scotland's role in that is to, and indeed our role in all of the studio propositions, is to scrutinise what's being proposed by any developer and absolutely make sure that it's fit for purpose in terms of industry needs. So that's where we're focusing our intelligence and expertise in terms of the studio proposition. Obviously working as closely as we can to encourage an acceleration in relation to how things are being responded to. Is it a good project in your view? The Pentland one? It's a mixed use development, so it's not just focusing on films. One aspect of it is film. From the perspective of the film bit, it looks as if it's coming together because it's shifting and changing as they're building their business model. It would be wrong of me to comment on the specificity of it at this point in terms of whether or not it's going to meet industry requirements. I think it would be wrong of me to talk about the detail of that, which would obviously compromise the commerciality of their proposition. They've got a good team. I think we can say that. They've got a team that we respect. What I would say is that the AFPTS, the Association of Film and Television Practitioners who have put in some questions to you, Willie Wands is one of the people who have been in to speak to those people, the proposition, they've scrutinised the plans and all the rest of it, and they are as representatives of the sector who would be working in that environment. I think it's a really fantastic proposition. That's the feedback that's coming from the sector. Of course it's important to note that that proposition doesn't currently involve any public sector investment as a private development. It's interesting that, given that all our discussions over time have been about you guys working closely together—correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the sense that you at Creative Scotland seem to know quite a bit about this project, but David, who's working on a different film studio project at Scottish Enterprise, doesn't seem to have much to say about the Pentland proposal at all. Have you been talking, given that you've got this group? Are you talking about that? Do you think that it's a good proposal? I think that, again, it looks very exciting and ambitious to add to the points of comments that Natalie has made, but, as we've touched on it, I don't think that it would be appropriate for us to comment further until we get the outcome of the planned determination. I just want to make a final point. Natalie, Jane and Janet had mentioned this figure about the production spend growing from £12 million, doubling. In the UK, production spend is £1.47 billion. It's obviously being pointed out that our share of that is then 3 per cent. Most of a large part of that is outlander. There is a sense that we are very behind. We should have a population share at the very least and probably more given our land mass, which is much greater than 10 per cent of the UK land mass. The £1.6 billion figure is the screen sector figure. As I put, production spend is people across film, television and commercials have come to Scotland and actually spent money in it. The value of the screen sector is a slightly different figure. In your summary of comparison with the other nations in the UK, to say that we don't have stages or studio space, I just want to reiterate that we have four stages with a US production company, Sony. We want to build on that, but we have got something. Can I ask the members to be brief? Obviously, we can't spend the whole hour talking about one issue, so I'll ask the members to be brief. First, Gordon MacDonald. Two very quick questions. Scotland was voted the world's best cinematic destination by an American newspaper's readers recently. We know that we can attract film companies for the outdoor locations. The film studio delivery group was set up in May 2013, nearly three years ago. What steps have they taken to address the problem of lack of indoor studio facilities and editing and finishing space so that we can make the benefit of what Joan mentioned of the £1.5 billion earlier should be £126 million. We are currently at £46 billion of spending in this country, so we are missing out on £80 million of spending in Scotland. One, what is being done to do that? Secondly, are we missing out on European regional development funding? I am looking at screen Yorkshire's state aid agreement to support filming in Yorkshire, and it highlights that the fund for this scheme is from the European regional development fund. We are missing out on European funding to try and attract a studio because we have been dragging our feet for so long. I can start. I am going to hand over to colleagues to follow through. The film studio delivery group began the process of endeavouring to find a private sector developer by putting the project out to Tender. The end result of that tender was that none of the propositions that came through were appropriate or indeed fundable in the context of state aid. At that point, the film studio group opened up to other propositions. I do not know, David, whether you want to embellish that in any more detail. I think we have covered it. The tender process took some time. In terms of the RDF funding, absolutely there are opportunities to explore. We have been proactive in looking at what those might be. Natalie can tell you about some work that we have been doing. It is not straightforward within the context of the way that the RDF is currently working in Scotland, but we are hoping that we can begin a conversation. We are working with Scottish Government colleagues to look at how we might be able to engineer an environment where more RDF funding benefits Scotland in the way that it does in other parts of the UK. Natalie, do you want to add to that? Yes. I suppose that we are picking up on the spend point again. We just need to be clear about using the same figures. We are not missing out on £86 million or whatever million pounds worth of spend, because I think that that is a different figure. Out of curiosity, you kept saying that we have got four studios now. I understand that one of them may not be available for much longer, according to some of the emails that we have had, but bearing in mind that Wales and Northern Ireland have large studio complexes, and you have mentioned that we have got four, can you tell us in terms of square footage how our four studios compare with Wales and Northern Ireland, are we 10 per cent, 20 per cent of the floor space that they have in the other two nations of the UK? I have not got those figures, I am afraid, but we can certainly provide them to you. Yes, on the EU funding, the RDF funding, we absolutely agree. The funding that you mentioned is from the previous RDF funding round. There is the new one 2014-2020. We are looking at that, so they have finished in December. I am sure that they will be looking in the same way that we are to try to access that funding. We commissioned a scoping report as to how we might fashion a content production fund for film, television, animation and games and other digital content. We are hoping to have that report this week, and then we will discuss it with the Government. That, for us, is going to be the key to unlocking an awful lot of production to bring further production here. I hope that that requires only very short answers. Scottish Government agencies are negotiating with one private developer about one studio proposal, and Scottish Government reporters are determining a planning issue around another proposal that is brought forward by a different developer. Is the negotiation with the first developer in any way contingent on the outcome of the decision on the second? I have very brief answers on that. No, not at this point. Okay, the second question. I think that Mr Smith mentioned early spring. I am sure that you are aware that, because of Perda, decisions that have a bearing on the election cannot be announced between the 24th of March and the 5th of May. Do you accept that, therefore, nothing is going to move on this before the 5th of May, or is there a prospect? I presume that you accept that Perda applies. Is there the prospect of anything happening before then? I absolutely accept the point about Perda applying, but I think that you also appreciate that. That does not mean to say that nothing will happen in the meeting. We will continue to progress the negotiations at the maximum extent that we can over the coming period. I wish you a laugh. This morning, we have seen a picture being painted, which is getting very fuzzy. Quite honestly, I can feel the anger in the room, and I feel as though you guys are passing the parcel. Can I read you an email that I got from someone who works in the industry? We are really dragging our heels on delivering the infrastructure that the industry needs to move forward and to show our full-worth to the country's economy. We could do so much more. Those who are working in the industry are becoming very frustrated at the lack of action in developing the necessary studio facilities to support their work. This has been a commercial in confidence for over nine months, now with no confirmation or details released, and now people are beginning to wonder if this is a smokescreen and does this deal actually exist in reality. From my experience as previously being a councillor, if you are working through a project and you agree with Joanne Lamont in regards to going to work back, if you even get this deal agreed this month, you then have to go and get planning permission and you will be sitting for months in some wee council office trying to get it. Hopefully, if it is in Lanarkshire, I will make sure that we do some moving on, but I can tell you that I am getting angry. I know that Mr Brodie is getting very angry. What is happening? It is not funny, Mr Swin. It is not funny. The fact is that I feel as though you guys are passing the parcel. Let us go into that committee and tell them this. Go away and forget it for another year. Absolutely not. Those discussions and accusations are very real. I do understand the frustration, but I hope that we will also appreciate that our approach here has been very clear for a considerable period of time. We are looking for a dependent upon the private sector leading investment approach here. We have been working through a whole series of quite complex and challenging issues in relation to the current proposal that has been under negotiation as you pointed out for around nine months or so now. We are continuing to work with the developer to help to finalise the plans and the proposals there. I feel that we are very, very close at this point in time. Challenges have come up all along the way and we have had to work with the developer to work through those challenges to try and bolster strengthen the proposal, the business plan and even further. We have to reach a point where the developer is comfortable given all the constraints and complex challenges around the operation of the film studio where the developer is absolutely comfortable with moving forward. I can assure you that we feel very comfortable and confident that once we have reached that point, the developer and developers are ready to progress and commit to the business plan that they have been developing and will be able to act very quickly indeed. Where does the developer want to develop Glasgow, Lanarkshire, South East, East Kilbride, Oftermachty? For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I cannot reveal the precise location, but I can say that, as we indicated on the back of the study that was undertaken back in 2014, it absolutely is an essential location. It has to be because that is what makes commercial sense and recognises the availability of talent and infrastructure that exists. It is within a 50 or 100-mile radius of Edinburgh. That is the point. That is the frustration. As I said, you cannot tell us and everyone people who are writing to us do not, with the greatest respect to both of these, do not believe that it is happening. We will wait and see. European state aid rules. We have heard that there is no application for European funding, so that does not come to the question. There is no displacement. In fact, we are adding jobs. There is no impact on competition because we have heard the BBC talk about the growth in production, and there is no direct public sector involvement in the construction. I would like to know what state aid rules are hindering us progressing on this. The second thing that I would like to know is that, on the basis that you were at an advanced stage in November, that assumes that you have a timeline and a project chart or a grant chart, whatever you want to call it, in terms of activities and what the risk factors are as we go through that. If you have that, I would like to see a copy of it. The last question is how much have you actually spent on this project to date? Okay. Let me take those in order. On the point about the timeline approach, the timeline very much and the project development plan very much rests with the developer. In any project of this nature, this should be a great timeline because the parties involved are joint. Presumably, you have on your wall, as I am sure most managers do, a project chart of the things that have to happen, when they have to happen and what the risk factors are. There is no commercial confidentiality in that, by the way, because we are not asking about commercial details. Where is the chart and where are we on that, and what do you mean by advanced stage? We have a project team in place. We have indicative timelines, depending on the main risk facts or dependencies that are in relation to the private sector. Which is all that is built into the timeline? Which is incorporated into our indicative timelines. We have that as part of our project team. Our project manager, David Jack, owns that. It is overseen by our internal senior responsible owner for the project on behalf of the first two people of Alun McQued. We have a chart, but we have a project plan that incorporates some timetable assumptions, so we have that. Can we see it? I would need to take advice on that, but I will be happy to come back to the committee. I think that there will be aspects of commercial confidentiality again. That does not come into... We can look at that and come back to you in terms of giving some form of indication that our risks and dependencies are there. How much have we spent on this today? We have spent in terms of research and planning to get back to you with an exact figure. I do not have the precise number in my head, but it is somewhere in the region of north of about £60,000 plus in terms of consultancy research taking formal external advice, commercial advice, legal opinion, some due diligence. In terms of direct spend on the project, I will come back to you with a precise figure. I do not have the exact number in my head. Can I ask you a question? Sorry, I did not ask you a first question. I apologise. The principal point that we have to address is to act in accordance with market economy investor principles. That is what we have taken extensive advice from the Government of the State and also from external legal advice, legal councillor advice. What lies behind that is that we have to ensure that any public sector support is within EU stated limits, but also that any support that we provide does not distort the overall market. No imputation for competition, we are not asking for European state funding, and a large part of the investment is private sector investment. However, we are at this facility given the scale and nature that we would compete at the UK and European level for the attraction of productions and production funding, so we have to take that into consideration. The EU state aid legislation applies to the UK, so it is not that we are applying for EU money, it is just that the legislation applies in the UK, and we have to comply with the aid intensity levels, i.e. the proportion of public investment compared to private. That is what we have to work with in. Right, I think that we probably need to move on to a different topic, and we are going to bring in Dennis Robertson. Thank you very much, Camille. In fact, Natalie, you just led me on to this question. We have a 10-year plan. We have heard about the 10-year plan, and that is the strategy for moving forward. However, the Scottish Affairs Committee Westminster recently met, and it has come out with 12 recommendations in its words to have a robust assessment of the creative industries. Are you working with the UK Government within the recommendations of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and does that impact on your 10-year plan? Creative Scotland's 10-year plan. Yes, one of the recommendations that you will have noticed through the Scottish Affairs Committee is that Creative Scotland would be given a place on the UK Creative Industries Council. Prior to that, as was recorded in the evidence that I gave, I had negotiated observer status for two of those meetings. We are in regular dialogue with the wider UK. We have a relationship with the BFI. We talked to DCMS colleagues through our Scottish Government-sponsored relationship and independently. We talked to all the five nations arts councils in relation to arts and creative industries, and we talked to British Councils. There are a number of avenues in which we connect into the broader context. Has the recommendations that they have come up with made you look again at your 10-year plan to incorporate their recommendations, or were you confident that, in that 10-year plan, you were actually covering the recommendations that they came up with? I think that we are confident that the 10-year plan does take into account Scotland connecting with the world international is one of our five ambitions in the plan. We have divided that up into three-year blocs of time, so the strategies look independently at arts, green creative industries, and the creative industries strategy is about to be published. It is absolutely taking into account the recommendations that are coming through the Scottish Affairs Committee. The recommendations are to look at some of the tax relief in terms of moving forward. If we look at the BBC, for instance, do you feel that Scotland is getting its appropriate share of the BBC moving forward content production, or are we really lagging behind? I gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee just after Christmas, and so you will see in that evidence that we have made a clear case that Scotland should proactively negotiate with the BBC in relation to increase production spend in Scotland, and when we are in dialogue with the BBC around how to do that. We also gave evidence to say that we felt strongly that we wanted to see more content from Scotland represented across the wider BBC and were, again, having proactive conversations and dialogue with the BBC in relation to that. Can you give this committee some degree of reassurance? We have heard a lot about dialogue, proactive dialogue and what we are not hearing with some respect is whether or not you feel confident that this dialogue is going to come to some degree of benefit to Scotland through that dialogue. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for the dialogue to happen and we are looking for an outcome that says that Scotland is going to get its fair share in terms of the production spend in Scotland, and we are going to see more opportunities for all the people working in the creative industries to benefit from that. That is what we are looking for—some degree of assurance from you. I am confident that the BBC is assertively connecting with us in an accelerated way. I met Tony Hall during the week of the Education and Culture Committee. I am meeting him again in a couple of weeks' time. We are also meeting colleagues from other parts of the BBC in Scotland and beyond Scotland. Our director of arts engagements is involved in a working group with colleagues from the BBC. There are a number of avenues where we are looking at how we might generate new opportunities by building on the clear evidence that is in place that there is a strong feeling in Scotland that the BBC needs to increase its energy in a Scotland context. However, I am confident that the BBC is positively engaging in that dialogue. I am sure that we will have an opportunity to build on that. We are looking at a number of ways of doing that. I do not know, Natalie, whether you want to add to that. I think that the key things are that we get more spend and we have more commissioning power in Scotland. That is what we are working on. We have a good relationship with BBC Scotland and we are in discussion. They sit with us on the TV working group alongside us. The head business development sits on that with us. We are also in discussions with them about specific talent development initiatives. There is a much bigger context as outlined by Janet in terms of control budgets and commissioning power. On the ground, we are working with them because they have a huge contribution to make. They already make a huge contribution to talent development and we need them to carry on doing that and commit to that with us. While we are not necessarily involved in all the discussions on how much stuff will come to Scotland as a whole from the BBC, what we have found over the past few years is that the BBC has been a very good supporter of a lot of the activity that has been happening in the Highlands and Islands. We have found through our industry networks that we have been able to get commissions, particularly to engage businesses that have previously not had the ability or the opportunity to pick up on network commissions. They have been able to come in as part of our wider networks. The BBC has also been very good about adding access to their facilities and providing staff to come and talk to people to give them help to take projects through. The most recent one that has come up, although it was on screens a radio project, was High Wireless, which was a series of radio dramas that were developed by developing radio producers and more experienced writers. Those were all commissioned and broadcast by the BBC. In fact, that series has just finished, so I am sure that you can find them all online anywhere well worth a listen, not that I am pushing it. Again, the BBC has been a great support to us over the past few years. Can I finally ask about any work that Scottish Enterprise is doing, proactive work, that Scottish Enterprise is doing, in terms of trying to look at some of the tax relief benefits that would assist people in the industry? Well, specifically in terms of the tax relief benefits on screen, that is an area that our kind of Scotland colleagues lead on more generally for the sector. We are encouraging you to know companies, particularly managed companies, that we are working with to look at those potential benefits and to take them up. As Iain mentioned, we are also working more generally and more broadly with organisations such as the BBC to try to unlock further opportunities, strengthen the capabilities within some of the screen companies and TV companies, particularly in the sector. Just to reiterate, in the screen sector, the high-end TV animation and film tax credits are absolutely crucial to us selling Scotland internationally plus, as well as for those companies working here. Is there some scope for those to be increased or for there to be some specific Scotland side to it? Clearly, we would be very keen to bring that about, but the tax credits are really, really important for us. Gordon MacDonald has a question on TV. I have three questions that I want to ask you on television. It relates back to the port of March 2015 that the committee produced. We highlighted at the time that, because Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland had separate and distinct remits, one focusing on supporting growth companies and the other on cultural activities, it inhibited them from working collaboratively to support the TV sector. What has changed since March 2015 in order to support the TV sector? One of the things that is important is communication and making clear that who is responsible for which bit. Creative Scotland is the lead organisation for screen. We have a role as a funder, but we also have a role as an advocate and a development agency. Within the screen sector, on the TV side, over the last two years, Creative Scotland has invested more than £1 million in TV drama. We have invested £70,000 in a formatted factual initiative alongside the BBC. We can fund high-end TV drama through our lottery fund, but we are... This is about providing leadership and providing support and providing a focus for the TV sector. What has changed so that we can grow a sustainable industry in this country? It is not about the one-off funding projects, but it is about what we are doing to support indigenous TV companies to grow in Scotland. I was just illustrating that we have been able to invest in TV drama, but we are mainly through the lottery fund that is focused on film. £1 billion out of a total TV UK spend of £2.4 billion is nothing. That is Creative Scotland's investment in TV drama. Through the TV working group, since March 2015, the terms of reference have been updated. The work of the group has been focused on developing a strategy for growth and internationalisation. A subgroup has been set up towards the end of last year to work on that. There is a tender out or about to go out to engage a consultant to work specifically on the strategy for growth. We would look at the PACT report that was published at the end of last year, which we support in its findings. We would say that the TV working group would work alongside that. The chair of the TV working group is director of PACT Scotland. We see those two initiatives working alongside each other to develop that growth. I would add to that by saying that £1 million may not sound very much, but it is 25% of our production fund, our lottery production fund, so it is significant to us in terms of the level of investment. As Natalie says, our role is as a funder, but obviously we have a finite amount of public resources to distribute, so we also have to act proactively as a development agency on an influencer, so that we encourage others to invest within and into Scotland in proactive ways. One of the partnerships that I would like to highlight is the relationship that we have with Scottish Development International at the moment. That has been a productive relationship, particularly over the past few years. We now have the joint post that is located within HIE for SDI, but the bits that are important to mention to you just now in terms of the wider support that is allowed is that we have been able to identify particular events, talking to industry directly about where the best opportunities are likely to occur. We have also been able to develop a wider range of international partners that can give more detailed information around what those markets are looking for. We have also been able to put support in place to ensure that we can encourage greater collaboration between the small businesses in the area and their equivalents, their peers in other countries and commissioners and broadcasters. What we are looking at is access to the buyers, access to additional funds or additional commissions. We are also looking at supporting the minimum of international buyers and commissioners coming into the Celtic media festival. They will be across for expo north as well. Again, the approach on that has been about collaboration and looking to see how we can more effectively make those links and bring in investment and partnerships with other countries. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise run a system of managed accounts companies in order to support them to grow. We have been in a situation where for the last nine years the BBC has operated a policy of lift and shift. While that has helped to grow expertise in the TV industry in Scotland, we are now in a situation where, in order to continue to support those people who have gained experience in the TV industry, we have to have local Scottish companies to provide those jobs. Bear in mind that you have managed accounts companies. Can you say what focus your two organisations have had on supporting new and emerging TV companies? We have 20 managed accounts or managed companies in the TV sector. A lot of our focus is on helping those companies to grow. The international scene has just mentioned that it has a big part of players. For a number of years now, we have been undertaking events and taking companies out in conjunction with PACT to international events at MIPCOM, MIPTV and targeted trade missions activities to countries such as Australia and Brazil, for example. That is some illustration of the work that we have been doing. Can you highlight what the growth in turnover or employment has been for those 20 managed companies since you got involved with them? I cannot tell you that off the top of my head, but I am happy to come back to you with a specific answer on that question. In relation to the broader point, the recent PACT report that I highlighted has been around 9 per cent year-on-year growth in the sector as a whole across the economy, so that is encouraging. One of the challenges that we face and highlighted in the PACT report is that we have quite a long tail of small-ish companies, and it is going to be very much a joint approach, a kind of ecosystem approach by the private and the public sector, trying to attract even more investment into Scotland, encouraging as many companies as we can to lead international markets and international market opportunities and to encourage companies to take advantage of the support that is on offer. I will use beef as I possibly can. Since we last met the committee in partnership with Business Gateway, the local authorities are high and Creative Scotland has undertaken extensive mapping exercises of all the support that is available to the screen companies across Scotland. My mapping exercise was shared with representatives of industry and with IPS specifically just before Christmas. We are wearing feedback from them, but our intention is to come back to one of the points and questions that were raised. We are going to do some further user research early in the year, and based on the feedback that we get from industry, we have developed some additional signposting portal activity on the Creative Scotland website to help more of those companies to understand and encourage them to access the support that is on offer. I know that you are still doing a bit of development on this, but what is the nature of the support? I was looking at Northern Ireland, and they have funds for script development. They have funds for development costs of a project up to £40,000 for an individual project. They have project development to take up to the next stage of 50 per cent of projects valued up to £200,000. Do we offer something similar, or if we don't, is it our intention to offer something like that that is taking place in Northern Ireland? Creative Scotland's £4 million film fund is where companies would access that kind as opposed to film and TV. We have three sources, so single project development, so that could be film or television drama projects, can come to us for funding for the development of a script. Companies can also come to us for slate development, i.e. a larger sum of money that a company can use across a number of different projects that they want to develop. They don't come to us and say, this is the project that I want to develop, can you give me money for that? We would see that a number of projects on their slate would give them an amount of money. I suppose that it is core funding that allows them to be flexible in their operations. In the last year of 2015-16, we gave slate funding to five companies, amounting to £345,000. We also spent £370,000 on single project development. To date, we have made awards of £2.4 million for production funding for film and high-end TV drama. That is how our £4 million fund is used, plus some other areas. I mean, I discussed that very briefly. We have a number of grants and support that is on offer to help to grow and develop the companies, the 20 okay managed companies that we describe, but for other companies more broadly in terms of developing their interests in international markets and pursuing international opportunities. The focus of that support is probably not to be surprised to hear on areas such as leadership development on availability of innovation support to help companies to grow their capacity and to be able to compete more successfully. We have great examples of companies here in Scotland such as Gen Murehead's Raise the Roof productions company that has been working on really successful productions for many years, like location, location and location, and has managed to sell into close to 30 countries around the world some of their productions. Great examples and great illustrations of companies that are actually achieving, succeeding in international markets with our combined support. We have about 70 creative businesses that are on our account management list, but what we looked at was that the account management was not always the most appropriate way to deal with small businesses in our area, so we developed a network system that could provide support. Over the last year in creative industries, we have worked with about 700 businesses, rather than just the 70 in their account management. The results of that have been pretty good, but a quarter of those would have been in-screen. However, if I just give you one very small example of how that works, it will give you a flavour of the set-up. There is a small film production company in South US. We are looking to develop a project that we would be filming there and using localised staff, so we have provided some training to support on that one. Through our screen fund, it is available to let folk develop ideas and look for new collaborations. We will support them and introduce them to contacts in Scandinavia, who have now come in on the project, so she is collaborators there, and the funding comes from Scandinavia towards the film, plus a broadcast guarantee in Scandinavian territories. In order to develop that further, we will look at additional ways of driving revenues in, rather than just the film in its own right. We supported the company to attend training on cross-platform working and what online content could be developed as well. To follow that up in conjunction with the partnership with Glasgow School of Art and the youth—I use the term youth quite generously in this—our young people's development side, we are now working with her on how apps and online content can be developed and how that can be monetised and look for other revenue streams that will help to develop during the process. By bringing a range of partners together, co-ordinated through our networks, we are able to provide a range of support and services ranging from cash on occasions but through to partners, people to work with, advice and support. By and large, that has been pretty successful. Just to give you an idea, I had a look through. By the end of 2015, we were about to finish the evaluation of the model that we believe will have created in the region of 350 new jobs over the past three years and we are looking at a return on investment of around 9.8 to 1. I am very happy with how that has gone. We will see when the evaluation comes in exactly what the figures are, but it will be in that region without a doubt. The current developments look like that will increase in the future. I am conscious that we are over time. I have one other area of questioning that members are keen to pursue. If they are brief, we can squeeze it in. That is on the enterprise agency, so I think that Chick Brody and Lewis MacDonald both want to ask about that. Last year, we spoke about the relationship between CS and Creative Scotland. You now have a partnership agreement, but that has not yet been finalised because you still have an addendum. Our conversation started in March last year. Why is that not complete yet? There is indeed an addendum, which we have agreed. The agreement was signed off in early December last year, and we are now looking at how we can translate that into an operational plan to begin to deliver it. Who must control over decisions on expenditure with regard to creative activities in Scotland? Is it Scottish Enterprise or Creative Scotland? I guess that the answer is that for our respective areas, each of us has control over spend decisions for our respective areas of focus. That is co-ordinated, is it? Yes. For the areas of economic development activity that Gluley has worked with us, such as the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the business gateway for the target population market. What Scottish Enterprise has spent on Creative Scotland activity and Creative Scotland, there will be no overlap. There should not be. There are areas in which we have some level of collaborative working where that makes sense, around trying to harness and get more economic growth from our cultural assets. We undertake some activity where we are jointly working together, along with other partners, for example in the Edinburgh festivals forum, where we come together and look at combining some of our work, some of our activities, to strengthen the value proposition that the festivals offer. From our point of view, our particular interest is in trying to engage as many businesses in the opportunities that exist around the festivals, for example. We also undertake activity in the area of cultural tourism, where we have and will continue to fund in the forum quite a few millions of pounds investment into a lot of our development of our major destinations. Some of the focus of that spend, again, is on encouraging businesses in Scotland to take advantage of the very strong cultural heritage that we have here in Scotland. Things like Edinburgh's status as a UNESCO city of cultures and the status as UNESCO city of design and Glasgow's status as UNESCO city of music, so all those cultural assets are what we focus on. We try to encourage as many businesses as possible to take advantage of having those cultural assets and using those to develop new products and services, whether that is from a tourism perspective or whether that is from a digital perspective, developing new applications and innovations around those areas. One short sentence. The spend in Scotland from the public sector on creativity comes from a wide range of different places. It comes through the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland's share of that is about 0.2 per cent of the Scottish Government's spend. Culture as a whole is about 0.5 per cent, but as powerful is the spend that comes through local authorities and through Scotland's creative industries partnership partners, Scottish Enterprise High, Scottish Funding Council who jointly fund our creative industries post through universities and colleges to Skills Development Scotland, etc. There are a number of different drivers in the public sector who will spend on creative industries and creativity in different ways. There is a financial leakage. There are so many people involved at the end of the day. I said this the last time. One person has to have the message on the desk of the buck stops here, so I am not sure where it is. I think that Liz McDonnell has a question, if you would be brief please. Yes, two, but I will ask them together for the sake of time. They are both really for Ian Hamilton, although others may want to comment. The Highlands and Islands Creative Industries Strategy 2014-19, I think that you should be, by now, approaching the end of phase one of that. I think that that was scheduled for next month. My general question is, are you satisfied with progress? Do you feel that you are on course to reach the milestones that you had set for the end of phase one? My other question relating a little bit to Chick Brody's line of questioning is whether, having reached this phase in your roll-out of a strategy for this sector, are you happy, satisfied that the interfaces that you have with other agencies are well understood and work in a practical way? The first part is that we are under way with all the elements of our strategy. In some ways, we are ahead of where we expected to be. Other parts are certainly happening at the moment. There is always room for improvement, particularly around the metrics of how we measure the results of success. That is more of a challenge when the agency looks at cultural activity as well as commercial activity. It is about making sure that we fully understand the benefits across all the activity and make sure that we measure those properly. However, we are certainly moving on with that. Some of the elements that we have had to change slightly as we have gone through in that there was one recommendation that, as an example, was to have an office in London. We have not set up a specific office in London, but we are partners across the globe. We now have access to facilities and resources, so we did not see much point actually having a specific single building. There are tweaks to it, but the basic stuff is certainly in place. Regarding the relationship with everybody else, we have a very good work in relationship with Creative Scotland. We work closely with Skills Development Scotland and SDI. Creative Scotland has come in on quite a number of projects that we are involved in. I certainly do not think that there is money going into things mistakenly where the two have not picked up, because we talk regularly with individual members of staff through Creative Scotland. Obviously, our time with Scottish Enterprise is not quite as great as with Creative Scotland simply because they are looking at a different part of the country, but we do talk to each other when it is appropriate that something will be a national programme. As I said, in terms of our wider process, Creative Scotland has contributed and will continue to contribute. I see no reason to have any concerns about where that is going. What we have now agreed through Scotland's Creative Industries partnership is to map exactly who does what, where and account for spend in relation to different aspects of the creative industries and different geographies across Scotland. We are now committed to producing a shared plan out of that to better align and make better use of public resource. I am confident in saying that all of us are absolutely committed to that. If I could just briefly add to that, one of the reasons the completion of the partnership agreement took a little bit longer than we hoped is that we recognise that it was important to do we work through and do a comprehensive review of all of the activities that ourselves and Creative Scotland are engaged in, and the partnership agreement addendum, which I am more than happy to share. I do not see any reason why we cannot. More of that detail is incorporated and covered. One of the really good things about working together with Janet and her colleagues on the partnership agreement is that it has given an even greater impetus and added focus on some of the areas that we want to undertake joint work in the year ahead. We have a workshop set up later on this quarter to work with the SCIP partners around those areas of focus that are outlined in the partnership agreement, and we will keep the committee regularly updated with progress, particularly in those areas that we have agreed to focus on together in the partnership agreement. One very short final point, just to put in that one, is that we have an outline document that I would be happy to supply to anyone who is interested in it. It is a very short one showing how the different elements of our activity fit together and interrelate, but also where partners fit into that one in the overall activity. Within that, we have an outline showing that we monitor ourselves not only against our own strategy, but against the SDI operating plan, the Skills Development Scotland's Skills Investment Plan, and when the new creative industry strategy from Creative Scotland is there, we will also put the monitoring against that as well to make sure that we are working collaboratively and that the activity is crossing all of those themes. One final assurance is that although Creative Scotland is producing its own creative industry strategy, we have produced that very much in collaboration with colleagues who have been involved in each stage of the development of that, discussed it, checked and challenged it, and the end result will be something that we all subscribe to, as opposed to just Creative Scotland as an agency. Thank you very much. We need to draw much to your clothes. I thank you all for coming along with me in an interesting session. I think that there are a number of areas where you indicated you would come back to us in writing if you could do that. That would be very helpful. At this point, we will suspend briefly to allow a changeover for next business. Item 3 on the agenda, we are taking evidence on the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice Scotland Act 2014, consequential provisions order 2016 in draft, and the Public Services Reform in Solvency Scotland order 2016. I would like to welcome to give evidence for issuing Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism at the Scottish Government to be joined, I hope, shortly by Alex Reid, head of policy development at the Accountants and Bankruptcy Scottish Government and Graham Fisher, head of branch 1 constitutional and civil law division at the Scottish Government. Minister, do you want to introduce the section? Yes, thank you, convener, and good morning all. I am very pleased to have the chance to address the committee today and to bring forward two orders of a different nature. The orders may seek to achieve different outcomes, but what they both have in common is that they are intended to make life a wee bit easier for some of the people of Scotland. I would like to talk about the first order, if I may, which is the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice Scotland Act 2014, consequential provisions order. As you are aware, the Bankruptcy Scotland consolidation bill is presently making its way through the parliamentary process, and I am pleased to note that it recently passed stage 1. This bill will put Scotland's bankruptcy legislation in one place, in one document, aiding the accessibility and understanding of bankruptcy law for practitioners and those affected by it. In order for the consolidation bill to have full effect, we require to make two minor consequential amendments to the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 1985. They clarify cross-references and provisions on when the apparent insolvency of a debtor is constituted and in provisions providing that for the avoidance of doubt. The fact that limited liability partnerships cannot be secreted does not affect their apparent insolvency. It is the view of my officials and myself that the consolidation bill could properly pick up these mischanges. However, we have taken on board the feedback from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, who called for the amendments to be made in order that it is clear that the bill accurately consolidates the current law in this respect. I am confident that the minor amendments proposed in this order will allow for a pure consolidation of the existing loan bankruptcy. However, I am happy to address any questions that the committee may have. The next order is the Public Services Reform in Solvency Scotland Order 2016. Members will be aware that, in some respects, current Scottish corporate insolvency legislation, in particular devolved elements of corporate insolvency, such as the process of winding up, is out of step with legislation and associated practices elsewhere in the UK and on some reserved areas. The Public Services Reform Order was laid in the Scottish Parliament on 18 January following extensive consultation under the superaffirmative procedure. It is the first step necessary in making changes to devolved areas of the 1986 Insolvency Act as they relate to corporate insolvency procedures in Scotland. The legislative landscape in the area of corporate insolvency administration is complex. That is partly due to the mix of reserved and devolved competence. While administration and the legal effect of company winding up procedures are reserved to Westminster, receivership and the process of winding up are devolved. At present, there is a mismatch in some of the actions taken by an insolvency practitioner in relation to a company registered in Scotland compared with the equivalent process for a company registered in England. Examples include the convening of annual meeting of creditors and members in Scotland compared to a simpler process of sending a progress report in England and Wales, and the ability to use websites and electronic means of reporting and correspondence in England and Wales whilst this is excluded in Scotland. We are now taking forward a plan to redress the situation, and this is warmly welcomed by insolvency stakeholders. As a precursor to preparing modernised insolvency rules for Scotland, it is appropriate to firstly bring the position of devolved areas of a corporate insolvency into line with the position for England and Wales. This follows amendments already made to the Insolvency Act 1986 by the Legislative Reform in Solvency Advertising Requirements Order 2009, but principally the Legislative Reform in Solvency Miscellaneous Provisions Order 2010. Reforms introduced by the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 have also been taken into consideration. This order will allow us to set about modernising and streamlining the secondary legislation, the Insolvency Scotland rules. The Account in a Bankrupt says in the process of establishing a Scottish Rules Working Group, convener working with the UK Insolvency Service to inform the drafting of new Scottish rules with a focus on making them usable for end-users and consistent with the modernised rules being developed in England and Wales. In conclusion, I know that the insolvency profession in Scotland welcomed these changes. Processes will be more efficient and effective, saving both time and money to both the profession and creditors. Thank you minister. I don't know if any members have any questions they want to ask about this. I just wanted to pick up a couple of points that were in the submission from ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. They make some suggested amendments that I think you referred to in passing about are that they should not be covered, so can you tell us how the Scottish Government intends to deal with those? Yes, we work very closely with ICAS and there are a number of important issues that were raised by ICAS and by other stakeholders, including R3 and the Law Society of Scotland. Each of those suggestions that I stress were carefully considered, as you would expect, convener, and incorporated, where possible, are feasible. The reasons for not incorporating certain items were fed back to stakeholders and I am advised that the stakeholders confirmed that they were agreeable to the suggested contents of the Public Services Reform and Solvency Order 2016. I think that it might be helpful just for the sake of the record to mention several areas where I believe that the stakeholders suggested that there could have been inclusion. Those were, stating briefly, the introduction of a specific power for a liquidator in a court winding up to seek the direction of the court. It was thought that this had merit, but it would have wide-ranging consequences, which were too detailed and technical to consider in the time available before PIRDA. Secondly, the ability for the appointment of receivers to be authenticated electronically. Thirdly, the provisions for prosecution of delinquent directors and liquidations to be extended to appointments other than liquidations. Also, an additional finding requirement to include the accountants in bankruptcy. Also, the powers of a liquidator to disclaim owner's property, and I know from a particular involvement that this is a tremendously complex area. Essentially, our position is that we think that there is merit and some are all of these proposals. We need to do work to take them forward. That is not in dispute. We are working with ICAS, with the insolvency petitioners. They have accepted that the items that we are progressing at the moment are appropriate and are content that we take a little bit more time to work with them in order to get all those other matters right. It is good to have the opportunity, convener, to explain that for any insolvency petitioners that might be reading the official report of this communication later. It has also been agreed that my officials are here, so they can tell me whether I am going on a trip on my own or whether I am, in fact, correct, that it is not envisaged that the insolvency rules will be enforced for some considerable time in 2017. I think that I read somewhere in the briefing, so that gives us some more time to make sure that we get all those matters right as we intend to do. Thank you. I could just welcome Mr Fisher and Mr Reid. If I was going to ask you about timescales, I noticed in the ICAS briefing that the timescale to introduce new corporate insolvency rules in Scotland on 1 October 2016 is very challenging. Is that date still the target date for the introduction of the new rules? For the Scottish rules to come into force, April 17 is probably the most likely date now. There is an issue to deal with in terms of transfer of competence, to deal with the Scottish rules in relation to the areas that cross competence, and that will be put forward in due course. That is making it look like April 2017, which has actually been welcomed by the R3 ICAS. Members, do you wish to come in on any points? Presumably, I thank the minister for being very clear. I just wonder about the working group. All cross-border implications or situations will be covered by the deliberations of the working group. Is that correct? We are working with the UK Government on those matters. That is the primary way in which we make sure that what we do is appropriate and correct, but I am sure that the working group that is to be formed will consider that. Perhaps Mr Reid could clarify that further. The UK Insolvency Service will be part and parcel of the working group. It will be developing rules for Scotland covering the strictly reserved areas. The working group has an important role to play in that, as well as the rules that will be developed for those devolved areas and the areas with cross competence. The cross-border issues are key to that group. If there are no other questions that people have, we can move on to item 4 on the agenda. I invite the minister to formally move motion S4M-15253. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recommends that the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice Scotland Act 2014 consequential provisions order 2016 in draft B approved. Do any members wish to speak in relation to the matter? If not, I suggest that we put the matter to a vote and the question is that motion S4M-15253 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed that motion is carried. Item 5 on the agenda, I would ask the minister if he would move motion S4M-15461, that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recommends that the Public Services Reform in Solvency Scotland order 2016 in draft B approved. Thank you. Do any members wish to speak on this matter? No, if not, I will put the question, the question is that motion S4M-15461 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you that motion is carried. Fine. Minister, thank you and your officials for your attendance. We are on item 6 on the agenda. We are now looking at a negative instrument, which is SSI 2016-18, the Fireworks Scotland amendment regulations 2016. Do any members have any issues that they wish to raise in relation to this instrument? If not, are we content that the instrument comes into force? We are content. Thank you. At this point, we will move into private session.