►
Description
www.parliament.scot - Scottish Parliament Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Agenda:
1. Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 - Subordinate legislation: The Committee will take evidence on the—
Bankruptcy (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft]; Protected Trust Deeds (Forms) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft]; Protected Trust Deeds (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 [draft]; Bankruptcy (Applications and Decisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/295); Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (Commencement) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/294 (C.27)) from—
Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy;
Graham Fisher, Head of Branch 1, Constitutional and Civil Law Division, Scottish Government Legal Directorate, Scottish Government;
Alex Reid, Head of Policy Development, Accountant in Bankruptcy;
Carol Kirk, Policy Review Team Leader, Accountant in Bankruptcy.
2. Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 - Subordinate legislation: Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy to move—
S5M-02136—That the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommends that the Protected Trust Deeds (Forms) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft] be approved. S5M-02137—That the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommends that the Protected Trust Deeds (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 [draft] be approved. S5M-02138—That the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommends that the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft] be approved.
3. Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 - Instruments subject to negative procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Bankruptcy (Applications and Decisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/295).
4. Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 - Instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (Commencement) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/294 (C.27)).
5. Instruments subject to affirmative procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Air Weapons Licensing (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 [draft]; Crofting Commission (Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2016 [draft].
6. Instruments subject to negative procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Act of Sederunt (Fees of Solicitors and Shorthand Writers in the Court of Session, Sheriff Appeal Court and Sheriff Court Amendment) 2016 (SSI 2016/316); General Pharmaceutical Council (Amendment of Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules Order of Council 2016 (SI 2016/1008).
7. Instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure: The Committee will consider the following—
Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Bankruptcy Rules) 2016 (SSI 2016/313); Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session, Sheriff Appeal Court Rules and Sheriff Court Rules Amendment) (Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (SSI 2016/312); Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994 and Sheriff Court Rules Amendment) (No. 4) (Simple Procedure) 2016 (SSI 2016/315); Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994 Amendment) (Postal Administration) 2016 (SSI 2016/318); Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994 and Summary Application Rules 1999 Amendment) (Serious Crime Prevention Orders etc.) 2016 (SSI 2016/319); Scottish Fiscal Commission Act 2016 (Commencement and Transitory Provision) Regulations 2016 (SSI 2016/326 (C.30)).
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
A
A
So,
as
I
said
this
morning,
the
committee
will
be
considering
a
package
of
instruments
lead
before
the
Parliament
connection
with
a
bankruptcy
scotland
act
2016.
This
act
was
considered
as
the
committee
by
the
session
for
delegated
powers
and
Law
Reform
Committee
and,
as
such,
this
committee
has
been
designated
as
a
lead
committee
for
consideration
of
these
instruments.
This
morning
the
committee
will
undertake
both
is
a
usual
technical
scrutiny
and
policy
scrutiny.
A
As
lead
committee
for
the
instruments
item,
one
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
bank's
akshay
instruments
will
lead
by
the
scottish
government
and
to
do
so
from
both
a
policy
and
a
technical
perspective.
A
So
that's
my
pleasant
duty
to
welcome
Minister
Paul
Hill
House,
who
is
the
Minister
for
business.
Innovation
and
energy,
also
like
to
welcome
Graham
Fisher,
who
is
the
head
of
branch,
one
constitutional
and
civil
law
division,
Scottish,
Government
legal
Directorate
of
the
Scottish
Government,
and
also
like
to
welcome
Alec
Reid
who's,
the
head
of
policy,
development
and
accountant
in
bankruptcy,
and
I'd
like
to
welcome
Carol
Kirk
as
well.
Who
is
a
policy
review
team
leader
in
the
to
the
accountancy
invite
to
the
accountant
in
bankruptcy?
So
Minister?
A
B
From
you,
thank
you
very
much
convener
on
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
and
following
the
successful
passage
of
the
bankruptcy
scotland
act
2016
through
Parliament
earlier
this
year,
in
which
your
predecessor
committee,
as
you
know,
communi
played
a
crucial
role.
B
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
and
I
should
firstly
see
something
about
our
approach
to
consolidating
the
regulations
we
propose,
the
2016
Act
will
apply,
the
sequestration
is
applied
for
on
or
after
30th
of
november
this
year
and
trusted
arrangements
executed
from
that
date.
B
There
are
currently
11
sets
of
regulations
which
fill
out
the
detail
of
primary
bankruptcy
legislation,
which
we
propose
to
reduce
the
44,
sequestration's
and
trust
deeds
falling
under
the
new
act,
together
with
a
short
set
of
commencement
regulations
which
will
bring
the
app
new
act
in
on
the
thirtieth
of
November
2016.
We
consulted
on
draft
regulations
over
the
summer,
but
stakeholders
who
provided
valuable
feedback
on
the
proposals
for
consolidation
of
these
regulations
and
I
note
I,
can't
see
in
what.
B
While
in
some
instances,
we
may
not
agree
with
the
conclusions
reached,
we
would
wish
to
formally
record
our
gratitude
to
this
approach
being
taken,
and
we
consider
that
such
an
approach
represents
best
practice
and
can
assist
the
Parliament
to
scrutinize
legislation
brought
forward
and
ensure
that
legislation
introduced
is
fit
for
purpose.
On
put
the
first
affirmative
instrument,
you
have
before
you
the
bankruptcy
Scotland
regulations,
2016
consolidates
the
mean
means
secondary
legislation
under
the
bankruptcy
scotland
act
1985,
principally
the
140
pages
or
so
of
forms
used
as
part
of
the
bankruptcy
processes.
B
The
third
affirmative
instrument,
the
protected
trust
deeds,
scotland,
amendment
regulations,
2016
for
ease
of
administration,
murrow's
minor
amendments
to
the
forums
under
the
new
act
for
trustees
under
the
old
act.
Although
technically
beyond
the
scope
of
consolidating
the
existing
regulations,
it
is
helpful
to
have
these
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,
but
where
we
think
it's
important
to
clarify
legislation
or
clarify
issues.
B
We've
sought
to
do
that
within
these
regulations,
as
I've
mentioned,
and
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
in
in
respect
of
them.
I
should
mention
that
the
bankruptcy
fees
regulations
will
be
reviewed
in
the
first
half
a
20-17.
B
It
have
not
been
consolidated
at
this
time,
but
continue
to
apply
under
the
transitional
continuity
provisions
in
a
2016
act
and
the
accountant
in
bankruptcy
will,
however,
publish
details
of
the
corresponding
provisions
under
the
new
act
on
its
website.
In
the
meantime,
introducing
this
package
of
regulations
ensures
that
references
to
the
new
Act
are
changed.
B
Detailed
tables
of
correspondence
have
also
been
prepared
to
assist
users
of
the
legislation
in
making
their
transition,
and
we've
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
I,
cast
the
Scottish
committee
of
the
r3
Association
of
business
recovery
professionals
and
the
step
change.
Debt
charity
as
well.
B
I
cast
in
particular,
also
provided
feedback
on
issues
which
we
recognize
is
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
I
cars
and
other
stakeholders
to
consider
these
areas
separately,
and
I
were
to
acknowledge
some
relatively
minor
drafting
issues
arise
with
two
of
the
sets
of
regulations
for
the
reasons
we've
set
out
to
the
committee.
B
B
So
we
just
finish
you
on
the
fact
that
we
have
a
reference
from
from
the
lakes
of
I
cast
overall
quote
overall
and
taking
into
account
the
Comets
we've
received
by
it
from
the
eib
in
response
to
informal
consultation,
kinda
late.
We
would
support
the
regulations
coming
into
effect
and
I
believe.
Our
three
have
also
made
similar
similar
remarks,
and
we
are,
of
course,
a
caminar
happy
to
take
questions.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
minister,
for
your
opening
statement
and
can
I
just
advise
Minister
and
committee
that
will
start
with
questions
or
technical
questions
and
move
on
to
policy
questions
thereafter
and
in
relation
to
the
draft
protected
trustees
form
Scotland
regulations.
2016.
The
committee
will
consider
item
to
whether
to
draw
their
regulations
to
the
attention
of
the
parliament
in
the
general
reporting
grounds,
as
the
regulations
contain
two
minor
drafting
errors,
and
it's
noted
that
the
Scottish
Government
and
thank
the
Minister
for
saying
so
test
correct
the
errors
at
the
next
legislative
opportunity.
A
However,
in
relation
to
the
draft
bankruptcy
Scotland
regulations
2016,
the
committee
will
consider
item
T
will
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.
Committee
would
like
to
explore
this
second
point
with
you:
Minister
regulation,
22
of
the
draft
bankruptcy
Scotland
regulations.
2016
makes
provision
in
respect
of
the
conversion
into
sterling.
A
Other
creditors
claim
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,
was
reference
to
prevailing
exchange
rates
on
the
date
of
sequestration.
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.
A
Signing
copy
committee
considers
the
errors
on
the
instrument
should
only
be
corrected
by
way
of
printing
point
when
the
error
is
question
is
highly
self-evident,
nature
and
capable
no
alternative
interpretation.
The
error
in
regulation
22
does
not
appear
at
the
committee
to
be
self-evident
in
nature.
Since
I
don't
may
arise,
ask
the
intended
meaning
of
the
provision
their
owners
word
of
might
be
taken
to
indicate
a
figure
that
is
missing
from
the
provision.
For
example,
provision
might
be
intended
to
read
a
single
exchange
rate
of
X
all
that
currency.
A
It
is
considered,
therefore,
that
the
meaning
of
regulation
22
could
be
clearer,
and
so
for
that
reason
the
committee,
if
I
may
ask
you
Minister,
does
not
consider
the
error
identified
in
regulation.
22
should
appropriately
be
changed
as
a
printing
point
at
signing.
Would
you
consider?
Would
you
instead
consider
making
the
required
recognition
to
require
change
to
regulation
22
of
the
draft
bankruptcy
scotland
regulation
2016
by
an
amending
instrument?
Please
in
due
course.
B
I'm,
firstly,
I
mean
I
will
just
address
the
point
which
you
very
fairly
raise
canvey,
nur
and
for
the
record,
so
I've
apologized
that
but
that's
having
to
be
raised
by
the
committee,
because
if
she
clearly
should
have
been
packed
up
and
recognize
that,
but
thank
you
for
raising
it.
The
typographical,
error
and
regulation
22
should
refer
to
a
single
exchange
rate
for
of
that
currency.
B
I
had
just
to
confirm
that
as
a
regulation,
11
of
the
bankruptcy
Scott
and
regulations,
2014
SSI,
2014's
225,
which
is
consolidated
and
updated,
and
we
propose
that
this
is
corrected
as
a
printing
point
by
moving
off.
However,
I
take
a
point
that
you
have
made
convener
and
we're
happy
to
address
this
through
an
amendment.
If
that
would
be
to
the
committee's
right.
A
C
Thank
you
communicate
morning,
I'm
annesley,
by
changing
the
asset
threshold
at
which
data
must
move
from
the
minimal
are
set
process
ripped
into
bankruptcy
to
the
standard
rate.
What
do
you
think
the
effect
may
be
on
the
number
of
people
transferred
from
the
minimum
asset
process
and
to
fill
the
bankruptcy
I?
C
D
The
numbers
will
be
low,
hey
there
have
been
instances
in
a
little
number
of
instances.
We
are
people
in
a
minimal
asset
process
bankruptcy.
We've
been
made
aware
of
a
ppi
compensation
payments
which
somebody
in
a
fool
administration,
bankruptcy
that
would
vest
in
the
estate
and
base
with
the
trustee,
but
with
the
threshold
limit,
it's
not
being
able
to
be
administered
within
the
within
the
bankruptcy.
C
D
D
We
don't
have
that
information
I,
adore
that
information
to
hand.
As
I
see
it
was
it's
an
anomaly.
That's
that
has
arisen,
and
but
I
don't
have
information
is
projecting
the
number
of
people
within
a
minimal
asset
process,
bankruptcy
that
that
are
likely
to
have
that
sort
of
compensation
or
an
order
on
an
additional
asset.
Coming
in
okay.
B
Well,
I
mean
I'd,
certainly
camino
ride
in
response
that
the
first
point
as
well
that
appreciate
that
we
are
not
furnished
with
the
information.
Ideally,
we
would
like
to
be
able
to
see
exactly
how
many
people
may
be
affected
and
caught
up,
but
this
is
from
what
I
can
gather
from
the
evidence.
That's
been
a
shared
with
me
is
this
is
dealing
with
a
sort
of
a
potential
anomaly,
rather
than
a
huge
wave
of
people
that
are
being
affected.
So
it's
difficult,
therefore,
to
see
to
what
extent
the
currents
and
current
provisions
are.
B
Actually
you
know
causing
any
disadvantage
or
being
creating
difficulty
in
that
respect,
but
we
have
committed
through
the
exercise
and
working
with
I
cast
are
three
and
I'm
a
step
change
and
other
stakeholders
to
you
know
future
review.
So
we
can.
We
can
look
at
picking
up
some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
in
the
consultation
that
we
felt
were
out
with
the
scope
of
this
particular
consolidation
exercise,
also
taken
into
account
us
as
the
practice.
B
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.
So
so
I
commit
to
the
member
that
will
we'll
keep
that
that
what
that
very
much
honor
our
horizon
or
something
that
will
keep
an
eye
out
for
if
it's
causing
any
difficulty
for
those
are
affected.
Okay,
not
be
overthinking.
B
Not
come
here,
I'm
not
close
to
you're,
not
trying
to
be
difficult.
I'm
not
close
to
the
detail
of
what
was
said
in
the
consultation
times,
the
engagement
of
stakeholders
I.
If
I
me,
I
had
deflect
that
question
to
Daleks
again,
just
in
case
he's
aware
of
any
anecdotal
evidence
has
been
given
by
any
of
the
console.
Tease
that
have.
D
A
E
You
keep
your
neck
good
morning,
minister.
You
mentioned
in
your
statement
that
you
value
the
feedback
from
stakeholders
during
the
consultation
over
the
summer
and
they're
written
evidence
to
this
committee.
Both
I,
Cass
and
r3
have
argued
it's
testing
their
statutory
and
tertiary
for
bankruptcy.
Dates
at
eight
percent
is
punitive
and
the
current
financial
climate
and
should
be
reduced.
How
do
you
respond
to
that
concern.
B
In
the
context
of
current
low
interest
rates,
I
would
agree
that
the
eight
percent
does
seem
to
be
punitive.
We
are
aware
of
this
concern.
I
mean
I've
shared
my
concern
with
the
EAB
as
well
about
this,
but
there's
our
proposed
consultation,
which
is
underway
within
England
and
wheels,
which
we
can
learn
a
lot
from
in
terms
of
the
feedback
on
that
in
terms
of
the
industry,
there
have
been
suggestions.
Rain
may
be
having
a
one
and
a
half
st.
B
premium
on
the
base,
landing
really
the
Bank
of
England,
maybe
as
a
more
acceptable
mechanism
which
may
be
fairer
and
and
I'm
sympathetic
to
those
kind
of
arguments.
But
we
want
to
kind
of
learn
from
the
exercise
its
being
undertaken
in
wheels
on
have
to
separate
kind
of
consultations
on
the
same
subject
running
concurrently,
and
we
can
learn
from
that
and,
if
need
be,
adjust
our
approach
based
on
the
the
evidence
that
comes
forward
at
that
point,
so
I
do
appreciate.
B
Stakeholders
have
said:
there's
there's
not
eat,
minister
or
you
need
EA
be
to
have
exactly
the
same
approach.
That's
taken
in
England
wheels,
but
we
can
learn
in
this
case
from
a
consultation
on
this
issue
and
then
decide
either
to
take
a
similar
approach
thing
on
wheels
or
or
decide.
If
we
feel
that
the
approach
to
Datak
is
still
too
punitive
to
do,
something
which
is
more
appropriate,
so
I'm
very
much
aware
addition,
I
do
agree.
E
Husband
as
committees,
understanding
that
the
scottish
government
and
the
fair
to
we
for
the
results
of
the
review
of
and
enter
sheets
and
in
concern,
wheels
before
considering
changes
here.
But
I
just
wondered:
why
not
look
at
it
no
doin
or
hold
on
that
that
critique
and
I
said
addition
for
Gavin
to
say,
team
scores
and
Treasury
separately.
E
B
As
I
seeing
we
haven't
set
out
in
a
path
where
we
are
deliberately
going
out
of
our
way
to
have
a
different
approach
doing
than
the
wheels
I
do
accept
the
principle
that
eight
percent
does
seem.
You
know
unusually
high,
given
we've
got
variable
B
streets
at
this
moment
and
time
it
doesn't
seem
to
have
moved
and
laying
with
the
move
down
in
terms
of
BAE.
B
We
can
do
do
our
own
thing
and
have
a
have
a
different
rate,
but
certainly
give
the
member
a
comment
that
we
will
be
looking
at
this
issue
and,
if
need
be,
we'll
take
a
different
path
to
battling
the
wheels.
But
we
can
learn
from
the
consultation
which
is
involving
the
same
stakeholders.
We'd,
be
consulting
with
in
terms
of
the
professional
bodies,
the
laws
advising
individuals
on
debt
issues
and
a
we
can
learn
from
the
submissions
they
make
to
the
to
the
England,
wheels
exercise
and
taking
out
forward
and.
E
B
D
B
A
B
Well,
I
certainly
know
what
the
points
that
we
made
by
Ike
are
some
particular
honest
and
I
regards
to
the
appointment
of
those
to
the
review
panel
and-
and
you
know
the
potential
that
there
there
is
22
if
not
an
actual
conflict
enters
the
perception
of
one
to
exist.
So
I
think
it's
an
issue
that
I've
quite
keen
to
ensure
that,
because
I
think
EAB
is
a
very
impressive
organization,
do
an
excellent
job.
B
A
B
Might
I
think
of
you
know.
I
would
accept
that
I
think
is
a
legitimate
point
to
address
I'm
I
think
because
of
the
need
to
ensure
we
have
regulations
through
in
time
for
the
30th
of
November.
Timing
need
not
be
perfect
to
address
that
at
this
point
in
time,
but
I
sonic
commit
to
the
committee
that,
and
we
will
look
at
that
issue-
an
address
that
issue
as
soon
as
practicable
in
terms
of
the
the
forthcoming
review
of
that
has
been
proposed
by
AI,
be
okay.
F
A
F
Are
three
suggests
that
money
advises
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
these
concerns?
Well,.
B
B
Having
listened
to
the
evidence
around
the
circumstances
as
they
applied
in
Scotland
and,
however,
I
do
accept
that
you
know
that
they
may
look
somewhat
odd
22
to
a
third
party
audience
that
this
is
the
situation.
That's
arisen
and
no
I
understand
her
last
colleagues
to
come
in
and
this
but
I
understand
it
because
of
the
the
various
tools
are
being
used
by
money
advisors.
B
In
terms
of
collecting
evidence,
but
it's
the
financial
tools
and
so
forth
are
are
themselves
regulated
by
m80
that
there's
a
there's
a
logic
and
having
amet
oversight,
having
oversight
of
the
conduct
of
the
individuals
who
are
giving
the
money
advice,
but
I've
can
perhaps
bring
in
Graham,
Fisher
and
Alex
Reid
on
on
this
just
to
provide
some
background,
that's
the
way
we
ended
up
with
amet
in
this
particular
rule.
That
would
be
helpful.
Convener.
D
There
are
a
number
of
different
mechanisms
for
calculating
income
and
expenditure,
so
that
was
part
of
the
consultation
and
the
consultation
agreed
that
the
common
financial
statement,
which
is
available
through
license
from
the
money
advice,
trust,
was
the
most
appropriate
tool
to
use
and
be
adopted
and
prescribed
in
legislation
as
the
common
financial
tool
and
that
that
has
been
operating
now,
because
the
the
access
then
to
the
common
financial
statement,
becomes
critical
in
the
process
of
very
undertaking
the
function
of
money
adviser
in
bankruptcy.
It
becomes
a
prerequisite
of
undertaking
that
that
function.
D
D
D
Ultimately,
it
could
be
raised
with
the
money
advice,
trust,
but
we
haven't
had
to
deal
with
that
situation
yet
clearly
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
We
have
queries
that
go
backwards
and
forwards
on
terms
of
the
way
that
the
common
financial
tool
has
been
applied,
but
but
but
in
terms
of
monitoring,
it
happens
on
an
ongoing
basis.
If.
B
You
dive
convener
think
it's
important.
It's
important
to
recognize
them
and
I
understand
visual
hamilton's,
a
point
there
and
I.
Think
it's
a
fair
point
see
well,
will
you
will
you
keep
an
eye
on
whether
this
is
working
in
practice,
and
it's
certainly
something
that
we
could?
We
could
look
at
again
during
the
future
policy
review.
We
could
come
back
and
sort
of
understand
if
there's
been
any
examples
of
this,
not
working
and
practice.
B
If
there
have
been
concerns
about
it,
perhaps
the
decision
not
taking
account
of
circumstances
as
the
appliance
Scotland
and
that
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
intervene
or
or
to
have
a
see,
then
those
are
the
kind
of
opportunities
that
might
lend
themselves
to
us
nicely
review.
Bowlers
are
still
appropriate
for
us
to
go
forward
and
on
this
basis,
or
should
we
do
something
differently,
so
we
can.
B
F
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
and
reassurance
on
that
point,
and
my
second
question
is-
and
I
guess
has
raised-
concerns
about
the
absence
of
the
appeal
process
against
a
decision
by
the
accountant
in
bankruptcy
to
withdraw
a
money
advisors
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?
Well,.
B
I
think
in
on
the
general
principle,
absolutely
I
mean
everyone
deserves
a
right
to
to
have
other
see
if
they're
charged
with
something
to
be
able
to
to
rebut
the
charges
and
the
the
sort
of
honest
of
principles
of
good
good
natural
justice.
If
you
like
that
that
apply
in
our
courts,
that's
something
that's
very
important
in
our
court
system.
B
So
yes,
I,
agree
that
that
is
important
and
that's
something
of
a
vast
colleagues
who,
with
me
today
to
have
a
look
at
in
the
context
of
the
future
policy
review,
because
I
think
more,
we
can
design
a
need
for
someone
to
use
a
judicial
review
as
a
means
of
questioning
a
decision
has
been
made
about
them.
It's
a
very
heavy-handed
approach
to
potentially
you
know.
B
Some
GRS
can
be
very
expensive
for
those
involved
and
I
think
we
would
like
to
ideally
how
a
root
which
is
more
of
an
administrative
justice
tape,
route
which
is
Laura,
Laura
costs
and
fact
beast
and
hopefully
less
contentious
and
can
be
dealt
with
quickly.
So
we'll
have
a
look
at
what
can
be
done
there,
but
to
provide
the
issues.
There
is
some
protection.
B
The
most
efficient
means
of
doing
that
from
a
point
of
view
of
you
know,
being
a
relatively
onerous
process
to
go
through
a
judicial
review.
So
I'm
certainly
happy
to
to
look
at
that
under
the
future
poll
super
you
can
see
through
some
improvement
I
think
again,
it
will
provide
confidence
in
the
system.
If
there's
our
is
a
appropriate
course
to
appeal.
If
you
feel
that
you've
been
done,
an
injustice
do.
B
Terms
of
the
future
policy
of
you
not
as
yet,
but
I
will
happily
come
back
to
committee.
Something
I
want
to
discuss
with
you
a
be
myself
and
just
see
if
we
can
get
some
certainty
around
that
unless,
in
the
passage
of
time,
Alex
can
update
me
us
to
something
that's
been
determined
already,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
a
fixed
time
skill
but.
D
We
have
discussed
the
need
for
the
policy
review
and
all
aspects
of
the
reforms
that
were
introduced.
The
reforms
are
quite
reading
wide-ranging,
so
some
some
of
the
policies
that
were
introduced,
for
example,
on
greater
discharge
and
variation
and
data
contribution
order.
Although
it's
been
introduced
since
April
2015
some
of
these
processes,
we
don't
have
a
great
deal
of
experience
to
learn
from
because
they
happen
somewhere
down
the
line
within
the
administration
of
our
keys.
D
But
certainly
we
are
just
recognizing
the
need
that
obviously,
as
a
significant
amount
of
change,
was
introduced
to
that
team,
that
will
be
subject
to
policy
review
and
we
are
discussing
the
appropriate
time
that
we
should
we
should.
We
should
in
a
undertaking
that,
but
it
has
an
infix
just
here.
Let.
B
Me
just
add:
I
mean
it
clearly
that
this
is
one
issue
that
falls
into
a
family
of
issues.
You've
already
discussed
today,
which
are
perhaps
beyond
the
scope
of
the
seconds
of
regulation.
Isms
legislation
itself
in
terms
of
the
regulations
but
I
think
are
one
of
the
issues
you
know
that
would
be
worth
taking
forward
and
having
further
discussion
rings.
So
I
think
future
policy
review
will
will
mop
up
a
number
of
these
issues
and
hopefully
come
to
a
constructive
police
in
terms
of
addressing
them.
A
That
you
finished
Rachel,
okay,
there.
Anyone
else
got
anything
further
to
add
and
if
not,
when
I
move
on
to
the
debate
on
the
motions
recommending
approval
of
the
affirmative
instruments,
which
is
also
agenda,
might
to
and
will
consider
the
three
motions
recommending
approval
of
the
three
affirmative
instruments
just
remind
officials
that
they
are
not
able
to
participate
in
this
formal
debate
on
the
motions
and
advice
that,
in
accordance
with
rule
ten
point,
six
point
three
of
standing
orders.
The
debate
on
the
motions
can
last
no
longer
than
90
minutes.
A
A
B
Thank
thank
you.
Computer
I'm
grateful
for
the
committee's
consideration
of
the
regular
Asians
and
I'm
happy
to
take
forward
the
point
of
disgusted
E
in
terms
of
further
work
that
needs
to
be
done.
I
think
it's
very
helpful
to
half
of
the
committee.
You
have
such
detailed
oversight
of
the
regulations
and
that's
helpful
to
us
and
to
a
B.
So
thank
you
for
your
consideration.
B
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
so
can
I
noticed
advise
you
that
intend
to
go
through
each
of
the
instruments
and
associated
motions
in
turn
and
in
terms
of
the
protected
trust,
deed
to
forums,
Scotland
regulations,
2016
and
references
to
section,
171,
I
of
the
bankruptcy
scotland
act
2016
in
the
entry
for
form
3
and
the
list
of
forms
used
in
connection
with
protective
trustee,
it's
contained
in
the
schedule
and
in
the
heading
two
four
and
three
in
the
shedule.
It
should
be
reference
to
section
17
11.
A
I
does
the
committee
agree
to
draw
the
regulations
to
the
attention
of
parliament
on
the
general
reporting
groans,
as
they
can
to
contain
two
minor
drafting
errors.
Thank
you.
Does
the
committee
agree
to
welcome
a
scottish
government's
intention
to
correct
the
error,
the
errors
at
the
next
legislative
opportunity?
A
A
A
Turning
now
to
the
draft
bankruptcy
Scotland
regulations,
2016
regulation
22,
makes
provision
in
respect
of
the
conversion
into
styling
of
a
creditor's
claim
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
regulation
time.
A
Yep
scottish
girl
agreed
to
amend
that
only
and
amending
instrument
arm.
So
we
welcome
that.
So
does
the
committee
agree
to
draw.
Nonetheless,
the
draft
instrument
to
the
attention
of
the
Parliament
underreporting
grams,
each
as
the
meaning
of
recognition
22
of
the
instrument,
could
be
clearer.
Thank
you
so
yeah.
A
So,
in
addition,
are
the
draft
instrument
contains
the
following
drafting
errors.
Firstly,
the
definition
of
common
financial
tool
and
regulation
2
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
signing
copies,
since
the
error
is
minor
and
highly
self-evident
form.
27
incher,
one
of
the
regulations
referred
incorrectly
to
section
141
of
the
bankruptcy
scotland
diet
in
1985,
as
amended.
A
Reference
should
instead
be
to
section
141
of
the
bankruptcy
Scotland
direct
2016
committee.
We
wish
to
know
that
the
scottish
government
tends
to
correct
this
error
at
the
next
legislative
opportunity
and
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.
A
Thank
you,
and
does
the
committee
agree
to
welcome
the
scottish
government's
intention
to
correct
these
errors?
Thank
you.
Finally,
motion.
Sr5
m02
138
invites
the
committee
to
recommend
to
the
Parliament
of
the
draft
bankruptcy
Scotland
regulations
2016
be
approved.
Does
the
committee
agreed
to
the
motion
excellent?
A
So
it
only
remains
no
for
me
to
cite
the
minister
and
his
officials
of
all
that
evidence
and
coming
here
to
be
with
us
today
very
grateful
minister
and
allow
you
to
leave
if
you
like,
I,
suspend
at
the
meeting
just
for
a
few
minutes,
while
the
minister
and
his
team
take
their
leave.
Thank
You
minister.
A
A
Everyone
and
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
a
legal
advisers
on
the
bike.
Ramp,
see
applications
and
decision
of
scotland
regulations,
2016
SS,
I,
2016,
/
295
is
the
committee
content
with
this
instrument
from
a
technical
perspective?
A
A
Thank
you
when
I
moved
to
agenda
item,
for
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
and
no
points
have
been
raised
by
a
legal
advisers
on
bankruptcy.
Scotland
act,
2016
commencement
regulations,
2016,
SSI,
2016,
/
294.
Is
the
committee
content
with
this
instrument
from
a
technical
perspective?
A
Thank
you
and
from
a
lead
committee
perspective.
Is
the
committee
content
to
note
the
instrument
and
make
no
recommendation?
Thank
you
in
relation
to
all
of
the
instruments.
Does
the
committee
wish
to
draw
the
attention
draw
to
the
attention
of
the
economy,
jobs
and
fear?
What
committee
the
politic?
The
policy
evidence
that
we've
taken
today
right?
A
Thank
you
agenda
item.
6
is
the
consideration
of
instruments
subject
to
negative
procedure?
No
points
have
been
raised
by
a
legal
advisers
on
the
following-
instruments:
the
act
of
Siddhant
fees
of
solicitors
and
shorthand
writers
in
the
Court
of
Session
sheriff
appeal
court
and
sheriff
court
amendment
2016
SS,
I,
2016,
/
360
or
the
general
pharmaceutical
Council
amendment
of
miscellaneous
provisions,
rules
order
of
council
2016's
I
2016
/
1008.
Is
the
committee
content
with
these
instruments?
A
Thank
you
agenda
item.
7
is
consideration
of
instruments
not
subject
during
a
parliamentary
procedure
and
the
act
of,
and
they
are
the
act
of
sedona
sheriff
court
bankruptcy
rules,
2016,
SSI,
2016,
/,
313
forum,
6.1,
hyphen
e
in
schedule.
1
of
the
instrument
contains
the
following
drafting
errors.
Some
text
is
missing
from
the
second
and
alternative
subparagraph
B
of
paragraph
3,
where
petitioner
is
a
trustee
under
a
trust
deed
of
the
statement
of
files.
The
paragraph
should
read.
A
It
would
be
in
the
best
interest
of
the
creditors
that
an
award
of
sequestration
be
made,
and
the
first
subparagraph
B
of
paragraph
3,
where
petitioner
is
a
trustee
under
a
trusted
of
the
statement
of
facts,
should
refer
in
italicized
note
to
the
data
rather
than
to
the
respondent.
So
does
the
committee
agreed
to
draw
the
instrument
to
the
intention
of
Parliament
on
general
report
to
ground
on
account
of
these
drafting
errors?
A
A
2016,
SSI,
2016,
/,
319
or
the
Scottish
fish
fiscal
commission
act,
2016
commencement
and
transitory
provision.
Regulations
of
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
sedaris,
simple
procedure:
2016
SSI
2016,
the
/
200.