Official Report 434KB pdf
I welcome members to the 35th meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and I ask them to switch off mobile phones, please.
Agenda item 1 is for the committee to consider the drafter’s response to the committee’s questions on the consolidation in parts 9 to 14 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill. As members have no comments on the response, are we content to note it?
Members indicated agreement.
Agenda item 2 is for the committee to consider whether the consolidation in parts 15 to 18 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, together with the schedules to the bill, correctly restates the enactments that are being consolidated and whether the consolidation is clear, coherent and consistent. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the drafter of the bill in written correspondence.
There appears to be a drafting error in section 200(3)(a). The drafting in that section suggests that the words
“of which particulars have been registered in the register of insolvencies during the year to which the report relates”
apply only to
“the winding up and receivership of business associations.”
However, in the original section of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, those same words appear to apply to both
“the winding up and receivership of business associations”
and
“the state of all sequestrations.”
Does the committee agree to draw that to the drafter’s attention?
Members indicated agreement.
Section 200(5) sets out the circumstances in which the Accountant in Bankruptcy—the AIB—must report a matter to the Lord Advocate. Some of the wording from the equivalent section of the 1985 act is not restated, or is modified, in section 200(5). Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why the words
“in the performance of his functions under this Act or any other enactment or any rule of law”
have not been restated in section 200(5)(a) of the bill; what effect that is considered to have on the meaning of that section; why the word “suspect” in section 1A(3) of the 1985 act has been changed to “suppose” in section 200(5) of the bill; and what effect that is considered to have on the meaning of that section?
Members indicated agreement.
11:15
Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why in section 206 one reference to “co-obligant” is retained in subsection (5), while the other references are restated as “obligant”, and whether there is any reason for that difference in terminology?
Members indicated agreement.
Section 223 gives a power to the Scottish ministers to make regulations in relation to a disqualification provision in any enactment.
The equivalent section of the 1985 act—section 71B—provides that a disqualification provision is a provision that disqualifies, whether permanently or temporarily and whether absolutely or conditionally, a debtor from holding a relevant office. The words
“and whether absolutely or conditionally”
are not restated in section 223(2) of the bill. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why the words
“and whether absolutely or conditionally”
have not been restated in section 223(2) of the bill?
Members indicated agreement.
Under paragraph 5(4) of schedule 1 to the bill, a statement of the debtor’s current state of affairs must be provided, in certain circumstances, within six months after the previous statement was given. Under the equivalent provision of the 1985 act, the statement must be provided on the expiry of those six months. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why the words
“on the expiry of the period of 6 months”
in paragraph 5(4) of schedule A1 to the 1985 act have been changed to “within 6 months” in paragraph 5(4) of schedule 1 to the bill and what effect that is considered to have on the meaning of the provision?
Members indicated agreement.
In paragraph 10(3) of schedule 3 it appears that the word “or” in line 4 should instead be “of”. Does the committee agree to draw that to the drafter’s attention?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why the words
“or receives payment in respect of an attached article upon its redemption”
in paragraphs 24(3) and 24(7) of schedule 7 to the 1985 act have not been restated in schedule 7 to the bill?
Members indicated agreement.
It appears that the reference at paragraph 27 of schedule 8 to the bill to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2013 should be to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. Does the committee agree to draw that to the drafter’s attention?
Members indicated agreement.
Part 2 of schedule 9 lists the enactments that are to be revoked by the bill, including regulation 45 of the Debt Arrangement Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2011. However, regulation 45 has been revoked by the Debt Arrangement Scheme (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2014. Does the committee agree to draw that to the drafter’s attention?
Members indicated agreement.
The word “or” has been inserted into the following delegated powers provisions in parts 15 to 18 and the schedules: section 223(6), between paragraphs (a) and (b); section 224(1), between paragraphs (b) and (c); and schedule 1, paragraph 2(7), between paragraphs (a) and (b). The committee has already explored that issue with the drafter. Does the committee agree to take those further examples into consideration?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Attendance