Enterprise and Culture Committee, 07 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Official Report 307KB pdf

---

Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 6 is consideration of the Finance Committee's report on the bill and issues emerging from today's evidence. The report, which has been circulated, is fairly straightforward. I suggest that we go to the conclusions on page 8.

There are four conclusions for us to follow up on. In the first, the Finance Committee details its concerns about the establishment of the Scottish civil enforcement commission. I suggest that we write to the minister, referring him to the concerns expressed in the report and asking for his response.

Members indicated agreement.

The second conclusion relates to the accuracy of the estimates made in relation to the budget for the Accountant in Bankruptcy. We might ask the Auditor General to consider that issue—if he can do so quickly—and to give us some independent advice on the estimates, because there is clearly a dispute between the Finance Committee and the Executive about their veracity and robustness.

We heard evidence today from down south on any increase in costs, and last week we heard the Accountant in Bankruptcy's estimate of that, even without the bill. In the first instance, it might be worth providing that evidence to the Executive and asking it to comment, and then considering whether we want to go to the Auditor General.

Given the time limits within which we are considering the bill, I suggest that we write to the Executive and the Auditor General at the same time. By the time that we get a response from the Executive, we may also have a response from the Auditor General, which would give us a good comparator.

The key point is that the Finance Committee is in dispute with the Executive. It would be helpful if we could get some independent advice. Do members agree that we should write to the Auditor General and the Executive simultaneously?

Members indicated agreement.

The Finance Committee's third concern relates to the reform of protected trust deeds. Again, that is primarily a cost issue, but it is also a guidance issue.

We do not know what the reform of protected trust deeds will involve because we have not got to that part of the bill yet.

Exactly. We should draw the Executive's attention to the specific point that the Finance Committee raised. Do members agree that we should write to the Executive? We could also ask the Auditor General whether he would agree to help us on that, as it is probably falls within his remit.

If there is time, we could attach the evidence and the responses to questions that we got earlier today.

Absolutely. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final concern of the Finance Committee is the uncertainty over uptake of the information disclosure scheme and associated costs. As we would expect from the Finance Committee, that is another finance issue. Shall we do the same again, and write simultaneously to the Executive and the Auditor General?

Members indicated agreement.

Is Nicholas Grier able, in three minutes, to sum up the emerging issues?

Well, there is a challenge—the answer is probably no.

I thought that the evidence from down south was extremely helpful and interesting.

I agree. What came out most clearly in the evidence from England is that the bill will not make much difference to enterprise. That is not necessarily a bad thing, and it will help some entrepreneurs. We just have to recognise that the purpose for which the bill was introduced is not necessarily the one that it is going to achieve.

What the witnesses told us about the bill was useful. There were some issues that I would have liked to have heard more about, such as the things that could be done better in future. It would have been useful to have heard a bit more about the cost to the public purse, and we could have heard more about debtor education. It just would have been nice—in the greater scheme of things—to have heard more about those issues.

Scottish Enterprise seems to have few views on the bill, other than that it will do no harm—

That is always a good thing.

Scottish Enterprise's response makes it difficult for me to say anything constructive in that context.

We heard that the minister thinks that the bill will change the culture. We will have to see whether that happens. The fact that there is optimism about legislation does not necessarily mean that what is hoped for will be achieved, but one can always hope that the culture will change—it depends on how sceptical one is about the capacity of legislation to make a difference. I am not sure that I can contribute much more; members of the committee listened to the evidence just as I did. In the interests of brevity, I will shut up.

Perhaps you could write to the individuals from whom you would like more information.

I would be happy to do that.

The agenda for this meeting was long, because as well as taking evidence from witnesses we had to consider two SSIs and the Company Law Reform Bill. However, if we are to meet the deadlines in our timetable for consideration of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill, we will have long meetings for the next month or two.

I asked the clerks to work on the part of our report that will deal with part 1 of the bill. It would be useful if we considered that part of our report in two weeks' time, while the matter is fresh in our minds, so that we do not have to revisit it at the end of the process. I mentioned the clerks, but Nicholas Grier will also have a heavy input.

In the light of the discussion at our last meeting about the timetable for consideration of the bill, the Minister for Parliamentary Business has sent a paper to the Parliamentary Bureau that suggests that the stage 1 debate be held on or before 26 May. That would tie in with our report deadline of 16 May, because it would allow five sitting days between the publication of the report and the debate. The onus will be on us to meet our side of the bargain and complete the report on time, and I am working with the clerks to ensure that we do so.

If there are no further comments on the bill, we will move into private session.

Meeting continued in private until 17:04.