 Five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will itself be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the amendment should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the amendment. I refer members now to the martial list. I call amendment 1 in the name of Oliver Mundell. Mr Mundell, to move and speak to amendment 1, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I speak to the amendment in my name. It is a simple amendment that asks the Scottish Government to report back to this Parliament on resourcing this legislation. Principally it is designed to act as a backstop to cover a very specific set of circumstances, namely where local authorities do not have insurance or have inadequate insurance cover for the relevant period. The chamber will hear from the minister that she does not want to write a blank check. Perhaps that is so, but I say to members that they do not be fooled because the simple fact is this. If, as the minister will argue, the true costs and resources needed for this legislation are unknown, unquantifiable and the Scottish Government cannot put a figure on it, then the minister is asking us to write that very same blank check for her. Worse still, she is asking others to guarantee it. Nobody can disagree with the merits of this legislation. Its intentions are virtuous, long overdue and much welcomed. Survivors and victims of childhood abuse have been denied justice for far too long, but they deserve better than a rushed job—a job half done. That is why it is imperative that we take this opportunity to get things right. Vile monsters have been allowed to hide behind the law, shielded by technical legal considerations. For years, the state did not want to know. Many who have held elected office have let those individuals down, and we should not ignore that fact. In my view, we are duty bound to take collective responsibility for the failings of the past. It is only right that we acknowledge the financial cost that comes with trying to put things right. We cannot in good faith put the legislation on the statute books without recognising it. The member agrees that the amendment would delay access to justice for survivors who have waited far too long. I thank the member for that intervention, but I do not accept that. The only thing that would delay access to justice for survivors is that the Scottish Government is dragging its heels on committing to properly funding and resourcing the legislation. I am grateful for the member for taking intervention on that point. I did not support the proposal at stage 2, and I appreciate its narrower now, and I appreciate the point that he is trying to make. Have the members had discussions with COSLA about that particular point and what their position on it is, please? Oliver Mundell, I thank the member for that intervention. I have not had direct discussions with COSLA on the specific wording of the amendment, but the briefing that they sent round to parliamentarians ahead of this stage 3 debate made their concerns very clear. There are a number of local authorities across Scotland who do not have adequate insurance cover for the entire period, and I would welcome an intervention from the minister if she wants to. I am just looking at the paper that COSLA sent to the Justice Committee in terms of the stage 3 process, and I quote directly, We noted with interest the amendment that was discussed and not eventually adopted, and we recognise that, given the uncertainty around numbers, it would be very difficult to agree on a financial figure up front of implementation. Does the member accept that COSLA has stated the position that reflects, indeed, the evidence that the Justice Committee received from a number of witnesses that, in advance of implementation of this bill, the potential impact is simply unquantifiable? Oliver Mundell, I thank the minister for that intervention, but this is a different amendment from what was discussed at stage 2. It is narrower and it only looks at the retrospective aspects. Secondly, if the costs are unquantifiable and we do not know what they are, how can we ask local authorities and other organisations to bear that risk, rather than take responsibility as legislators and, in the case of the Government, responsibility for legislation it has brought forward? I think that we cannot pass in good faith this legislation without recognising the need to put adequate resources in place. To do so is just not fair and it is not right. By failing to address this issue, we run the very real risk that, by passing the legislation, we will be passing the buck, and in passing the buck we will be passing the burden on to local authorities, local authorities who are already overstretched and badly under-resourced. In practical terms, it could mean that we are asking councils to further cut services today to pay for the mistakes of the past. On our watch, here and now, we have a choice. Do we ask the vulnerable individuals who rely on local authority provision to bear the risk that comes with the seemingly unquantifiable? Or do we do what is right and have a full and proper scoping exercise to ensure that this legislation is not only enacted but enacted well? Surely, given the systematic scale of abuse that has occurred, central government must share some of the responsibility and help to mitigate the risks. Today, the Scottish Government has a chance to make good. Ministers cannot take credit for those changes, while, at the same time, failing in their duty to ensure that they are properly resourced. I move the amendment in my name. I have six members who want to speak, and I am going to try to get you all in so that I please have short contributions. I call first Claire Baker, and then I will take Alec Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is an amendment that has been improved since stage two, and it now provides greater clarity and addresses some of the concerns of the committee. The committee agreed at stage one that it was vital that the bill was properly resourced, and the amendment is a response to the on-going concerns about funding, concerns that the committee heard in evidence. It is vital that we reassure survivors that justice and compensation is available. There will be cost to local authorities defending any actions, and the evidence to the committee indicated the patchy nature of insurance provision. The bill is more than just a signal of support. We need to provide certainty that the financial resources are available when cases are brought forward. We must recognise the strength of feeling that confidence is lacking. I hear what the minister has said in arguments opposing the amendment at the committee. However, there are two things that I would like to say about that. I do not accept that the amendment will delay the bill, and I do not also accept that the report is a request for an agreement on an actual figure. Surely the Government can provide a report that will give assurances that sufficient financial resources will be available, otherwise it is suggesting a situation in which it cannot guarantee that resources will be available, a situation that could completely undermine the intent of the bill. The minister also talked about a blank check at the committee. It is important that the minister gives assurances that the Government will meet responsibilities and that local authorities are able to meet responsibilities, otherwise it is suggesting that the amount is going to be capped and that there might be some difficulties in people receiving recompense. I do not accept that the report is asking for an onerous or an impossible task from the Government. I believe that it is possible for the Government to produce a report that is appropriate and proportionate, and it is one that can provide assurances to survivors that this legislation can be meaningful and effective, and I intend to support the amendment. I rise to offer the support of these Liberal Democrat benches, the amendment 1 in the name of Oliver Mundell. My colleague Liam McArthur agreed at stage 2 that the financial memorandum around the bill was too narrow and did not account for the significant surge in demand for resource that might occur at every level in the immediate aftermath of implementation, and the problem that particularly exists where insurance cover for the period in question has expired or never existed. Although there were some problems with the stage 2 conservative amendment, the principle at its heart was sound. Although it fell, the Scottish Government could have then brought forward its own amendment to answer the challenge identified therein, which it failed to do. Members have been well briefed by Solar, Social Work, Scotland and Cozler that such a gap in resourcing in this area could pose an existential risk to the process. So, whilst the Scottish Government attests that this amendment might delay the implementation of the act, I would suggest that the possibility that this process may in some cases grind to a halt for want of resource represents a far more significant impediment to justice for those victims of historic abuse, and we shall support the amendment accordingly. Thank you. After Stuart Stevenson, I call John Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think it's fair to say that the amendment that's now before us is more narrow in its scope and is closer to what we could take forward than the one that came forward in committee from a former colleague of Oliver Mundell, but it still suffers from the same basic problems. It now means that the bill can move forward, but if implemented, it would be a potential roadblock to the laying of the regulations that would give effect to the bill. Now, why is that so? I accept that it's public bodies only—by the way, that's not simply local authorities, we should bear in mind—but the real thing is, the words in the fourth line of the amendment that says, meet any obligations arising from an action brought. Now, let's examine an example of—I will develop my point of view by me, Mr Mundell first. There is no limit of time associated with that, because it's any obligation arising from the action. Somebody at the age of 100 years old, long after I, despite my ambitions to live forever, have shuffled off this mortal coil, could bring forward and succeed with a court action that results in a payment being made. The normal process by which we would deal with an obligation that might arise in 2070, 2080, 2090, even, would be through the normal budget process of this Parliament. It is quite unreasonable that we work out by some random uncalibrated wet finger estimate what the costs are going to be in 60, 70 years' time. We simply can't do that. I defy anybody in the chamber to give a methodology by which we can do that. The provision of the court services and the compensation from public bodies that go with this particular amendment are matters that have to be dealt with closer to the point of application. If we accept this in this environment, why don't we say that we have to fund the court services and all future obligations of all public bodies from now until forever? The principle would take you to that point. I am not objecting to proper funding. Can you come to conclusions, please? I am trying to get others in. I do support the broad support, if I am allowed to take an invention of that. I would rather get the other members in, if that is okay, and then you can do your summing up, if that is appropriate. I appreciate that it is an important debate, and I want others to have their say. Johann Lamont, followed by Margaret Mitchell, said that this is such an important discussion that, if we encroached a little bit in the general debate around the bill, I don't think that it would do the bill any harm. I think that you may be reading my mind, Ms Lamont. I am allowing it to run. I do appreciate its importance. Thank you, and I appreciate your comments. I rise to support the amendment, and I want to make a number of points. I can just say to Stuart Stevenson that that might look like a good argument in paper, but it doesn't sound like an argument committed to the principle of the bill. It looks like a way out of the challenge, rather than addressing the challenge. I know that the minister has spoken about the difficulty of calculating the numbers. I am sure that survivors, groups and survivors themselves would be able to support you in developing an understanding of the numbers. Are we saying that, if the numbers are too high, we cannot guarantee the rights that are enshrined in this bill? We are able in this Parliament to say that we will provide baby boxes without being insured about the number of babies that are going to be born in the next year. The fundamental issue here is this. If there is a right that we want across the chamber to exercise, then we need to find a means to deliver on that. The idea that it will stop the legislation is simply not true. I know that people will be asking that genuinely, because that is what they have been told. The advice that we have had from Spice is simply that it is not the case. However, if it were the case, why did the minister not bring forward a proposal that addresses the technical issues that she is identifying? She has the machinery of the state to find a way through this process. I will also say to her that there is a difference between saying that something is difficult to calculate and unquantifiable. Those are two different things. However, if I can make progress, because that really does matter. We need to understand why that matters so much to survivors. The bill creates a right to justice that has been denied for too long. There are survivors who have theoretically rights throughout their lives. Theoretically, they have a right to education, a right to protection from abuse, a right for families to protect them, for social work teachers and others to protect them, a right to a childhood. Those rights were all rights in reality that were denied to them. It is understandable that survivors now ask that their right in the bill is not somehow not to be given that underpinning commitment. For that bill, without a commitment to ensure the resources to deliver those rights, there will be yet another example to survivors of the gulf between the theoretical right that they have and the reality of their lives. I say that in all seriousness to the minister. That is a fundamental responsibility. In establishing a right, you need to will the means to deliver that right. That is why it matters, because a right that is not enforceable in reality is not a right at all. We know across this chamber how we have all let people down. By supporting that amendment, we can give people the reassurance that we are not just saying that we would like you to have that right. We will will the means to make sure that you have certainty that your rights will actually be delivered. I rise to support Oliver Mundell's amendment. Quite simply, without a commitment that adequate resourcing will be available, there is a very real danger that much anticipated and eagerly awaited aims of the bill will not be realised. There is no need at this stage to quantify the amount and a commitment to adequately resource would not delay its introduction. Frankly, if the political will is there, then the appropriate regulations can be laid tenuously. It would be an absolute tragedy if, at this late stage, survivors of historic child youth sexual abuse are let down and if the Government refuses to even consider the resourcing, which is absolutely fundamental to the bill being effective, if they absolutely refuse to consider this as a possibility, then it is a very black day for this Government. In speaking to Oliver Mundell's amendment, I would like to mention former MSP Douglas Ross' amendment, which was raised at stage 2. I was unable to support the Douglas Ross amendment at stage 2, because that amendment would have required the Scottish Government to provide a full costing for the legislation before it could be passed. That would have been difficult as we were unsure of the full cost implications for local authorities and third sector organisations when establishing that information. That amendment would, in effect, have stopped the bill in its tracks, and for those reasons I could not support it. However, the amendment that is tabled by Oliver Mundell requires ministers to prepare a report showing that sufficient financial and other resources are available to help to meet any obligation arising from this legislation. That report should be laid before Parliament before the bill receives royal assent. Although it could be argued that the difference between the two amendments is slight, I will support Oliver Mundell's amendment, because the Government will have the time to prepare an indicative report of the resources that local authorities will require. A report of this nature could potentially allow local authorities and other organisations affected to plan the resources that they will require. That can only be a helpful progression to enable survivors of childhood abuse to feel confident that they will get the help that they require when raising claims. The Scottish Government strongly opposes that amendment, which is largely the same as the amendment that was put forward by Douglas Ross at stage 2, as has been referred to. It carries with it almost all the difficulties that I raised at stage 2. As before, the amendment is completely unworkable and has the potential of derailing the bill and thereby denying survivors the benefit of the bill. The amendment requires that, before the bill is commenced, a report is laid before Parliament, showing that sufficient resources have been made available to public bodies to meet any obligations arising further to the implementation of the bill. Although the new formulation of the amendment is concerned with actions relating to abuse that took place before royal assent, nonetheless, the basic problems that the amendment generates for the coming into force of the bill remain the same. As I made it clear at stage 2, that puts us into a catch-22 position, the impact of pre-existing abuse will not be known until after commencement, but the amendment would not allow us to commence the act until the impact was known, or perhaps until a blank check has been written. It was clearly recognised during the scrutiny of the bill that we cannot predict with any certainty what the impact will be. COSLA, Social Work Scotland, Police Scotland, The Law Society of Scotland and Aberystwyth City Council have all made the point, which has been recognised by members of the Justice Committee. I will take Mr Mundell. The Minister for Giving Way, but does she not recognise that, in saying that it is unquantifiable and that she is not willing to write a blank check, she is passing that burden on to others to write the same blank check? I do not accept that, and I would stress the point that COSLA and I have been in regular discussions at official level. Officials met COSLA last week to discuss those issues, and COSLA reiterated that they are not looking for blank checks to be written. I would also say that, in terms of official correspondence with COSLA officials, COSLA has opined that they agree that the amendment seems to be unworkable. That is the position of COSLA that the amendment seems to be unworkable. That might be something that the member may wish to consider. All those players, given evidence before the Justice Committee, recognised that it would not be possible to come up with a specific figure. COSLA also says that there is undisputed recognition about the uncertainty of implementing this legislation. It is impossible to predict how many instances of abuse occurred in this time frame, how many survivors may consider bringing a claim and then, in turn, how many claims may be brought against which organisations. The new version of the amendment, notwithstanding that it applies now to harm that took place before the act receives royal assent, as I say, I have taken an intervention already, thank you. It does not, however, solve the fundamental problem that I have just described. The great uncertainty about impact applies to past cases, as much as it does to future cases. Even where the abuse took place before royal assent, cases might still not be raised for some years into the future, in particular when we take into account the silencing effect of this heinous abuse and the fact that, for many survivors, it can take some 22 years to get to the stage that they are able to come forward. I understand that there are concerns about implications for local authorities and the importance of maintaining services at the highest standards. As I say, my officials have been in regular dialogue with COSLA. COSLA recognised the difficulties involved and, rather, what they are looking for is continued dialogue about the impact. I confirm that we will work with COSLA and others to find the best way of monitoring the impact of the bill and how it should best be addressed. The amendment contains a number of technical difficulties. In essence, the amendment is so uncertain in its effect that it would leave the validity of commencement regulations in doubt, issues regarding who is to determine what is sufficient or what happens if commencement is challenged. One case has already concluded. Mr Mundell also said in his opening comments that the amendment now applies only in circumstances where there is no insurance cover available. Nowhere on the face of the amendment does it say that. In conclusion, putting this condition on commencement runs the risk of preventing the bill coming into force. Parliament has unanimously supported the general principles of the bill and creating this unworkable requirement would appear to go against the will of the Parliament. We should not forget that survivors have campaigned long and hard for this change. Amending the bill in a way that might risk frustrating the process would be disrespectful to survivors and their very long fight for justice. I urge members to reject amendment 1. I understand those passions, but I ask members to be respectful to each other. There are genuine views on all sides, and I have let the debate run. I now call Oliver Mundell to wind up, please. I am gobsmacked by the Scottish Government's complacency on this. It seems that they have missed what the very piece of legislation is about. If we cannot guarantee that claims that come forward in 20 years' time are going to be paid, what is the point in passing that legislation at all? That gets right to the heart of it, and I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government will not support the amendment. Why would they? Why take responsibility for their actions just because they can? Last night, we saw SNP backbenchers who were willing to break their party whip on the issue of tail docking. I can only hope that backbenchers will be as willing to listen to their conscience this afternoon. In particular, I appeal to the Scottish National Party and SNP members of the Justice Committee to make good on the recommendation that we made on our report on the bill. The committee's report on the bill contains at paragraph 245 a recommendation that was unanimously agreed by all members of the committee. It says that it is important that the bill is properly resourced to ensure that both its policy and intent are achieved and to prevent any negative impact on the provision of current services by local authorities. If the member would agree with me that survivors want this reassurance, the bill would not be here except for survivors fighting. Historically, there were many organisations, many agencies and many of the great and good said that this cannot be done. We have proven that it can be done. Now, let's go the extra bit to make sure that it is resourced. Oliver Mundell. I thank the member for that very passionate intervention, and she does make an important point, because people in this chamber need to remember that those like us who have held elected office over a great many years have let those people down. We have let them badly down, and this legislation today would not have been here if what—do you want to stand up or are you going to— Minister. I am therefore very curious as to why, when it is recognised by COSLA, by Aberdeen City Council, by the Law Society of Scotland, Police Scotland among other social work Scotland that you cannot quantify with exactitude the figure in terms of the potential impact of this bill, why it is that the member nonetheless wishes to go forward with an amendment that risks putting the bill into jeopardy and therefore letting down the survivors who have been so brave over so many decades in getting us all to this stage where we should be. Oliver Mundell. It is clear that the minister has got plenty to say now, but when the tough questions were being asked of her she did not want to answer. Perhaps she could stand up again and answer this question. I wonder if she could confirm how many of Scotland's 32 local authorities have adequate insurance cover for historic child abuse actions for the period in question. Just a minute, minister. I have to call you first. I thought that the position should be rather directed to each of the 30 local authorities, but, of course, can I also introduce an element of reality into Mr Mundell's thoughts, which is that, obviously, in terms of looking at each individual fact and circumstance, you would need, therefore, to determine on that basis whether there was insurance cover in place. Any meaningless general statement along those lines is not helpful to individual cases, and perhaps Mr Mundell might wish to reflect on that point. Mr Mundell. I reflect carefully on that point, and I would ask the Scottish Government, in turn, to reflect on the length of time it has had, although the legislation has been progressing through Parliament to consider some of those points. Secondly, in answer to some of the other questions that have been posed by the minister, the report does not ask for an exact figure of the number of cases that come forward. It does not ask for a quantified amount of support and, in correction to what both the minister and Stuart Stevenson tried to suggest, it does not cover any obligations that arise as a result of that. It is qualified, if you read the whole amendment, it says, those obligations that are at prejudice to current services provided by public bodies. I am glad that you are coming through the chair, because, as we begin to think, I will have a cup of tea while you both have a ramie across the chamber. What I would do is again quote the actual terms of the amendment. The condition is that the Scottish ministers have prepared and laid before the condition to actually bring the act into force a report showing that sufficient, undefined financial and other resources have been made available to ensure that public bodies can, comma, without prejudice to the provision of services by those bodies, comma, meet any obligations arising from an action brought by virtue of the relevant provisions of the bill in question. That is what Mr Mundell's amendment says. Maybe he is not totally familiar with what he was trying to do. Mr Mundell. I think that it is the minister who is not reading the detail of the amendment. She has read it out, but she has not understood what it means on paper. Irregardless of that point, it simply asks for a report. It is not asking for the numbers, it is not asking for a specified amount and it is not asking for a further vote on the quality of the report that is put forward. By agreeing to this amendment, we will be ensuring that full scrutiny is given to this legislation by this Parliament. This is not a wrecking amendment, it would not delay this legislation and it simply asks ministers to take accountability for the delay that has occurred on their watch for bringing those changes forward. It asks them to underwrite the unexpected financial burden that might place on local authorities and it asks them to ensure that vulnerable individuals in the care of the state today do not pay the price for the mistakes of the past. I believe that the unwillingness of ministers to take that point seriously smacks of the very same cowardice and dithering from those in authority that has allowed this whole issue to be brushed under the carpet for too long. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful to the member for giving way. He is aware that I am not a member of the committee that scrutinised this in detail. I thought that we were coming here to listen to a debate where there was a good degree of consensus on the objective here. I have to say both to the member and I am sorry to say to the minister that I find it slightly unedifying to hear people now accusing each other of wanting to let down the victims of historic child abuse. I do not think that that is the kind of debate that we ought to be having. Is he intending to address the question that has been raised that Cosler consider his amendment to be unworkable, something that he said in his opening remarks that he had not asked them about? Mr Mundale. I thank the member for that intervention and I do not think that this debate is unedifying. I think that having spoken to survivors groups this morning, the very survivors who have been championing and campaigning for this that they would understand why this amendment was really important and what it offers them. Cosler, perhaps on the advice of the Scottish Government around what this amendment means, might have taken an opinion, because it seems that the minister is so blinkered that she is not willing to consider what a report actually means. I press the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Mundale. The question is, amendment 1, be agreed to or are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage, I suspend for five minutes. Thank you. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 1. This is a 32nd division and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote amendment 1 is as follows. The name of all of myndelaus is as follows. Yes, 50. No, 65. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. That concludes amendments and I am required to read out if you weren't here yesterday. You're here, you probably don't want to hear it again. As members will be aware at this point in the proceedings, the Presiding Officer is now required. Understanding orders to decide whether or not, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to protected subject matter. Briefly that is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. If it does the motion to pass the bill, it will require support from a supermajority of members. That is a two-thirds majority of all members, which is 86. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that, in his view—nope, I'd like a bit of quiet while I'm reading—I know that you may have heard it before. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that, in his view, no provision of the limitation childhood abuse Scotland Bill relates to protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the limitation childhood abuse Scotland Bill, and that is the debate. I think that I'm reading the wrong bit. The next item of business is a debate on motion 6201, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on the limitation childhood abuse Scotland Bill at stage 3. I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Annabelle Ewing to speak to and move the motion no more than eight minutes, please, minister. I'm pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the limitation childhood abuse Scotland Bill and to invite members to agree to pass the bill. I thank members of the Justice Committee, the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their hard work and careful scrutiny of this hugely important bill. I also thank members for their comments on the bill during its passage through the Parliament. I also thank the organisations and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to the committee and briefings on the bill's provisions. Most importantly, I would like to thank survivors who have been at the heart of the process. I thank them for their bravery and their persistence for bringing to our attention the plight and injustices that they have suffered and for not giving up their fight to set those injustices right. I am humbled by the courage that they have shown, not only in campaigning for this legislative change, but also in coming forward and sharing their experiences. It is the survivors coming forward that has made this bill possible and the reason that we have reached this important milestone today. I was deeply saddened to learn that Frank Doherty passed away on 30 April of this year. Frank Doherty was a survivor who fought long and hard for the voices of survivors to be heard and it is clear that we have lost an important witness and champion of survivors' rights. I would also like to take the opportunity to make reference to the Scottish Human Rights Commission and to thank them for all their work over many years on this subject. As members will be aware, the bill stems from their interaction process and the action plan on justice for victims of historic abuse of children in care, which came out of that work. The action plan set out a number of recommendations and I am pleased to be here today at the point of fulfilling a key commitment in response to those recommendations. I have welcomed the discussions that we have had on the bill as it has made its way through the parliamentary stages. The Justice Committee evidence sessions highlighted a number of important issues, among them the definition of abuse and in particular as far as the issue of neglect is concerned. I am grateful to the witnesses and to the committee for raising this issue and recommending that we look at this again. I believe that the amendment that was passed at stage 2 that we put forward to expressly mention neglect in the definition has provided added clarity to the bill for its insurers that there is no doubt that abuse in the form of neglect is covered by the definition of abuse in the bill. The committee evidence sessions also highlighted other issues in the bill, in particular in relation to inserted section 17C, which allows previously raised cases to be re-raised, and also inserted section 17D, which provides safeguards in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. I found those discussions helpful in re-examining the issues. With regard to section 17C, I noted the committee's suggestion that more clarity could be provided in the explanatory notes on the question of the burden of proof. I can confirm that changes have been made to the explanatory notes in line with the recommendation. As I have mentioned before, the bill is about striking a balance in particular, finding a balance between being inclusive and at the same time avoiding unintended consequences. I have made every effort to ensure that the provisions in the bill are justified and are proportionate. On the important issue of prescription, I note and welcome the conclusions from the Justice Committee in this regard in relation to the issue of the law on prescription, which is relevant to abuse that took place before 26 September 1964. Because of the nature of the law on prescription and human rights considerations, prescription will remain unchanged and the committee agreed that that was indeed the right approach. However, I am aware that the issue of prescription has come as a great disappointment to many survivors, and I regret that it is not something that the bill has been able to address. However, as members will be aware, the bill is not the only step taken by the Scottish Government to support survivors of childhood abuse. It is important to set the bill within the context of a number of other measures that are designed to improve the situation for survivors. In relation to survivors who are affected by the law of prescription, the current work to develop a consultation on the provision of financial compensation will include all in-care survivors within its scope. That work has been taken forward by SELSAs in collaboration with the interaction action plan review group, which includes survivor representatives. I am aware that that work is in its early stages with consultation expected to start later in the summer. Already up and running since October 2016 is the £13.5 million in-care survivor support fund now called Future Pathways. Older adults have been identified as a priority group since the inception of the support fund along with people in distress. Demand for support has been encouraging, with more survivors than initially anticipated, coming forward. In order to improve the responsiveness of the service and to address the needs of older and more vulnerable survivors who may not yet have come forward for support, Future Pathways is increasing the number of support coordinators to enable more responsive support to all. One of those coordinators will focus on the needs of priority groups such as older survivors. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all survivors of in-care abuse regardless of age to get in touch with future pathways. Other measures to support survivors of in-care childhood abuse include the national confidential forum, which continues to be a forum in which the voices of in-care survivors can be heard and acknowledged and understood. In October 2015, the Scottish Government established the independent child abuse inquiry to conduct an independent investigation of the abuse of children in care in Scotland. That is one of the widest-ranging public inquiries that Scotland has ever seen, and it began its first phase of hearings on 31 May of this year. The Scottish Government also supported the Apology Scotland Bill, which came fully into force earlier this week. By protecting the giving of apologies in certain civil actions, the act is intended to encourage changes in social and cultural attitudes towards apologising. In conclusion, the range of measures along with the passing of the bill will make a significant difference for survivors. I am pleased to be here today at the significant milestone. I move that the Parliament agrees that the limitation on childhood abuse Scotland Bill will be passed. I now call Oliver Mundell up to six minutes, Mr Mundell. John Lennon made the point about having time for the debate, and I wonder if I could move a motion without notice so that we extend decision time to 4.45 to make sure that there is time for all the contributions to be made in this very important debate. I am currently giving consideration to that, and I will send you a note and ask you to move it at the appropriate time. I now call Oliver Mundell up to six minutes, Mr Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For many, today represents a historic day, not only in the life of this Parliament but for our society as a whole. Today, we have the opportunity to right a historic wrong. While the legislation is no panacea, there can be no denying the significance both real and symbolic that changing the law will bring. For far too long, survivors and victims of abuse have been denied justice. I say survivors, but we must remember that there are many who have not survived. As I have already said today, vile monsters have been allowed to hide behind the law, shielded by technical legal considerations that our state did not want to know about. Many, like us, have held elected office and have let those individuals down. As we welcome this step forward, we must take our share of collective responsibility for the very grave failings of the past. There are many living amongst us who have had their lives destroyed, many who were in our care who experienced no care at all, who have endured the unimaginable, who have been denied their childhood, and to call what has happened and atrocity is inadequate. What is harder still to acknowledge and accept is that such acts continue to happen to this day. So, on behalf of those benches, I want to say this. To all those who have experienced abuse, we are truly sorry. You have been wronged and nothing said or done in this place will ever put that right, but we must do what we can. At the very least, we owe it to all those who have gone before and all those who are yet to come to give them their chance for their day in court. We owe them the right to seek justice, to bring those issues into the light and to demand that the perpetrators face the consequences of their actions. Of course, there will be disappointments. Of course, there will be cases that do not proceed due to a lack of evidence or because evidence has already been destroyed. There will be further cases because of the delay in getting to this legislation where perpetrators are already dead. Having met survivors over the past few months, having heard their stories, I will never forget the survivor who told me that the violence inflicted upon her had gone beyond the physical, beyond the psychological and had destroyed part of her soul. However, she had not given in or given up and, like many who deserve our praise and admiration, she has the courage to speak out. It is the survivors who have delivered this legislation and forced change. They have campaigned tirelessly and vocally and some in their own way have fought back by living their life as fully as they can. For them, this legislation sends out a message, a message that cannot be ignored. No longer will our legal system aid and abet those who deserve no mercy. That is a victory in itself. Those who have done wrong must be answerable and they do not get to put any time limit on justice. By removing the time bar, we are removing one of the barriers that stands in the way of victims. This legislation rightly recognises and acknowledges that, for many survivors, any attempt at healing may take some time. For some, it will take years before they are ready to speak about their ordeal, to confide in another after their trust has been broken, and perhaps many more years before they can face the legal process. Many of us will never be able to comprehend the complexity of that process. So let us not be arrogant enough to imagine that today's legislation solves or addresses all of those challenges. While this is rightly a victory for campaigners, we, as parliamentarians, must consider this the start, not the end of a journey. There will always be more that we can do. There is no room for complacency on our part. Let us remember that this legislation is not the answer for everyone. For example, it does not offer, as the ministers outlined, the same opportunities for justice to those who suffered abuse prior to 1964. For reasons that others will cover, it is not been legally possible to do so in the same way. However, to end on a more positive note, it is clear that there are some who have suffered, who are no longer afraid, and this change will help to deliver the closure that they are seeking. In closing, I would simply like to personally urge ministers to reflect on what further steps can be taken to address the issue. Finally, in the same spirit, I would ask the Government to keep an ever-watchful eye on how the changes that we are making today will work in practice and how they will be funded. Let us make sure that those who have campaigned so hard and those who have waited so long are not let down for a second time. I am pleased that the bill has reached its final stage today. We should acknowledge that it is 10 years since Lord McEwen's comment in a judgment that I have an easy feeling that the legislation and the strict way that the courts have interpreted it has failed a generation of children who have been abused and whose attempts to seek a fair remedy have become mired in the legal system. There is little I can do about it except to hope that reform will not be long delayed. It can be argued that it has taken too long to see this reform and there will be survivors for whom the legislation is too late. The legislation will give people's choice, people who suffered terrible abuse as children, abused when they were supposed to be protected and had experiences that have hugely impacted on their lives as adults. It is an extremely difficult crime to acknowledge. It is only in recent years that child abuse has come out of the shadows and the increase in historic criminal cases demonstrates the legacy that Scotland is dealing with. The bill has been introduced in the shade of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, an inquiry that is vital for demonstrating transparency, accountability and responsibility. A challenging inquiry has been problematic and has not been able to maintain the confidence of all survivor groups. Although the bill extends new rights to survivors to pursue cases within the civil courts, it is not the path that all survivors will wish to take, and it does not recognise the collective experience. It is crucial that the inquiry delivers answers and that we can expose a culture that we no longer, as a society, are prepared to hide or tolerate. We must now focus on supporting the successful implementation of the act. The commission for a parliamentary reformed report published this week recognises the importance of post-legislative scrutiny. That is a bill that we will need to be alert to. We are giving people a new right, and it is one that they must have confidence in. While the amendment today was not passed, the Government needs to address the on-going concerns over costs. I appreciate that the minister is having conversations with COSLA, but it is clear from the evidence to the committee that while there are anticipated costs of legal defence and action, there will be more significant costs involved in successful claims. The financial memorandum argues that there is an unquantifiable cost to the bill, but there will be a financial impact for defenders with continuing concerns over the ability to meet those costs from COSLA and others. Those are important matters that the Government needs to resolve. We have to recognise that insurance may be available in some cases, but that is not always going to be the case. Concerns have been raised over expired policies, companies that have folded and inadequate insurance policies in place. The Government needs to recognise that that is a demand-led response, and that it will have to work with others to make sure that that is possible. While an authority will have responsibility, it is not by intent, and the burden will be greater on some rather than others. The debate over the amendment today should focus the Government's mind on ensuring sufficient resources are available. The minister talked about the risk of a blank check at the committee, but we do not want to be in a situation in which we are suggesting that the amount of support that is available could be capped and that we are not able to respond to the demand that will be coming forward. I hope that today's debate can provide reassurance to survivors that that is not going to be an empty piece of legislation, but it is going to be one that delivers rights for them that we can deliver on. Not all survivors will want to pursue a case—a case where it can be difficult, could be disputed, could be traumatic. There was recognition and evidence that that could be a difficult task with all the normal practices of the legal system. But the bill does provide choice for survivors. We must ensure that measures are in place to support people making an informed choice and that there is support for people who wish to pursue this course of action. How does the minister anticipate support being made available to survivors who are bringing civil actions? While the third sector offers support groups, how can we ensure that they are able to develop the knowledge and expertise on the act? Are there plans for training opportunities or events that the minister is aware of, or how does she plan to promote opportunities? There is also recognition of the need to accept that training may be required for the legal profession and the need to develop specialisms. The cases coming forward will be complex and specialist courts were proposed and discussed in the evidence, which the Government could legislate for if it accepted the case. I hope that it will give it some further consideration. I finally want to raise the issue of the financial redress scheme for the merits of our financial redress scheme. The new legislation does not apply to people who abuse prior to 1964 and there is no civil action available to them. A financial redress scheme could be a way to recognise the abuse that they suffer while in care. That is often a group of elderly and often frail survivors. A scheme aimed specifically at their needs would ensure that it is provided with a level of redress while it could benefit from it. I urge the Government to advance the work on that as soon as possible. That is an important piece of legislation. It is addressing an injustice for a group of people who deserve recognition and justice. The laws that stand exclude them from the civil courts because they were young, vulnerable and abused when the crime took place. We must now ensure that they are successfully able to use their legislation if that is a decision that they make by ensuring that they are supported and that they act as properly resourced. Before we move on, in order to allow all those who wish to contribute to do so, I am minded to take a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to move decision time to 4.45. I now invite the minister to move that motion. Thank you very much, minister. I put the question to the chamber. Are we all agreed to move decision time to 4.45 pm? That is agreed. Decision time will be at 4.45 pm. Move on to the open debate. Four-minute speeches and still quite strict on timing here. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Justice Committee, I support the bill and I agree that it will improve access to justice for survivors of historical childhood abuse. I thank the minister and the Government for bringing the bill forward and all the members and witnesses who participated during the committee's scrutiny. During the committee, we dealt with many of the technicalities of the bill and did scrutinise it. Felly, as I said, we heard evidence from a number of people, and as others have said, including Oliver Mundell, some of the most powerful came from the survivors who presented to us. Although there are undoubtedly some shortfalls of the bill, for me, the old bill represents our continuing progress as a nation, and it represents that we treat the issue with the utmost seriousness and acknowledge that we have things wrong for victims in the past and that they are on the right path to truly tackle the issue. It is absolutely right that the time bill should be removed for these types of horrible offences. We know that many, many people take years to disclose that sort of crime. Indeed, in my experience in social work, many people do not speak about it until they are parents or even way beyond that. It is not uncommon for services to be working with a family and for the disclosers to come out through that work. The terms of engagement, as I said before, in the chamber was nothing to do with that. The Moira Anderson Foundation is an organisation that undertakes a lot of work across Lanarkshire. It has direct experience of working with victims who have taken years to disclose today. I told them that I was speaking in the debate today, and they told me about a service user that they have been working with over the past couple of years who will be directly affected by the bill. I have been given permission to share his story here. They wrote to me to say that the Moira Anderson Foundation has supported a male in his thirties for approximately two years now. The man was sexually and physically abused by a trusted adult while he was in his early teens. The abuse was very violent and threats were constantly made against his family should he had ever spoken up. The abuse got so bad that his behaviour deteriorated and he ended up in care where he suffered further abuse. The individual turned to alcohol and drugs as a way of blocking out the memories from the horrendous abuse. As an adult, his marriage and contact with children broke down due to his anger issues and his huge distrust for people. The individual felt unable to go to the police because of a deep sense of shame he felt. Being a male and a teenager, he felt that he should have been able to fight off his abuser. With the support of the Moira Anderson Foundation, he went on to make a statement to the police. During his interview, he disclosed sexual abuse and care, as well as physical abuse, and the abuse had been undisclosed even to the Moira Anderson Foundation before that point. That shows that despite the trust that he built up with the worker from that organisation, there was still more abuse. He had not been able to disclose until very recently. He would never have been able to speak to the police earlier than he did because he was not in the right place. He has been able to speak to the Moira Anderson Foundation about that. I will open our contact to them today. They said that they have been discussing the bill's progress through Parliament with this individual. When we sit here in this chamber and pass the bill, something is directly affected. That is what it is all about. He will be able to take advantage, hopefully, of the bill. I believe that the bill takes the correct steps that are needed to ensure that access to justice is available to survivors of historical abuse. It is vital that we continue to explore measures in which survivors of abuse have the support and means to deal with the effects that are felt from childhood. At present, as we have said before, in this chamber, individuals are not able to bring cases to civil court after three years, including side effects such as PTSD, anxiety and depression. Survivors currently face barriers in attempting to access the civil justice system. I can see that my time is running out. I will just conclude—I had more to say, but I will just conclude by saying that I am—although I did not agree with the amendment, I think that it was well placed by Oliver Mundell, and I think that overall the whole Parliament and every party has been in support of us. Let's take that forward and let's make sure that it works. Thank you very much. Mr MacGregor, your time wasn't running out, it had ran out. Could I ask everyone else to take note of that, please? Miles Briggs will be followed by Johann Lamont. I am pleased to take part in today's stage 3 debate. I would like to thank members of the Parliament's Justice Committee and other colleagues for their work on previous stages of the bill, including a thorough and useful stage 1 report. I also thank the external organisations who have contributed briefings and materials during the legislative process. Scottish Conservatives have consistently supported the bill in principle and in its aims, and we continue that support at decision time tonight. It is right that this Parliament removes a three-year limitation or time barrier so that the survivors of child abuse will no longer have to undertake the additional and potentially very difficult task of persuading a court to overrule the limitation period. The need for the bill was clearly demonstrated in the Justice Committee's stage 1 report. It is also evidenced by the fact that the discretion allowed in existing law through the prescription and limitation Scotland Act 1973 has only ever been used once since the act was passed, now some 44 years ago. The faculty of advocates and other organisations have warned that the removal of the time bar will lead to an increase in court actions, possibly a significant increase, many of which are likely to be extremely complex. That is something that the Justice Committee also identified in its report. The number of potentially complex cases coming forward and additional cases will inevitably lead to resource implications that have been outlined in our courts. We really need to recognise that going forward. That was the reasoning behind my former colleague Douglas Ross's amendment at stage 2 and Oliver Mundell's amendment this afternoon. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government chose not to accept that amendment, but I hope that ministers will keep the subject under constant and very close review and be ready to take the necessary action that is required to ensure that our court system is always appropriately resourced and supported. Ministers will be aware of the Health and Sport Committee's recent inquiry into child protection in sport following the BBC Scotland investigation, revealing allegations of young football players having been sexually abused by coaches during the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Although the committee inquiry focused on the current safeguards in place for children and young people in Scotland today, it was clear and has been clear from the individuals who have contacted me privately that the public airing of these historical allegations may now see a real increase in historical cases coming forward. Childhood abuse is incredibly difficult for people to revisit and to talk about at any stage in their lives. However, it is vital that we send out a message today to victims who have suffered abuse, that they will be listened to and that we will put in place the resources needed to support them when they decide to come forward. It is very important that survivors of childhood sexual abuse, who decide to take forward civil claims, do not then face unacceptable delays due to the lack of resource in the court system. I also wish to join other members in urging the Scottish Government to continue to look at how it will address the rights of survivors of abuse that took place before 1964, and I welcome what the minister had to say when she covered that. To conclude, I again wish to support the bill, which takes appropriate action to ensure that our legal system recognises that victims of child abuse are a unique category of pursuer, since the nature of their abuse means that they often do not come forward with claims until many years after that abuse has actually taken place. The bill will, I hope, send out a clear message that our Parliament and Government want to do all that we can to support the victims of childhood abuse, and I am confident that it can and will make a real difference to many survivors as they look to take forward court action. Delivering justice for those who have suffered is vital, and I hope that the passing of the bill today is another step towards truly delivering this for those who have suffered at the hands of those whom we entrusted to protect and care for them. I call Johann Lamont, who is followed by John Finnie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and recognise that, across the chamber, people want to make this legislation work, and we would not be in this position if there were not long, hard arguments about how you might deliver justice for people who, precisely because of the nature of the abuse that they suffered and at the time of their lives that they suffered it, were routinely denied justice. I want to say something very briefly about the amendment, because while there were those who voted against the amendment on the basis that they believed that the legislation would be stalled, it is also true that those who supported the amendment believed that it was necessary in order to give people confidence that resources matched the theory of the legislation. I do not diminish the judgment of those who voted the way that they did, but please do not think that anybody who supported the amendment wanted to do so in order to prevent that legislation being enacted. I have heard the phrase blank check, but we would not want a bound check either, and that is why the question of resources really matters. It is not just about dialogue with COSLA or Whomsoever. It is about the Scottish Government underpinning and committing to finding resources to ensure that those rights are real for people in their lives. We have to recognise the role of survivors and survivors groups. Those who understood the diverse needs and experience of survivors and have stood with them, not just survivors who themselves found their voices, but those people who, when it was not something that was so readily understood, stood with them and gave voice for them to their suffering, who saw the patterns of behaviour. The women's organisation who saw the connections between domestic abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse and insisted that the political process understood that it was something to do with them at a time when many organisations said, this is not our business, this is not the business of the state. That is their victory and we should recognise that. It is important to understand the journey that there was a time, that it was simple denial that abuse actually occurred, a system where perpetrators were moved on to abuse again rather than to confront what was happening. The refusal to listen and indeed to hear when young people were telling them what was happening and how many young people were silenced, left to continue suffering and were often scapegoated if not in their own homes, but in the schools and within the care system where they found themselves, blamed for their own abuse. Their poor behaviour as a consequence of the abuse being used to explain why they were in a situation that they were in. There is a bit of unfinished business, minister, in relation to those professionals who had a duty of care during that time when there were policies already talking about abuse who did not speak up for young people or understand properly what was being told to them. I mention this because what seems now as an inevitable progress and journey was not always so. We do not recognise that that journey was long fought for or understand the scale and pernicious nature of such abuse, how it might reveal itself, the long-serm suffering it can cause, then just as will be denied. We will see institutions again saying that this is too difficult. We have to understand now as we see revelations about football, sports clubs, community groups, young people in care and in our home. The truth is that predators take many forms and we should not put them into silos. We need to talk about why and how abuse of power is created and experienced in order that we can protect our young people in the future. In conclusion, I will say very briefly on the question of the survivor's strategy. We understand and recognise the inquiry and it is important, but those who suffer do not come within the remit of the historic abuse inquiry. Wherever the abuse was suffered, it is essential that there is a proper survivor's strategy to support survivors wherever they are. We need to understand that, for some, they are not ill, but they need emotional support at particular times in life. They agree with the loss of their childhood, of the potential that they had as young adults and they deserve support. I know that the Government supports that position. We have to have provision for survivors, we have to protect them through the justice system, but we also have to have prevention by talking about abuse and ensuring that those who would perpetrate abuse against others understand the scale of society's hostility to that and our determination to ensure that it does not happen. I am grateful to the Government for the work that they have done to get the bill to the stage and we look forward to supporting it at decision time. I ask the chamber to note that I may have to cut down other speeches because members are running over time. I call John Finnie to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. It was all of a Mandel that used to term historic and certainly a lot of people will view the legislation as that. I thank everyone who participated. I am a member of the Justice Committee who participated with our scrutiny of the legislation, particularly the survivors. We took testimony in private and, although the identity of individuals will rightly remain anonymous, it is entirely appropriate to record that they were very worthy ambassadors for their group and we learned a lot from them. There are a lot of excellent organisations offering support to childhood abuse survivors. I also like to comment on the police and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service and the role that they are playing. We have seen it also in relation to sexual crimes and crimes such as domestic violence, where a very proactive approach that is taken by the police gives people the confidence to come forward. People have talked to me about the resources that are behind the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, the Justice Committee has also done an inquiry into that. It is very important that the people who support, in the broadest sense of survivors, have the proper resources. Scottish Human Rights Commission's action plan on justice for victims of historic abuse of children and care has been mentioned. I also like to comment on the national confidential forum. I want to quote from the briefing that the Scottish Human Rights Commission gave us at the outset of the legislation. It said, "...judicial and other remedies for human rights breaches must be practical and effective and equally accessible in practice as well as law. This requires that they should be appropriately adapted so as to take account of the special vulnerability of certain categories of persons. Legal limitation and claims may render the remedy ineffective." Someone who takes a rights-based approach to everything, I think that the retrospective application of the bill is unusual. We have talked about the prescription and the phrase somewhere if it deems equitable to do so, while the legal system only deemed it equitable on one occasion to set that aside. It is entirely appropriate that we have a special limitations regime. Right to fair trial is a human rights. Of course, that is both sides of the equation that is right to everyone. That applies equally to the pursuer and defender in a civil case. That is very positive legislation. Removing the time bar certainly removes one of the hurdles to justice but simply one of the hurdles to justice. As I said in the stage 1 debate, simply having legislation in itself is not sufficient. We need a range of special regimes for childhood abuse. A couple of things quickly. I welcome the definition that the child has been under 18. We are seeing that reflected in other legislation. It is clearly an emotive subject. We have heard that today. It is about addressing the wrongs of the past and moving to a positive future. There are challenges around what we know. For instance, some people view things as a commercial challenge that we have heard from the insurers on their concerns about people coming forward. When we talk about statistics and numbers, we are talking about individuals all with a particular experience. The way ahead is about prevention, as others have talked about. That is about education. I think that there is a lot of good education taking place in our schools. It is about obligations to challenge. It is about whistleblowing policies. It is about people feeling that they can challenge if they see wrong. As regards older survivors, I am sometimes involved with an organisation called Simba that helps people who have suffered from stalburson. I met a woman in her late 40s who had never had that support. In fact, it was 40 years after the event that she came forward. People can always gain support. I would hope that people would come forward. There are other initiatives on the go with domestic abuse bill as something where the position of children is imported. If I may do one plug in the last eight seconds, the equal protection bill that I am bringing forward is something that will protect children from assault by corporal punishment and will bring equality there. I hope that that will gain support in the future. I remind my colleagues and my register of interests in my career in the residential childcare sector before coming to this place. Coming to the depth and extent of historic abuse has been the darkest awakenings for our generation. As a society, we have failed untold numbers of those entrusted to the care of charities and churches, schools and social clubs. In the course of the care and supervision, they should have enjoyed to the higher standards were let down and damaged in the most horrific ways imaginable. We can never hope to know the full extent of the suffering, but we can, by our actions in this place today, offer at least some access to justice and by extension an element of peace to those victims who can now finally tell their story. Although I am standing in for my colleague Liam McArthur today, who cannot be here, and as such was not a party to the proceedings of the committee and the powerful evidence that I understand it received, I have worked amongst both providers of care and survivors of abuse for much of my working life. I understand the dehumanising and savage impact that abuse can have on lives of any age. As the committee heard, it can take an estimated 22 years on average for a survivor of abuse to feel able to come forward and talk openly about their abuse and the impact that this has had on their lives. As such, the very existence of a time bar against civil proceedings saw a barrier to justice baked into our legal system. As with so many aspects of indemnity in our society, it was tilted towards protecting providers from litigation than protecting the rights of individuals to seek justice in a time frame of their choosing. Presiding Officer, we live in a time where the walls that have protected abusers and cultures of abuse historic, though they may be, are steadily coming down. In the cases of historic abuse, while the pursuit of criminal justice against the perpetrators of such abuse has no time restraint, victims have faced such a restriction in obtaining satisfaction and redress through the civil courts. The bill rightly rectifies that on cases of abuse after 1964. In the evolution of the bill, Presiding Officer, we have rightly seen an expansion around both definition and of settings to shift the focus of legislation to the vulnerability of the victim rather than the stage on which the abuse took place. That puts us in step with the tenets of international best practice and human rights law. Similarly, ensuring that the definitions of abuse against which justice can be sought have rightly been expanded to include all forms of abuse. I am hugely gratified that, following contributions of my colleague Liam McArthur and other colleagues like Mary Evans during the stage 1 debate, the Government to its credit saw a fit to movement amendment at stage 2, which will see the inclusion of neglect as a justifiable offence against which victims might seek civil redress. That brings us closer to meeting the test of international gold standards. Presiding Officer, this has been a consensual debate. I am heartily grateful for that. It is a short but essential piece of legislation that will have wide-ranging implications for people who have lived in the shadow of an appalling thing that happened to them, who have suffered in the knowledge that their abuses were protected by organisations and institutions who so singularly failed in that crucial first line of their duty of care to them and who, in some cases, fostered a culture of silence and complicity. That has been a time of uncomfortable revelation in the course of our nation's story, but I am confident that, in the passing of this legislation today, it will be seen as a time of long overdue justice as well. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Perhaps I should start by talking about colleagues in the chamber here. I have always thought that all of us who stand for Parliament for elected office, whatever our political traditions and beliefs, we all come here with almost no exceptions wanting to do good for the people that we are elected to represent. That does not change the fact that I will have fundamental disagreements with colleagues in other parts of the chamber on matters that are important to me. On a matter like this today, I am gratified to find that, as we reach the conclusions of the limitation of childhood abuse Scotland Bill, we are likely to find ourselves of a single mind. I have no difficulty with the motivation that caused Oliver Mundell to bring his amendment forward today. Indeed, after the amendment fell at stage 2 in committee, I had discussions precisely about how a new amendment might look. At the end of the day, the amendment that we got was not quite there, but that is only a personal opinion and does not matter very much in the big scheme of things. I also want to pay tribute to Joanne Lamont. Like myself who has been here for some considerable time, she has been a tireless campaigner, in fact, on occasion and extremely irritating but proper campaigner for the rights of the disadvantaged in our society. Although we heard some pretty robust words today, the motivation behind them was the motivation that we should utterly respect. We are one mind in terms of being here to support this particular amendment. The debates that we have here and the disagreements that we have here will not be understood in any way, shape or form, by the people that we are seeking to help. Their attitude is very simple. Could we just get on with it and do something? I think that that is where we have got to. In committee, we heard from people who did suffer childhood abuse. It was moving beyond belief. I always refer to my history, of course, my GP father, who experienced in his life some examples of childhood abuse that he had to deal with. In particular, he was a GP responsible for pupils in a boarding school, and in that context there were some examples of that. That was discussed around the dinner table because it was thought that we as children should understand what goes on. Our views were sought by my father, but nothing was discussed around our dinner table compared with the real stories that we were told as individuals. It did not quite move me to tears, but there was only one reason for that. I did not want to let down the person who was telling their story by my tears. I felt like crying. I really did and I know that others were in that same position. It is a noble and proper thing that we do today, something that has been needing to be done for a very long time. In conclusion, let us not imagine that when we put words on a page in our statute book, we have completed the job. That is of course not the case. We have to make sure that the resources are in place, and I signed up for that part of the committee report that said that. I am confident that that will happen. However, there are new threats coming over the horizon that we will have to engage with. Immediately before the debate, I had an hour's briefing from the internet watch foundation, which is precisely involved in addressing the issue of children abuse on the internet. There are new threats coming. We must remain alert to those and protect future generations from new threats, as well as properly addressing threats in the past. I call Jeremy Balfour, to be followed by Rona Mackay. I want to keep my speech fairly short this afternoon because many members have already expressed a lot of what I had written down. I want to give others a chance to speak but I would like to raise just a couple of issues. I think that we have heard a very consensual debate but I think that a number of witnesses questioned the assumptions made in the financial memorandum in evidence given to the committee. Police Scotland suggested that it would be appropriate to carry out a further scope and exercise. Suggesting a figure of 2,200 cases that could be brought forward initially was of a conservative estimate. I do hope that the Government will do that work that is required at an early stage. Another concern that was shared by some witnesses at stage 1 was the capacity of the court system to deal with those cases. It is important that people who have waited for many years, then raising action, are not discouraged by lengthy and potential avoidable delays. I would be interested to know perhaps from the minister and from the Government on how they can see that working in a court system that is already very busy. The fact that advocates have suggested that there will be more cases and that Australian courts could be a time bar for cases to be heard. We need to make sure that there are the right resources for our court system going forward. Some concerns were raised about the potential negative impact on survivors by going to court. I think that we have already heard from others this afternoon that this will not be the road of action for everybody. The faculty of advocates again raised the significant emotional impact on those raising actions and said that litigation is inherently stressful and could do more harm than good. If people are brave enough to come forward and raise those appropriate actions, we need to make sure that the support is there to help them through the complex legal procedures. It is important that people who have waited for many years to raise an action are not discouraged by lengthy and potentially avoidable delays. That is why I believe that it is vital and why I want to make the same points as I made at stage 1 debate, that with the introduction of the legislation there must be the appropriate support and advice to assist victims and survivors of childhood abuse. The Scottish Government must give the appropriate considerations of not only financially making sure that the right things are in place but also the emotional support. It is our duty as Parliament to ensure that the bill meets the aspirations of the people who have suffered childhood abuse. Having waited so long for this opportunity, it is incumbent on each of us and every one of us to give the victims the best legislation that is within our gift but also to make sure that what happens after the legislation gets while it is sent is also the best in place. The bill being brought before Parliament today is so important to thousands of the most vulnerable and wronged people in our society. They have been barred from gaining access to justice simply because they were unable to bring forward a civil action within a three-year period. At the outset, I thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee for their courage and bravery. It was difficult for us to hear but it must have been agonising for them to recount and I cannot commend them highly enough. They spoke out so that never again would these vile crimes be covered up to ensure that there is no hiding place for abusers. Three years is not long enough for survivors to garner the strength to proceed with civil action against their abusers. They have been emotionally terrorised, stricken with fear and guilt and simply need longer to attempt to deal with what has happened to them. That is not a court action about neighbours fighting over land or suing a company for damages. It is about seeking recognition and an apology for being robbed of a childhood and sentenced to a lifetime of unimaginable emotional distress. The terrible abuse that survivors suffered during childhood, sexual, physical and mental abuse was a life sentence. I am also pleased that the bill was amended at stage 2 to include neglect, such a damaging form of abuse with lifelong effects. The cruelty that was bestowed upon survivors, often by people that they trusted and who were entrusted to care for them, left them feeling worthless and violated. Some have raised concern that the bill will open the floodgates to those seeking compensation, which will be costly, which was at the root of Oliver Mundell's amendment. Apart from being unworkable, the amendment would have delayed justice to many survivors and sent out entirely the wrong message that they will get justice only if those ultimately responsible could afford it. However, I know that that was certainly not the intention of Oliver Mundell's amendment or those who supported it, and I would like to commend Oliver for his moving and heartfelt speech. I also agree with Johann Lamont's comments about the need for a survivor strategy. I am sure that there is not a single person in this chamber who does not support the bill, but the reality is that, at this stage, the number seeking access to justice for historical crimes is unknown and estimates vary widely. It is not a panacea for survivors. The Scottish Human Rights Committee believes that the vast majority of survivors will not go down the civil court justice route. Many survivors simply could not face the prospect of resurrecting the horrors that they have kept locked away in a box throughout their lives, and bringing it to court will never be the answer for them. We also found a common thread throughout the testimonies. Most survivors would not do that for the money, even if they brought it to court. Many simply want the perpetrators brought to justice and an apology for the terrible injustice and violation that they suffered. Many have been so emotionally damaged that they have been unable to attain a good standard of living. Their financial potential has not been realised and they have struggled to make ends meet. However, how can you put a price on what any of them have suffered? It is simply too hard for any of us to imagine. In conclusion, if the bill brings any light at the end of a long dark tunnel for some survivors, I am happy to commend it to the Parliament. Now, I move to the closing speeches, and I call Mary Fee. Four minutes, please, Ms Fee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin my contribution by reaffirming the support of these benches for the Limitation, Childhood Abuse, Scotland Bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Government, the Minister and the external organisations for their input throughout the committee's evidence sessions. At stage one of the bill proceedings, I praised the outstanding bravery of the survivors of childhood abuse for their input throughout the bill process. Today, I think that it is important that I repeat my admiration for the survivors in helping to bring this bill forward. Without their bravery, their patience, their co-operation, the limitations bill would not have been possible. In the committee, we heard from a range of stakeholders that removing the time bar creates choices that some survivors will find preferable, but some may not. At stage one, I called for the right support to be made available to survivors in setting out their options, and I cannot stress the importance of that enough. In taking action through courts, the survivor will have to face a series of obstacles in providing evidence and reliving the horrors that they faced. That is why Lord Adam Lop QC warned that some action could do more harm than good—a quote that I highlighted at stage one—and one that I believe must be re-emphasised. It is of the utmost importance that all survivors have access to support and guidance that is tailored to their needs throughout the whole process and for as long after the process as they require to ensure that they do not suffer more trauma. I welcome and thank the minister for the amendment that was lodged at stage 2. Alex Cole-Hamilton said that ensuring that neglect is covered in the definition of abuse gives certainty that many of those who provided evidence to the committee have asked for. While neglect was covered in the first publication of the bill, giving the term its own place provides clarity for survivors, as Liam McArthur highlighted at stage 2. The inclusion of neglect rightly widens the scope of the bill and reflects the evidence that we heard and the concerns that were raised about the definition by the survivors themselves. That wider definition ensures maximum support and protection for all survivors. Today is a historic day. The passing of the Limitations Bill will provide redress that thousands of survivors of childhood abuse have been unable to access for decades. It is clear from this afternoon's debate that all parties represented in this chamber are committed to the principles and passing of the Limitations Bill. I think that no contribution was more powerful or more persuasive today than that of Johann Lamont. There is a clear consensus that the appropriate support must be available to all survivors who decide to pursue civil action. In addition, all survivors have guidance if they choose to take a claim forward. In closing for Scottish Labour today, I would like to reaffirm our support for the Limitations Bill. Once again, thank each and every survivor for their bravery, their patience and their support during the legislative process of the Limitations Bill. From the consultation process through to the passing of the bill today, the bravery, the patience and the support that survivors have shown has been commendable. I remind members that, if they contribute to the debate, they should be in the chamber for the beginning of the closing speeches. I welcome the legislation that aims to increase access to justice for survivors of childhood abuse. I want to begin by paying tribute to those survivors who have, over many years, lobbied for the three-year limitation period for claims of historical child abuse, also known as time bar, to be abolished. As Rona Mackay and Mary Fee both said, it took considerable courage for those survivors to give evidence to the justice committee, and we were certainly most appreciative of that. I also want on a personal basis to acknowledge and thank the members of the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse for their valued input into the issue. The removal of the three-year time bar for specific cases involving his historic childhood abuse puts an end to a previously insurmountable barrier for survivors and, in doing so, implements a change for the better. However, the minister and other contributors have stressed that it is important to note that pursuing a civil action will not be the right solution for all survivors. In that sense, as others have said, the bill will sadly not be a panacea. It is therefore essential that expectations surrounding pursuing civil action are managed in an effort to avoid raising false hopes, while at the same time ensuring that alternatives that were referred to by John Finnie to civil court processes are highlighted. One of the main alternatives is the Apology Scotland Act, which coincidentally came into force on Monday, 19 June. I introduced legislation as a member's bill, which was not just welcomed but actively promoted by survivors on the cross-party group. It is a matter of immense sadness to me that the Government's secondary legislation proposed and passed, which involved complex issues, potentially towards the aims of the act. In terms of the scrutiny of the limitations bill itself, the provisions that raised most concern were section 17C and 17D. Section 17C allows for certain past cases that have been disposed of by decree of absolvator to be re-raised. Here, the concern was that that could lead to a breach of defenders' human rights in terms of their right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Furthermore, by overturning a decree absolvator, there was a very real concern that that in turn would undermine a fundamental principle of Scots law. Section 17D provides a safeguard for defenders in an attempt to ensure that their convention rights are not breached. However, despite the minister's reference to an adjustment to the explanatory notes and her assurances that those provisions will not set a precedent for other areas of law, it is fair to say that those concerns remain. That being the case, if the legislation is passed this evening, it will be done to the courts to decide. Scrutiny issues were also raised in terms of the absence of detail regarding the bill's financial resource implications. For example, in relation to the administrative burden, the bill may place on public bodies, a point in which Oliver Mundell sought to address in his amendment and in his contribution to the debate. As Johann Lamont, Claire Baker, Miles Briggs, Jeremy Balfour and others pointed out, the financial implications of the bill on local authorities, charities and support services still require to be addressed and resolved. Adequate resourcing was a feature of a number of contributors' statements. In conclusion, notwithstanding the concerns outlined above, the bill helps to achieve access to justice for survivors of historical childhood abuse by removing the time bar obstacle and that the whole Parliament can celebrate that fact. I can therefore confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time this evening. I thank all members for their contributions to which I listened carefully and for supporting and indicating their support for the passing of the bill this evening. The bill is an important step, as has been recognised, in ensuring access to justice for survivors of childhood abuse. For the bill, it is designed to remove a barrier that, in the past, has proved in effect impossible to overcome for survivors. The bill acknowledges the unique position of survivors, recognising the abhorrent nature of the abuse, the vulnerability of the child at the time and the profound impact of abuse. In passing the bill today, the Parliament will recognise that survivors have been let down repeatedly. They were severely and fundamentally let down by their abuser and by the adults who were meant to protect them at the time. However, they have also been let down by a justice system that has effectively denied them access to a remedy. Of course, it is acknowledged—indeed, it has been acknowledged by many members this afternoon—that raising a civil action may not be the right way forward for everyone. Each individual survivor would have to take their own view. However, what the bill does is to widen the options available to survivors seeking redress. Of course, raising a civil action is still a challenging task. I agree with members who have pointed out today and in previous debates on the bill that the importance of ensuring that survivors are supported. Support works best if based on individual needs. That means that the most effective support will be different for each individual survivor. Through the survivor support innovation and development fund, which has a budget of £1.8 million for this financial year, we fund third and voluntary sector organisations to provide a wide range of services, including practical and emotional support, information provision, creative therapies, counselling, employability, peer-to-peer support and befriending programmes. It is also important that, as has been mentioned, survivors are able to access quality legal advice. Survivors will be able to apply for legal aid and will no longer be required to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success in overcoming the time bar hurdle, a hurdle that has proved in effect insurmountable survivors in the past. We are also working with the Law Society of Scotland to ensure that solicitors are well placed to support survivors through the legal process, including looking at what training could be made available. The potential impact on the courts has been raised in the debate this afternoon by a number of members. I would say that, in the same way that we cannot quantify at this stage the potential impact on local authorities and other bodies, we cannot, with absolute certainty, say what the impact will be on the Scottish courts and tribunal service. In terms of the estimates that we have, including those relating to when cases would be lodged, which are presented in the financial memorandum, further to recent discussions that officials have had with the Scottish courts and tribunal service, they are of the view that those cases could be absorbed within current business programming. There is, of course, no certainty around those numbers, as we have previously discussed at length. We are not on-going discussions with the court service on how best to monitor the impact and will consider any issues that may arise. The impact on local authorities and on third sector voluntary organisations has, of course, been a key theme in the consideration of the bill and in today's debate. It is important to keep in mind that COSLA and many third sector organisations absolutely support the bill. As I have made clear before, I recognise that there will be financial and other resource implications and that costs might go beyond the costs that are directly associated with defending actions. However, as we have discussed in detail earlier this afternoon, at this point in time, it is not possible to say what those costs will be. That is why I have committed to keeping the situation under close review and to carefully considering the evidence of the impact of the bill. With regard to other issues raised in terms of the ability to look at previously litigated cases, the decree of declarator and so forth, I would say in summary that the bill has been about striking a balance, a balance between the respective rights of the survivor and the rights, of course, of the defender. We do believe that we have found the correct balance and we feel that we have demonstrated that in the presentation of those provisions in the bill and in ensuring that we are saying that this is the mechanism by which the courts must make this assessment. We feel that we have worked very hard to find that balance and I am pleased to note that that is the view of many members in the chamber. In conclusion, I would like once again to thank the Justice Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill and all those who provided written and oral evidence. I would like to thank again the Scottish Human Rights Commission for their extensive work in this area and all other individuals and organisations who have engaged in this process. As I said in my opening remarks, and most importantly, I would like to thank all survivors whose bravery and persistence has secured the proposed legislation that we are about to vote on this evening. I am proud to be here today to support the passing of this bill. We should not underestimate the significance of the message that we are sending here today. That is a message that we will always seek to support and respect those in society who have been harmed and that access to justice for all of our citizens is at the heart of our values. I ask that members support the motion and agree the passing of the limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill. Thank you very much. We will come to decision time at 16.45. There will be one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is on the motion to pass the limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill. Just to explain that we will have a division on this vote, we will not just ask whether members agree or not. That is because under the new procedures, although the Parliament has decided that we do not need a supermajority for this bill, that decision is challengeable. The only way that it is not challengeable is if you register that two thirds of members eligible have voted for the bill, i.e. 86 members. Did you all follow that? Yes, of course we did. What it means is that we cannot just pass the bill by acclamation. We have to have a vote, a division. On that note, we will now move to a division. The question is that motion 6201 in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on the limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill, at stage 3, be agreed. Members should cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion 6201 in the name of Annabelle Ewing is, yes, 115, no, zero, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed, and the limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill is passed. Point of order from Finlay Carson. Hang on, Mr Carson, just to get your microphone on. Point of order from Finlay Carson. Presiding Officer, it has been confirmed in the last few minutes that the Scottish Government has indeed sought an extension for the delivery of farm payments because it will fail to meet next week's deadline. The chamber will know that Ruth Davidson asked the First Minister twice to confirm whether that was the case earlier today, yet the First Minister refused to answer. Can the Presiding Officer advise us what exactly is the point of First Minister's questions if the First Minister will not answer simple questions? Thank you. I note the members' comments and they are now a matter of record. The member and other members, including the leader of the opposition, will have a chance to raise this matter. There are plenty of opportunities next week to raise this matter in the chamber, should they so wish. That concludes decision time, and I now close this meeting.