 Ieitha Oddigol y byddai ei dechrau ein gweithredu yma ar ychydig y mynedd heating. Oedden i gweithdoedd yma, Jewskwrsh amddai sefyllfa amserio'r sydd i'r honig ddod yn teimlo i gyrddur iawn tikio i Gael Pgwyr, mae Ardalig Llyw Pgwyr 35e i Gael Pgwyr Ieol. Fe gweithredu ei Gael Pgwyr Ieol Pgwyr 35e i Gael Pgwyr Prifysgol i wych ar gyfer NCT很有 aeth yma er mwyn y gweithredu yma ym lwrdd. yn ei edrych i ddweud o ddechrau'r cyflasأنol yn dweud o'i bwynt o'r ddechrau. Mae'n dweud i ddweud o ffostig unig o'r grwpio'r wrth gwrsiau, wych yn dweud i'r cyffredinol i'r gwneud o'u ddweud o'r dweud, os y gallwn i ffostig, i dda i rwyf yn rhaid i reoli'r cyfreithio'r grwp. A i ddweud i'r gwneud, os mae bonezwch yn mynd i ddweud o'r grwpio yw yr unig, ac yn mynd i cwrsiau, ein cyfrifesiatau, sy'n cyfrifesiatau i fawr. Ar y Rhaglenr�d ysgolinduach yw 1964, Y Section 31 ydy'r cymaint yng ngyfrgellewidd y fawr yn y cymaint. Yn rwyddiant, y ysgolref i'r ymddwyll yng Nghyrchu Llywodraeth cwmysgwr yng Nghyrchu Ynryd yng Nghyrchu werddan nhw'n ei ddysgu ffawr i'r cael, ar y glSiladaeth nine of the bill provides that in a common calamity neither person is presumed to have survived the other. We have identified a small number of statutory provisions that need to be brought into line with new fail to survive terminology to ensure that they work properly. Those are provisions that allow direct descendants to inherit if a child predeceses a parent. Under the existing law, those sections are not relevant to a parent or child common calamity because a child, as a younger person, would always be regarded as surviving the parent. Dr David Nicholls from the Law Society of Scotland highlighted the tension between section six and section nine through the following example. A father leaves the residue of his estate to his daughter and then both father and daughter die in circumstances where the order of death is uncertain. Section nine says that the daughter failed to survive her father, but her children cannot inherit under section six because her daughter did not die before the date of vesting. A similar point arises in sections five, six and eleven of the Succession Scotland's 1964 act, which relies on the primary beneficiary pre-deceasing. Those amendments therefore replace the references to pre-deceasing in those sections with fail to survive so that all the provisions of the bill and the 1964 act are in line with and get the benefit of the new survivorship provision in section nine of the bill. Direct descendants of a child will therefore be able to take that child's share of an estate should the child and the parent die in a common calamity. I note that trust bar gave written evidence to the committee about these amendments, which the acknowledge were given without the benefit of the sight of the actual amendments. I hope that they are reassured by the focus of the amendments on the terminology used in survivorship provisions. I move amendment 1. Many thanks. As another member has requested to speak in this group, minister, would you like to wind up? Thank you. The question then is that amendment 1 be agreed to, or are we all agreed? We are. I then move us to group 2, executors and a call amendment 2, in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 3, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 6 and 8. I ask the minister to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Currently, all executors' date of accept spouses whose prior rights exhaust in estate are required to find Cation. An executor date of is appointed by the court usually because there is no will to administer an estate. The Scottish Law Commission recommended that the statutory requirement placed on executors' date of to obtain the bond of Cation should be abolished. The bond of Cation is an insurance policy that protects the beneficiaries and creditors from loss caused by mal-administration, negligence or fraud. The Scottish Law Commission made this recommendation on the basis of the financial and administrative burden that it creates and the current difficulties that exist in obtaining bonds of Cation, the cost, the limited number of providers, delays in issuing Cation and the conditions that providers sometimes attach to the bond. We consulted on the abolition of bonds of Cation along with the other provisions that are in the bill, and there was support for the abolition, but it was clear that some alternative safeguards would be needed, at least in some circumstances, so we indicated that we would not abolish bonds of Cation without further consultation on the safeguards. The bill that is introduced therefore did not include any provision on bonds of Cation, however, since that decision was made, one of the two institutional providers of Cation, Zurich, are to stop issuing bonds of Cation to executors from 1 February 2016. The only other provider of Cation is Royal Sun Alliance, but they require solicitor to be appointed in each case. Zurich does not. That will impact adversely on estates that can currently be wound up without the involvement of a solicitor. In particular, under section 3 of the Intestates, Widows and Children's Scotland Act 1875, conformation is in uncontentious small estates, currently under £36,000, being applied for under a simplified procedure in which the Sheriff's Clerk prepares the inventory and takes the oath. That supported process means that an executive does not have to engage a solicitor unless he or she wishes to do so, which means that the estate does not have to bear legal costs. In order to minimise the impact of the change in the Cation market with the attendant costs on uncontentious small estates, amendment 2 amends the Intestates, Widows and Children's Scotland Act 1875 and the Confirmation of Executors Scotland Act 1823 to remove the requirement for executors' data in these estates to find Cation. The amendment expressly provides that it will apply to on-going applications that have not been determined by the time the change comes into force. I will turn to amendment 3. Section 2 of the Confirmation of Executors Scotland Act 1823 requires Cation to be found in all cases except where there is an executor nominate or the executor data is the Intestates spouse and has right by virtue of sections 8 and 9 subsection 2 of the Successions Scotland Act 1864 to the whole estate. Civil partners have the same rights under the 1964 act but are still required to find Cation. Amendment 3 extends a spousal exemption to civil partners whose prior rights under section 8 and 9 subsection 2 of the Successions Scotland Act 1964 exhaust the whole estate. Amendment 3 also provides powers to Scottish ministers to modify section 2 of the Confirmation of Executors Scotland Act 1823 to add to the cases in which Cation is not required to be found. Having only one provider of Cation is undesirable and whilst the remaining provider has given us assurance that it has no intention of withdrawing from the market, we are not able to say what business decisions the remaining provider may make in the future. We therefore needed a solution to deal with the possibility of the remaining provider withdrawing. Otherwise, we will be in a position where a bond of Cation is required as a matter of law before confirmation can be granted but there is no ability to obtain that bond of Cation. Given the uncertainty of the future landscape, we need potentially to be able to deal with a range of matters. Amendment 4 therefore provides a power for Scottish ministers to abolish the requirement for Cation altogether. Amendments 5A and 5B are not what it turned to now. In light of that uncertainty and in order to ensure that we can deal with the fullest range of situations in the most appropriate way, including the issues raised in the consultation in relation to the need for safeguards, amendment 5 provides broad powers for ministers to be able to make regulations setting out conditions that must be met before courts may appoint an executive dative. Those conditions might include the court being satisfied that the person is suitable for appointment, that the court is to be provided with particular information about the person seeking appointment or about the estate. Those regulations may apply to all executive dative appointments or to particular types of executive dative. If the regulations make provision, that requires the court to determine the suitability of an executive dative. The regulations may set out factors or information that the courts should have regard to in determining if the person is suitable for appointment, that the court should be satisfied that the individual is suitable if certain conditions are met, or to allow or require the court to impose its own conditions that must be satisfied before a person is suitable for appointment. To provide further flexibility, the regulations may make different provision for different types of executive dative. I would like to acknowledge the helpful suggestions made by Ailey Scobie at the evidence session this week. We have taken on board her comment in relation to this amendment as set out in the Manuscript amendments 5A and 5B, which are intended to make clear the intention of the provision. Amendment 6 provides that regulations made an exercise of the powers under amendments 3, 4 and 5 may include supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or savings provision, as required, and will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The regulations may also modify enactments. Where regulations are made to abolish the requirement for cation, the regulations may modify the act resulting from this bill itself. For example, if the requirement for cation was abolished completely, the power to make exceptions would no longer be necessary and would be repealed. Amendment 8 provides that amendments 2 to 6 come into force on the day after royal ascents, and that is to minimise any delays in confirmation that might be caused by Zurich's withdrawal. By virtue of the specific wording in amendment 2, the abolition of the requirement of cation will apply in relation to any applications under the proceeding applying to small intestine estates that have not been determined before the amendments come into force. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has assured us that the small gap between withdrawal of Zurich and the coming into force of the amendments can be managed by them administratively. We did, of course, look at a number of alternatives from doing nothing to making wholesale changes in relation to bonzification, but the former option for the reasons that I have already outlined would not have been an acceptable option. Complete reform is neither practical or possible, given that there were many issues raised in response to our first consultation that have yet to be addressed with the benefit of our second consultation, nor would emergency legislation be an ideal option, given that those amendments are within the scope of the bill. While considering evidence the committee asked if we considered a state-funded alternative to bonzification provided by insurers and pointed to the possible model of the guarantee provided by the keeper of registers of Scotland. When registering an application, the keeper will warrant to the applicant that the title sheet is accurate. The keeper may be liable to pay compensation to the applicant where the title sheet is inaccurate and the inaccuracy is rectified. This is the state guarantee of title that was continued under the land registration etc. Scotland Act 2012. Registers of Scotland operates as a trading fund and an entirely self-funded fund. That ensures flexibility to monitor income and expenditure. Given the funding position and the involvement of the keeper in the registration process, we do not think that this is a model that could translate in protecting beneficiaries and creditors from maladministration by an executor. A key difference is that the keeper's guarantee is that it is an applicant for registration who is compensated, not a third party relying on the register. Overall, I do not believe that this is a desirable solution. Apart from existing legal impediments, in any case, there would be many considerations around budget and potential state aid tests that would need to be resolved. It is strange for the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to be on his hind legs for stage 3, but I would like to briefly address the processes in examining those amendments, because I think that they are instructive. As the minister has highlighted, this has all come upon us rather suddenly. Indeed, it was only on Tuesday the 19th just over a week ago that officials came to brief us about the need to look at these. At that point, my committee decided that they would like some evidence on what was being proposed. I am grateful to the clerks who I think should be mentioned in dispatches for the speed with which they managed to put together the panel that addressed us this Tuesday, the 26th. As the minister has commented, Ailee Scolby, who is a partner in Burnerton, read LLP and Aberdeen, came down. We also had Dr Doc Reid from the University of Glasgow and John Kerrigan, who is a partner in Morrison's LLP and represented the Law Society of Scotland. They gave us a fascinating insight into how they saw this. They provided a great deal of reassurance. They raised one or two questions, which the minister I am grateful for answering now, the several of the things that came up have just been addressed. As the minister has mentioned, Ailee Scolby specifically mentioned a couple of amendments which have come through as amendments 5A and 5B. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for accepting those in manuscript. Presiding Officer, I am saying this simply because it does demonstrate that this Parliament is capable of being very swift on its feet when we are forced to do so. I am grateful, as I say, to everybody involved, particularly to the witnesses who came across Scotland to be here, to the forbearance of my clerks and my committee for ensuring that we have a great deal of reassurance about what is before the chamber today. I just want to say too that we welcome this group of amendments precipitated by withdrawal of the Zurich Insurance Company who provided bonds of cation. I also welcome the minister's comments today and, as Mr Don has already said, some of his comments indeed address the outstanding questions that were perhaps left hanging in the air when our committee last met on Tuesday. I think that the Government did the correct thing by introducing those amendments and we, as a committee, were all reassured that our expert witnesses agreed with us. However, we are also aware of the very tight timescale that evidence-taking and drafting of those amendments has been compressed into. Should they have unforeseen consequences, we are aware that the next succession bill will hopefully come before Parliament in the next session of Parliament. Should those amendments turn out to be deficient in some way, then their process could be looked at again at that time. There appear to be three ways in which wills can be dealt with. One, there is an executive or executive tricks nominate—in other words, decided by the person who is will it is. There is where an executive has to be appointed and may have an executive or executive and the overwhelming majority of cases where there is no confirmation whatsoever most estates are wound up informally. The whole issue that we are discussing in this group is about where people have died in test day or where the executive that they have nominated is not available and we have to go for one that the court essentially appoints. If there is one message that comes out of this, I hope that people will read that all of this will not touch you at all if you make a will. I am not giving legal advice, but apparently a will can be as short as 10 words. It can be I appoint X as executive, I leave everything to why. It is not difficult to do, please, everyone. Get a bit of paper, write it down, make sure that somebody has got the bit of paper and then none of this complication will touch what happens after you die. I am happy to support what the minister is proposing. I invite you to wind up. In which case the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? I therefore now call amendments 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B and 6 to 10, who are all in the name of the minister and all have been previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B and 6 to 10 on block, please minister. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 3 to 10? Since no member objects, the question is that amendments 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 5 and 6 to 10 are agreed, are we all agreed? We are. That then ends consideration of amendments and brings us to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15440 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse on the Succession Scotland Bill. Before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify crown consent to the bill, please, Michael Matheson. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the reports of the Succession Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Thank you cabinet secretary. That means that we now begin the debate. I invite members to wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons and a Colin Paul wheelhouse to speak to and to move the motion minister. Nine minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It gives me great pleasure to open the stage 3 debate on the Succession Scotland Bill and to invite members to agree to pass the bill this evening. At the outset, I thank members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their hard work and careful scrutiny of essentially a technical bill in which they have done the Parliament great credit. I thank MSPs for their comments on it during the passage through the Parliament and the organisations and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to the committee. As the Nigel Dawn indicated, I also congratulate the clerks to the committee as well for their support. In particular, I would like to thank the Law Society of Scotland and Trust Bar who have been generous in giving of their time and expertise as we have developed the legislative proposals and indeed all the witnesses who have supported the process. Of course, I would also like to thank the Scottish Law Commission for their unstinting patience as we sought their advice and recommendations that they had published over six years ago. That is not a point not lost in me and I am sure not lost on my colleagues across the chamber. Their advice and views have been invaluable, and I said at the outset that this bill was essentially technical and it is, but what became clear through the scrutiny process is that the provisions have the potential to impact on any one of us at an especially vulnerable time in our lives, ensuring that the bill fulfills the policy aims of making the law on succession fairer, clearer and more consistent is therefore especially important. Those are, after all, the first significant amendments to the law of succession in over 50 years. As I indicated during the stage 1 debate, the bill has its origins in the Scottish Law Commission's report on succession, published in 2009, and this is the second bill to be considered as part of the SLC bill procedure. I would like to take the opportunity to place record once more. My view is that the process that is in place to scrutinise these bills is clearly effective in doing the important job of getting good law reform into statute, and we can have confidence in the process going forward. The bill has been welcomed by the profession and will make a number of important improvements to the law. Currently, if a will makes provision for a spouse or civil partner, that remains valid even after the breakdown of the relationship, whether by divorce, dissolution or annulment. For many, this is an unexpected outcome and could lead to undesirable consequences, and the bill reverses that aspect of the law. There is currently no way of a person seeking rectification of a will to enable it to be corrected if it does not accurately express the testator's instructions. This deficiency in the law was highlighted by a case in the Supreme Court, Marley vs Rawlings and another, where Mr and Mrs Rawlings signed mirror wills leaving everything to each other, but if the other had already died, the entire state was left to Mr Marley, who was not related to them, but whom they treated as their son. However, due to a clerical error, Mr Rawlings signed the will prepared for Mrs Rawlings and vice versa. The sons of Mr and Mrs Rawlings challenged the validity of the will on the basis that they could inherit under the laws of intestacy. However, the Supreme Court decided that Mr Rawlings' will should be rectified. However, as that was an English case, there was uncertainty about what decision the Scottish courts would have reached, and the bill will address that issue. Similarly, someone might not expect that if you make a new will and then change your mind and cancel the new will, any earlier will revise and dictate how your estate will be distributed. Again, that is unlikely to be what you intended. This bill will reverse that position, so an earlier will is not revived by the revocation of a later will. That does not prevent the individual from reviving the will by other means, such as by re-executing the will or making a new will in the same terms. The only exception is where there is express provision to the effect that an earlier will is revived, as then it will be clear that that is the individual's intention. The opportunity has also been taken to close a number of jurisdictional gaps to ensure that Scottish courts have jurisdiction where the applicable law is Scots law. We touched on some of the issues around how survivorship should operate in Scotland when we debated the stage 3 amendments just now. Although common calamities are not everyday occurrences, we need to have clarity and certainty in the law where there is uncertainty as the order of death and the bill achieves that. The bill has also swept away some very old legislation through the repeal of the Parasite Act 1594 and reform of the law relating to forfeiture. The notorious Dr Crippen was found guilty of murdering his wife, Cora. He inherited from his wife, and as he sat in jail waiting his fate of hanging, he wrote a will leaving his estate to his mistress. The judge said, however, that it is clear that law is that no person can obtain or enforce any right resulting to him from his own crime, and Dr Crippen was thus subject to the law of forfeiture. Forfeiture is where an individual loses a right to inherit because they have unlawfully killed their benefactor. At the moment, although such an individual would lose any rights to inherit the way they are treated in the eyes of law, it also dictates how any inheritance would be distributed to others, and we have therefore made changes to ensure that law is fair and more consistent in that respect. The bill also reforms a state administration by putting in place protections for trustees and executors in certain circumstances and for persons acquiring title and good faith and reforms and other matters that should include the abolition of donations mortis causa and the right to claim the expense of mornings. I will have been clear that the Scottish Government has listened carefully to the views of both stakeholders and the committee, which is why, at stage 2 of the bill process, we mean the number of changes to the bill. In succession law, someone must survive to inherit and equate sometimes for another person to inherit. It must be clear that the person in whom their inheritance is conditional has died before the testator. Failure to survive does not necessarily mean that a person can be regarded as dying before another person. A person who fails to survive the testator may have died at the same time as them. At stage 2, we therefore made a number of changes to ensure that we are needed to achieve the policy objectives that is clear that a person died before another person. Earlier today, we made some further small related amendments to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of surprising outcomes and that the detail is unambiguous. We debated earlier some unanticipated amendments to the bill, which arose out of the business decision of one of the providers of bonzification to withdraw from the market. We had in a very short space of time, as Nigel Dawn said, to consider the impact of the decision and take action to try and mitigate the worst effects of it. I am very grateful to the Scottish Courts and Tribunal service for highlighting the problem in the first place and for working with us to get to the best possible remedy given the many constraints that we were under. Once again, the law society was able to offer its views under significant time pressures and provide the necessary reassurances on the remedy. Not least, the committee demonstrated its capacity to take quick evidence and arrive at a view. I very much appreciate the additional scrutiny that the evidence session provided and the input of witnesses who attended the committee. It gives me even greater confidence going forward that the solution that we have provided for will address an immediate situation and give us the capacity to insulate against any further change that is beyond our control. We will be turning again to the reform of bonzification, as John Scott indicated, as part of the wider and more fundamental reform of the law succession. I will continue to reflect on a number of the suggestions that were made at the earlier evidence session, which are more appropriate to any further consideration of bonzification. Voting for the succession Scotland bill today will ensure that some long overdue reform is made to a very important area of the law. It is an area that, at some point or indeed points in our life, we will all come into contact with in one form or another. It is therefore vitally important that the law meets expectations and is fit for purpose, and I believe that those reforms will achieve that aim. Therefore, I do move that the succession Scotland bill will be passed. Many thanks. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. During the stage 2 consideration of amendments, the Minister for Community Justice stated that he was glad to get away from the Justice Committee for a while. I suspect that fellow members of the Justice Committee will agree with me that we were pleased not to have this bill in front of our committee along with all the others, and indeed we are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for doing the hard work on that very technical bill. The downside of the bill, not having come to the Justice Committee, is that yet again I am required to provide an opening speech on a bill with which I have very little familiarity, and indeed I would not care to try to pass an exam on the set of amendments that we have just been discussing. I felt probably if they had been discussed in that, and I would be about as well educated in terms of their effect. The bill does, of course, deal with issues of importance to the majority of people, wills and inheritance, and I note that at stage 2 the minister brought forward a number of amendments to clarify some of the issues that are raised at stage 1, and indeed has done so again today. As stated previously, it is based on a draft bill produced by the Scottish Law Commission, but it does not include all the provisions of the draft bill. The other provisions will undergo further consultation, and it may still be undergoing consultation at this time with a view to further legislation in the next Parliament, and I am sure that everybody looks forward to that. The issue of guardianship has been addressed. The concerns highlighted by the Law Society that a will, for example, appointing a person's spouse or civil partner as a guardian of their stepchildren, will continue to take effect if the relationship is terminated and the deceased has not made a subsequent arrangement. The amendment was necessary because the bill revokes a person's existing will and divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership, as we have discussed. If amended, the former partner would not be able to become the child's guardian, even if the deceased would have wanted that arrangement to continue. The bill now also makes it clear that the revocation of a will does not apply when the test-state has died prior to the annulment of the marriage or civil partnership taking place. That is a bit of a technical issue, but it could be the odd occasion where somebody has died before the whole process has gone through. The Law Society of Scotland stated in its written evidence that section 1 should apply when the test-state had died domiciled in Scotland or had heritable property in Scotland. The bill originally applied to person's permanent residence in Scotland when it died, and the committee received a variety of responses to the section at stage 1. The committee at that stage agreed with the Government's approach, however both were persuaded by the Law Society's arguments. The minister explained to the committee that the succession to a movable estate is governed by something called lex-titus, or where the population property is situated. The succession to a movable property depends on where the deceased was domiciled at the time of their death. The bill has therefore been amended so that section 1 applies when the test-state was not domiciled in Scotland but owned heritable property here. The bill enables courts to rectify a will after the death of the test-state so that simple and obvious errors can be corrected with the provisor that someone other than the test-state had prepared the will and the test-state had issued instructions to that person. There was some discussion at stage 1 whether that should be extended to wills prepared by the test-ator, for example handwritten wills or wills produced using an online template. The Scottish Law Commission draft bill on which the bill is based enabled—sorry, the committee and the minister resisted those arguments and probably quite correctly. The Scottish Law Commission draft bill on which the bill is based enabled a sheriff in the sheriffdom where the will was confirmed to consider an application for rectification. That was not included in the bill as introduced and amendment at stage 2 now corrects that inadvertent omission. The bill puts into statute the common law provision that when a beneficiary pre-deceases the test-ator the beneficiary's direct descendants should inherit. The policy intention has been clarified by amendment at stage 2 and the bill now enables the test-ator to identify a beneficiary by category, such as the relationship to the test-ator, as well as by name. That was a committee recommendation at stage 1. The bill addresses a situation in which two people who are each other's beneficiaries die at the same time, or it is unclear which person died first. If they had been in a legal partnership, spouses or civil partners, the 1964 act presumes that neither survived and therefore both partners' subsequent beneficiaries will inherit. However, if the two people were not involved in a legal partnership, the law as it stands at present assumes that the younger person survived the older person and therefore only the younger person's beneficiaries will inherit. However, the bill did not address the issue of a common calamity, and there has been some discussion again at stage 3 on that. For example, when an entire family died in an accident and there were no surviving beneficiaries, in which case the estate would go to the crown rather than to any surviving relatives. Clarifying the situation is complex and the amendments at both stage 2 and stage 3 set out conditions where property may transfer to one member of the group depending on the order of death. The bill sets in statute the forfeiture rule, which precludes a person who is unlawfully killed from benefitting from the result, and the Minister has illustrated that for us to do with the example of Crippen. In such cases, the person who has forfeited their right to the estate by an unlawful killing will be considered for the purposes of inheritance law to have failed to survive the testator. A stage 2 amendment clarifies that forfeiture included legal and prior rights. I will take that as spoken because I am quite uncertain personally as to what that means, but I am sure that it is probably a good thing. The bill also abolishes something termed donations and mortars causes as a particular legal entity—again, something that I had never heard of. A person can make a gift or, as it sounds, can make a gift to another in the anticipation that they are going to die, but, if they do not die, the gift can be returned to them, and the donor can also change their mind and ask for it back. If the recipient dies first, the gift is returned to the donor rather than the recipient's beneficiaries. It does seem to be a rather curious gift, when one wonders how it ever arose in the first place. However, it is abolished as a legal entity by the bill, although, indeed, gifts can still be made on this basis, but it does not require to be in anticipation of death. As I said, it seems curious that somebody thinking that they were going to die would make a gift and then decide that they wanted it back just because they did not die. However, as I said, the bill is a very technical bill, and I am sure that it will be of great benefit to the future understanding of inheritance, and I am sure that we will all look forward to whatever comes forward in the next session, which we will build on the provisions of the bill today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome today's stage 3 proceedings on the succession bill, and as the bill completes its parliamentary passage this afternoon, I would once again like to thank the witnesses and stakeholders who have helped to inform the legislative process thus far, as well as the Scottish law commission for the considerable work that it has undertaken to see those reforms to completion. I would also like to thank our DPLR committee clerks and our legal advisers too, who have worked above and beyond the call of duty. In particular, I pay tribute to the witnesses who gave evidence for the second time to the DPLR committee on the Scottish Government's amendments on bonds of cation, that very short notice this week. As members will be aware, this was an unusual step at stage 3 and breaks new ground for our committee, if not for the Parliament. Previously, the Scottish Government had decided to exclude bonds of cation from the scope of the bill, despite the abolition being one of the Scottish law commission's recommendations in its 2009 report on which many of the bill's provisions are based. That was primarily because there was a lack of consensus surrounding the nature of the safeguards that would have been required in the event of abolition. The prospect of a second piece of legislation in relation to the session law meant that there would have been a suitable vehicle to implement any changes in this area to a later date, allowing more time for inquiry and consultation on satisfactory safeguards. However, the Scottish Government's hand was forced by recent developments in which Zurich, one of the two insurance providers of bonds of cation, had announced that it will withdraw from the market from 1 February, leaving the Royal Sun Alliance, as the minister said, as the sole provider. The key issue here is that the Royal Sun Alliance makes the provision of a bond of cation conditional on the solicitor being appointed to administer the estate, while Zurich did not. That has cost implications for small estates with a gross value of less than £36,000, which currently benefits from the simplified small estate procedure. As we know, the Scottish Government introduced amendments at stage 3 to mitigate the effects of recent changes in the market. I was keen to explore the implications of those changes with witnesses earlier this week. However, evidence from all our witnesses indicated that the Scottish Government's course of action in response to withdrawal of Zurich, although a quick fix, is both proportionate and fair. Based on the evidence that we heard, it seems that the course of action was the correct one, particularly given the glacial pace at which legislation on succession law has historically been introduced and the uncertainty generated in the immediate future by the forthcoming election. I would also echo the view of the DPLR committee convener Nigel Don, that those measures are not retrospective but transitional, because we are doing it now for the future but only until we get to the next gate. Under such circumstances, it is incumbent on the successor DPLR committee and the Parliament to undertake robust scrutiny of what can reasonably be described as stop-gap measures over the coming months and years as a clearer picture of the situation on the ground emerges. On that basis, we in the Scottish Conservative Party were content to support those amendments. From the outset, the DPLR committee's scrutiny of the bill has been collaborative and consensus-driven. From a policy perspective, the majority of the bill's provision is non-contentious and the legal profession has been strongly supportive of reform, particularly given that the Scottish law commission's first report on succession law, on which the 2009 report is based, was published in 1990, almost three decades ago. I am therefore pleased that many of the SLC's recommendations, which are broadly technical in nature, are being placed on the statutory footing today and confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time. Perfectly timed. We are now turned to the open debate. I have speeches of four minutes, please, and I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Margaret Meep to come. I am glad that extending the remit of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has created additional parliamentary capacity for dealing with bills that essentially come from the Scottish Law Commission. By their nature, SLC bills address matters where they have established that there is broad agreement on remedies for errors, omissions and updating existing legislation. Our taking of evidence and our discussions around the succession of the Scotland Bill have been interesting and, for me, at least informative. Given that we all die, I am sure that this is a piece of law that will ultimately touch us all in the disposal of our assets or debts. Even those who have no assets and no debts cannot be assured that they will escape the provision of the bill. The complexity and lack of agreement on some issues in succession is, of course, why a future Government will have to grasp the nettle of a much more wide-ranging restatement and reform. Elaine Murray, if she is here to do so, can look forward if she is again on the Justice Committee, I am sure, to that pleasure. Personal circumstances illustrate some of this for me. My grandfather wrote his will handwritten in a mere 21 words. He said, I, David Berry, do appoint my granddaughter Helen Mary Berry, my Gregor, my executive, and bequeath to her my whole means and estate. Those can be that simple. The only trouble was when he wrote his will, my mother, his granddaughter, whom he named, was then one, and when he died she was then three. She was not legally capable, she was legally incapable. However, the process, of course, meant that her father, who was administrator in law, became the executive dative to replace my mother, who had been the executive nominate. He was appointed. You can do things in that particular way. I have also been touched in winding up his rates in another way, in just over 10 years ago, when a smallest date of a relative had to be wound up. No house was owned, it was simply some movable effects. She had written a little handwritten will that said her two daughters were equally to receive the proceeds and simply that was done informally. There was no confirmation. Through the passage of this bill, I can tell you now, Presiding Officer, that I have apparently become and remain a vicious intramitter, meaning that, because we did not go through this formal process, I, for the rest of my natural life, will remain liable for any errors that I committed in winding up that little estate and not getting confirmation. Of course, the vast majority of the small estates are dealt with on that basis. That illustrates some of the things that may be engaged next time we look at this very complex area. I am delighted that we are getting rid of the Parasite Act of 1594, because we have invented the legal fiction in the courts that if someone is responsible for the death of someone from whom they are going to inherit, because the Parasite Act is quite narrow, is father and son, the legal fiction is that the person who would have inherited is deemed not the spending that they are still breathing and consuming food and so on and so forth, they are legally dead before the person whose death they were responsible for. That works in proper terms, but it is a bit cack-handed, so it is a good idea to do something. The final thing, Presiding Officer, is that we had a huge and interesting discussion about common calamities and sequencing of death. The important thing is that we worked out a way of which you can be certain that you are uncertain, and therefore the rules about uncertainty could be applied. Of course, only when you are certain that you are uncertain, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I must ask the next two members to keep very tightly to the four minutes. Please, Margaret MacDougall, to be followed by John Mason. I thank Stuart Stevenson for that educational talk that he has just given us, as usual. As the minister said, the succession bill is mainly a technical bill, and I understand, and I have heard today, that it is part of the wider-ranging reforms that are to be made during the next parliamentary term. In effect, the succession bill is an exercise in tidying parts of the law in advance of further consultation and further policy reform. That said, during stage 1 at the committee, the Scottish Law Commission said that this description should not in any way be seen as diminishing the importance or effect of the bill's provisions. Indeed, for those who find themselves in situations to which the bill's provisions apply, they are likely to be highly important. The changes being made to the law of succession are to be welcomed, as it both modernises the law of succession and brings us more in line with England on some of those matters. I have often found it odd that, even after the breakdown of the relationship that the spouse, if mentioned in the will, would be entitled to assets, the succession bill alters this so that in the event of divorce, disillusion or annulment, unless otherwise stated by the testator, the favourable status of a former spouse is revoked. The same would now be true if the former spouse was appointed as a guardian of the child. This shift now means that Scotland and England have broadly similar positions on the issue. That, in my view, is to be welcomed. The changes to survivorship in the event of common calamities is, in my view, a sensible change. Currently, the rules state that in the event of a spouse dying close to each other, the younger spouse is presumed to have survived the elder. Section 9 of the succession bill changes this so that when two people die in these circumstances, neither is to be treated as having survived the other. In terms of fatal car crashes and other events of this nature, those changes make sense. Finally, one part of the current bill that I am seeking clarity on is that of section 6. Section 6 makes provision to deal with the situation when a deceased person's first choice of beneficiary in a will has died before them, and the will makes no provision for what should happen in this situation. Before the rule was unclear in terms of nieces and nephews, that has been tidied up to ensure that the rule is narrowed to include the testators' direct descendants only. However, I am unclear what that means in cases where either there are no direct descendants or the direct descendants have passed away before the will is actioned. Will assets then be passed to the nieces and nephews in the event of no direct descendants unless otherwise stated in the will? To conclude, Presiding Officer, I am happy to support the bill before us today. I believe that the changes are sensible and provide a much needed update to succession law. The changes attempt to deal with some of the more confusing elements of earlier succession law. I understand that, on the whole, while important, this is a technical piece of legislation, and I look forward to seeing what role the bill plays in the wider-ranging policy reform that is forthcoming. Many thanks and a brief contribution, please, from John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Obviously, because this is a Scottish Law Commission bill and because it was being dealt with by the DPLR committee, it did not contain anything considered controversial, which is why we are having such a friendly and civilised debate this afternoon. However, it has to be said that we did get some fairly strong legal opinion on each side of some of the points. For example, as Elaine Murray already referred to section 1 of the bill that states that the section should take effect only when the deceased dies domiciled in Scotland. There was respected legal opinion to support that. However, there was also respected legal opinion supporting a change so that section 1 would apply as long as the distater was domiciled in Scotland when the marriage or civil partnership ended, and then brought in the question as to whether that should be looked at under matrimonial law or succession law. There was real debate, and I just give that as an example of that kind of debate that we had at the committee. Other subjects that we considered included forfeiture and questions around the Forfeiture Act 1982. That is the kind of point that will need to be looked at again. The hope is that those more serious potential changes can be examined in a further succession bill before too long. In the question of Cation and the amendments at stage 3, I have to say that I was pretty uneasy when I heard about this process. Other topics in the bill had been consulted to death, and that just seemed to appear out of nowhere. However, we took evidence on Tuesday, and I would also add my thanks to those involved who gave us the evidence and the support, and I have to say that I myself was much reassured by that process. The whole concept of abolishing the need for Cation had been consulted on and widely agreed upon at an earlier stage. It was largely in practical grounds, as the minister said, that it had not been included in the bill. The added urgency of one of the two providers withdrawing from the market makes it sensible to deal with this at this time, and I am happy to support the amended bill as it now stands. I think that the committee would want to stress, and I think that the Government probably agrees with that, that completely new amendments coming in at stage 3 should not become a regular part of legislation. If I could make some general comments about the DPLR committee, it is a very different committee from others in the Parliament. When you mentioned to fellow MSPs that you are a member of this committee, you tend to get various looks of either sympathy or humour. I have to say that I have questioned whether this committee should actually exist. It has not been unusual to have a lengthy briefing of an hour or so followed by a very short and formal 10-minute meeting. Unlike other committees, MSPs are much more dependent on clerks and legal input, so you have to wonder if MSPs add very much value. On that point, I can say how much I and others have appreciated the input of clerks, advisers and witnesses on this particular succession bill. I do not like asking questions that I do not understand, but it was getting pretty close to that at times. However, the committee has looked at three bills and dealt with them—the legal writings bill, succession and coming up the bankruptcy consolidation. I am somewhat more convinced that we require a DPLR committee to exist, and I say no reason why its remit should not be further revised in the future. Death happens to us all, but we tend not to talk about it, and many of the public and perhaps even some of ourselves do not have wills. Although that is a very technical area of law, it is also a very practical one, which affects many people. Any encouragement to people to have wills and otherwise prepare for their departure has to be very welcome, and that was mentioned in our stage 1 report. I do very much support this bill becoming law, and I hope that the chamber will be able to do so unanimously. Thank you very much. We now turn to closing speeches. I call on John Scott for a minute's maximum, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank members for a good debate this afternoon if controversial. From the outset, the Parliament passage of the succession bill has been characterised by consensus and collaboration, and that is testament to the DPLR committee and the convivial, but suitably robust approach that it takes to the responsibilities that fall within its remit. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and his officials who listened to the committee's recommendations at stage 1 and implemented those by way of amendments at stage 2, which in turn received unanimous support from the members. The minister also proactively liaised with the committee in relation to the stage 3 amendments on the bonds of cation, which were unexpected but clearly necessary changes in light of the recent developments in the insurance market. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the bill is predominantly technical in nature, but as the SLC emphasised last year, this description should not in any way be seen as diminishing the importance or effect of the bill's provisions. Indeed, for those who find themselves in situations to which the provisions apply, they are likely to be highly important. Margaret MacDougall noted that in her remarks. They are worthy of repetition, as this is a compelling point. The bill may be relatively limited in scope with a focus on technical rather than substantive policy change, but it will still have a very significant impact on important areas of Scots law, implementing changes relating to wills, survivorship and forfeiture, as well as protections for executors, trustees and buyers of property. Let us not forget also that those reforms have been many years in the making, and I am pleased that changes to the DPLR committee's remit in 2013 touched on by John Mason to consider certain bills emanating from SLC reports has helped to expedite some of the commission's 2009 report recommendations being placed on the statutory footing. Perhaps, in future, the change to the committee's remit will mean that some of the less contentious reforms proposed by the SLC will be implemented more expeditiously and timidly. In this vein, I also commend the Scottish Government's approach of undertaking two separate projects on succession law. Although both are based on the SLC's 1990 and 2009 reports, the legislative report recommends itself well to areas of law, where there are both technical and potentially controversial proposals. However, as we move forward, I would urge the Scottish Government to consider how it intends to consolidate the provisions in this bill and any future legislation that may come before the Parliament in the laws of succession. At stage 1, I referred to the comments of Professor Joseph Thomson, the lead commissioner on the succession project, who said at the publication of the 2009 report that the aim is to simplify the law radically by providing rules that are easily understood and which, at the same time, reflect the nature of family structures in contemporary Scotland. At stage 3, the test of the draft legislation remains whether it achieves the radical simplification intended by the SLC. The Scottish Conservatives are satisfied that that is indeed the case, and I reiterate my part of support for the bill at decision time. I would, however, end on a cautionary note, as others have, which is that the last minute changes to the existing rules on the bonds of Cation must be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. While I am reassured that the stage 3 amendments give ministers a range of powers to future proof against any further changes in the Cation market, I seek further assurances from the minister that this is very much a live issue and that the Scottish Government will endeavour to monitor the developing situation and to keep the Parliament suitably updated. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is my pleasure to present on behalf of Scottish Labour our support for the Government approach to the succession bill and the amendments that have been presented today. I think that it is right to thank Nigel Dawn and the other members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for the work that they have completed on behalf of this Parliament with such speed and such attention to detail. Indeed, the debate today was very helpful for me as someone who is not on that committee in understanding some of the complexities that they dealt with and then dealing with my somewhat confused attitude today as to why it was suddenly presented at the last minute, and I now understand more clearly the approach that was taken. A number of commentators in our debate this afternoon talked about the technical nature of the legislation that we deal with today. I am grateful to John Scott for making comment that although it has been described as technical, it is nonetheless vitally important bearing in mind the impact that it has on people's lives. It seemed to me when I first received the paperwork for the succession bill that it seemed arcane, distant and hardly relevant to day-to-day living. For that reason, I think that the Law Society and the Scottish Law Commission are to be complemented in the fact that they maintain pressure on the Government and this Parliament to deal with the succession bill and pay attention that, for six years, they have waited patiently. Having dealt with a will myself in the last 18 months, both as an executor and the person who benefited from it as an only child, it should have been a very simple process, and one that I should have been able to quote with ease. I have to tell the Parliament that I found it anything but simple and easy to deal with, and there was no conflict involved in that process. The technical issues that were described this afternoon are absolutely vital when it comes to people trying to deal with something that they do not want to deal with and seek guidance on how to deal with it fairly and with equity, particularly when there are some competing interests involved. I think that we all know in this chamber families who have been split irretrievably because of the outcome for the way in which someone's estate has been dealt with. The succession bill does as best it can to try and avoid such splits for the future by offering some direct guidance on the way wills and matters of succession should be dealt with. I think that the approach that has been offered in terms of the validity of wills post the breakdown in relationships by divorce, dissolution and annulment, particularly in the complex lives that we now live and the kinds of relations that we create, is absolutely vital. I welcome the approach that the committee has endorsed and which we debate today. I also note that, like buses in the city, one bill comes along and before we know we are already suggesting there should be a second one. I do think that that is important, that we have had something of a superficial examination of many of the issues that have cropped up at speed, and the committee has done their best on behalf of this Parliament to deliver. We need to check in the new Parliament that the deliverable outcomes are as we had wanted and any additional outcomes should be introduced in a bill that would come in our new Parliament. In conclusion, I do not seek to go through the detail of the bill. It has been rehearsed by many others with more clarity than I could bring. I welcome protection for trustees and executors that have been commented on earlier. I think that the approach to succession forfeiture is much healthier than was previously in the case. In closing, I commend the approach of the committee, and it would give confidence to the minister of our support when it comes to the vote. Thank you. Many thanks, and I call on Paul Wheelhouse to wind up the debate. Minister, if you could do so in less than seven minutes, I would be most grateful. That seems to have been met with great, great acclaim from behind. I would like to once again thank all members for their contributions to this debate and their interest in this very important piece of legislation. It is a short debate, but I think that the debate has demonstrated the importance of it, and at least Mr Pearson's own personal testimony about even a very simple scenario distressing though it was. It should have been simple for that to be resolved, and I very much take to heart the point that he has mentioned. I very much welcome the support that has been expressed for the reforms, and I am grateful for the time that members have taken to engage with what at times could be a technically complex area of the law of succession. Our earlier debate on the stage three amendments perhaps gave a flavour of the careful consideration that had to be given to the language and terminology in the bill. The bill has undoubtedly benefited from a willingness from stakeholders to participate fully in the development of the legislation, and there has been little of any, indeed any, disagreement about the need for those reforms in the process. It quickly became one of ensuring that the provisions met the aims of the reforms, and as my first experience of the process for the Scottish Law Commission bills, I find it a very positive one for which, again, I thank the committee and all the stakeholders who participated. I mentioned earlier that the health input from the professional representative bodies, and by way of example the committee echoed in their stage one report the concern of trust bar that section nine of the bill had the potential to result in more estates falling to the crown. We subsequently enjoyed a helpful exchange with trust bar, and we are confident that amendments we made to the bill at stage two addressed this point, even though it was not done in the way that trust bar suggested. Indeed, we had some concerns about the practicalities of trust bar's approach. Nonetheless, the opportunity to enter into an informed discussion with stakeholders about various issues has undoubtedly enhanced our policy consideration and has contributed positively to the formation of the final provisions. I also mentioned earlier that this was the second bill to be considered under the Scottish Law Commission procedure, and I think that it is worth making the point that this bill is very different from the first, the legal writings bill. The Scottish Law Commission's report was much older and we needed to carry out our own consultation. Stage two for the legal writings bill must have been one of the fastest on record with no amendments, but the bill has had stage two and stage three amendments. I have been struck by the willingness of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee led, as Graham Pearson indicated by Nigel Don. I very much thank Nigel Don for his very positive and constructive approach that he has taken to committee sessions, and that has been reflected in the attitude of other committee members, including Richard Baker, who has moved on in this Parliament. I thank him for his input, too. We are prepared to rearrange their schedule to accommodate late provisions, as others have said, and the responsiveness has greatly assisted the scrutiny process. I also share the committee's view that our laws need to be accessible not just to the legal profession but to the person in the street. There were points made this week, even in the evidence session, about the need to give proper advice before people die, so advice about what to do before you die, rather than just advising those who are affected by a death in the family. I have given an earlier undertaking to ensure that our guidance and websites are updated and user-friendly. I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that commitment today. The devil is, in the detail, probably an overused idiom, but it is very apt when talking about this bill. Most of us will have had some experience of being caught out by the details, but their details are important. In the succession law, we have learnt that small differences in timings of death can make big and unexpected differences in the effects of death on an estate. What the bill does is therefore very important. The point has been made previously by John Scott about the benefits of consolidating this piece of legislation with any future bill in succession. I may be open to this possibility and undertake to give this full consideration at the relevant time, if I am here or my successors, I should say. Much of what we have done in this bill amends the fallback position, where a will does not make express provision about what will happen in a defined set of circumstances. The one point that struck me through this process and will arise again in the consideration of any further reforms to the law in this area is the importance of making a will. Stuart Stevenson made that point very clearly. I can understand why people shy away from it or put it off to another day, but, as Stuart Stevenson indicated, a will itself can be quite a simple document. I am aware through letters that we receive at the Scottish Government and the misery and chaos that can follow someone dying without a will. I hope that the debate around the bill has caused people to stop and think about their own circumstances and take whatever action they need. I am entirely sympathetic with the view that it was undesirable to have to deal with changes around bondification at stage 3, and I wholeheartedly welcome the committee's decision to take evidence earlier this week. I would like to give reassurance to members that John Scott requested this, that we use the additional powers that are put in the bill, which are quite wide-ranging sparingly. It is not our intention. Stuart Stevenson, I beg your pardon. Just noting that, in taking evidence, that is what led to the manuscript amendments that the Presiding Officer accepted and shows the validity of doing the process that the committee did. Minister, please note that the debate is now even into the time of the next debate, so as briefly as possible. I certainly agree with that sentiment, but I hope that the debate has prompted people to stop and think. This is not a situation that I would envisage or occurring even on a regular basis in the context of the Scottish Law Commission bill procedure. Of course, on this occasion, the situation is not one of our own making, and hopefully today's debate has clarified that, but given the concerns about the impact of Zurich's decision, it would have been remiss of the Scottish Government not to act quickly and to do what it could to try and remedy the position. I hope that the committee members take comfort from their own involvement in that. Doing nothing would have placed a new and unwelcome burden on small and contentious estates that would have left the market further exposed should Royal Sun Alliance also at some point decided to withdraw and would create a position where a legal requirement was incapable of being met resulting in estates being incapable of being wound up. I would just like briefly in the time that I have remaining to respond to a couple of points that have been made by colleagues. I would like to assure again Mr Scott that if issues arise in relation to the change in occasion, they could be addressed swiftly under the powers in the bill if we need to. There would be no need to wait for a second bill to achieve that, so while there will be plans to have a second bill, we do not need to address that particular point through that route. I am very grateful to Mr Scott for his kind remarks, not just about myself but particularly about my bill team, who have worked very hard on the bill, and I appreciate that sentiment. To Margaret MacDougall, who asked about direct descendants where it would be affected in terms of where the inheritance would go, just to say that the request would fall and go into the residual estate, the estate that is available to either a named residual legatee or legatee, or to be devolved under the laws of intestacy. I am happy to put that on the record and hopefully that will clarify for those individuals who are interested in that point. In summary, this is a worthy bill that will bring much-needed reform, and I urge you to support the bill, members across the chamber, to support the bill today to ensure that it is passed at stage 3. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate on the Succession Scotland Bill. We now turn to the next item of business, which is debate on motion number 15441, in the name of Michael Matheson on the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Scotland Bill. I invite members to wish to speak in the debate and to press the request to speak buttons, but I must notify the chamber that this debate is now very tight for time. I call on Michael Matheson to speak to and move the motion cabinet secretary no more in 10 minutes please. I offer my thanks to the Justice Committee, the clarts of the committee and those who gave evidence during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. I welcome the support for the general principles of the bill given in the committee stage 1 report. Abusive behaviour within our communities should not be tolerated. Such behaviour can rub people of their dignity and cause lasting scars on their lives and the lives of their families. Tackling such behaviour requires a bold response. A strong and well-targeted police presence, effective prosecution and a court system equipped to deal with such behaviour is therefore crucial. However, our laws must also recognise aspects of abusive behaviour that can evolve as technology advances and our understanding of the different elements of abusive behaviour improves. The bill will ensure that many dedicated people who work in criminal justice agencies are better able to deal with abusive behaviour and sexual harm so that we can improve the opportunities for access to justice for victims and enhance a justice system that puts victims at the centre whilst maintaining the appropriate balance for the rights of the accused and increases public confidence in our justice system. The Justice Committee focused much of its stage 1 scrutiny on two key aspects of the bill, statutory jury directions and intimate images offence. We are pleased that the committee, unanimously in relation to the new offence and by majority, in relation to the jury directions, supports those two sets of provisions. In respect of jury directions, the Scottish Government included those provisions in the bill to deal with the unfortunate fact that some members of a jury will take with them into the jury room preconceived and ill-founded attitudes as to how sexual offences are likely to be committed and how someone subject to a sexual offence will likely react. It is the case that some members of the public continue to think that someone carrying out a sexual offence will almost always require to use physical force, that the person subject to the sexual offence will almost always offer physical resistance, and that a report to the police by the victim about the sexual offence will almost always be made immediately. Where people hold these views, it is unfortunate that they can allow such unenlightened views to cloud how they assess the evidence in a case. There is comprehensive research that shows that people react in many different ways when a sexual offence is taking place and in the aftermath of an offence taking place. This body of research shows that it is perfectly normal reaction for a person not to offer physical resistance or not to report the offence for a period of time. When jurors are making decisions about gilt of an accused, it is critical that they only consider the evidence that they have heard in the case. The intent behind jury directions is simple. We want to help to ensure as much as possible that the focus of the jury is only on the evidence laid before them and that any preconceived or ill-founded attitudes do not play a part in the decision of the jury. There is discretion for the judge as to whether a jury direction is of course needed. Could you confirm, cabinet secretary, if the research to which you refer includes actual jurors? The member may have misheard the point that I made. It was regarding research relating to how people react after a sexual offence has been committed or during a sexual offence. It was not about the issue that the member has just raised. If no issues are raised at the trial relating to a delay in reporting of a sexual offence, the jury direction is not required. Even where an issue relating to delay may have been heard in evidence, the judge does not have to give the direction. If they consider no reasonable jury, we think that the issue of delay was material to whether the offence had been committed. The bill also provides for judicial discretion and flexibility so as to ensure that jury directions are only required when it is relevant to the case. The new intimate images offence is designed to respond to concerns that, with advances in technology, sharing without consent of private intimate images has become far more widespread in recent years. That behaviour is unacceptable. Although we know that a number of existing laws can, in certain circumstances, be used to hold perpetrators to account, we consider that reform of the criminal law is needed. A specific offence is justified so that victims and perpetrators alike understand that that behaviour is criminal. It is easier for law enforcement agencies to take action and it is clearer in the future for people to know that someone who committed such behaviour in the past through a conviction has been recorded on their criminal record for the specific intimate images offence rather than a more general offence. We agree with the views expressed, indicating rising awareness and educating about the dangers of inappropriate use of new technologies is important, especially among our young people. The introduction of a specific domestic abuse aggravator will ensure that courts always give consideration to the fact that an offence is associated with domestic abuse when sentencing and improve the recording of such offences. Our changes to allow for Scottish courts to hear certain child sexual offences cases, which took place elsewhere in the UK, will ensure that there is no hiding place for perpetrators. We note in the stage 1 report that indicates that the committee was not convinced of the benefits of the non-harassment order provisions. We consider the small but important change in the bill as to how criminal non-harassment orders operate will improve the ability for protection to be put in place for victims of harassment by allowing for a speedy response from the police to help to protect such victims. The final area contained in the bill relates to civil orders, used to protect communities from sexual harm. The bill introduces sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. The primary purpose of those orders is the prevention of sexual harm. Our reforms to the existing civil order regime will provide increased protection for adults and children from those who may commit sexual offences. Police Scotland is supportive of those reforms. Their clear review is that they would rather prevent a sexual crime than investigate and convict someone for that crime. We absolutely agree that those reforms will help in that aim. It is, of course, appropriate that, as with the current system, there should be safeguards in place. Those safeguards include that the independent court has to be satisfied, that those orders are proportionate and that they are necessary. An individual can appeal against the making or the varying of such an order. In addition, the Scottish Government's policy intent is that the individual is able to make oral representation to the court before an order is imposed, and we are considering whether a small change at stage 2 of the bill is required to put this matter beyond any doubt. Christine Grahame The committee would very much welcome that. As one of the recommendations that we put into the bill, I think that you would have issues with ECHR and the right to representation and to have a say in something. Rather than just having the right of appeal to a right to be heard in advance seems to be very significant. The intention is always that they would have the right to make representations, but in order to put that matter beyond any doubt, we are considering whether there is a measure that we can take at stage 2 in order to offer further reassurance and clarification in that particular area. Both males and females can be victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. However, we know that women and girls are disproportionately victims of those crimes. The bill should therefore be firmly seen within the wider context of an extensive range of Scottish Government activity to address violence against women and girls. That includes new funding of £20 million committed from the justice budget over 2015-16 to 2017-18 for measures to tackle violence against women and girls. That funding is already making a real difference with handling of domestic abuse court cases, speeding up and the rape crisis of Scotland expanding the support that it is able to offer to sexual violence victims. I welcome the support in the stage 1 report for the general principles of the bill, and I move that the general principles of the bill are agreed. Many thanks. I reiterate to the chamber that there is no time in this debate under Colin Christine Grahame to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee, maximum seven minutes please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to be speaking on behalf of the Justice Committee, which has scrutinised the bill. I thank the witnesses who replied the call for evidence. In all, the committee received submissions from 34 different bodies of individuals. It held four meetings and heard from 16 witnesses, from the legal and law enforcement professions, from academics, from groups working with the victims of crime, from the Children's Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, while I want to thank the committee, the very hard-working Justice Committee. We also heard from representatives of the judiciary, and in passing I would like to congratulate Lord Carlaway on his recent appointment to Lord President and Lord Justice Clarke. That was announced shortly after he gave evidence to the committee, so I do not think that we sabotaged it, but I do not think that we did with these elevations either. This is a bill in six parts, since we cannot really talk about it in the round, so I will try to deal with some separate parts. I do not have a lot of time, so I am going to miss quite a few, and I hope that committee members will pick it up. The non-consensual sharing of images is the two main parts, as the cabinet secretary has said. Sometimes the media calls this revenge porn, and the committee is aware that this is not terminology that everyone thinks we should use. With advances in technology and increasing use of social media, it has become all too easy to use the internet to humiliate other people. When it involves sharing intimate photographs or videos of another person, photos that were never meant to be shared with a wider audience and are perhaps sent out on the internet following acrimonious break-up, that can be particularly poisonous and harmful. In our report, we said that we supported the new offence in this area, and this received some coverage in the media. Press reporting was on the lines that the committee had given the green light quotes to making quotes for revenge porn and offence. On the same day, the Scottish media also carried the story of a young man from Paisley, who had been convicted of putting intimate photographs of his next partner online under common law. He was sentenced to six months for what the press called a revenge porn conviction. However, evidence made it clear that it was not always easy to apply the current criminal law in this area. There are great areas that may also truly be hurtful behaviour and the escape criminal censure. Even where a conviction is successful, the courts may lack the sentencing options of the crime merits. I believe that the current maximum is under the bill—the maximum would be at least five years. The drafting of a new law provides an opportunity to make clear that sharing intimate age images of another person without their consent and with intention or recklessness as to whether the cause's hurt or humiliation is a crime. The committee believes that the bill is on the right track, but we have made some observations on the drafting of the offence that we would like the Scottish Government to reflect on. I suspect that other members will pick up on it. One of the examples is simply the definition of what is a public place. It is always a difficult area to define. There is also the opportunity in agreeing to this change in the law to make clear that this behaviour is socially unacceptable, so preventative legislation. Most people will know this, but there are some, particularly perhaps the young, who may lack the insight or maturity to realise just how much harm it can cause. We did hear concerns that the bill may lead to the criminalisation of behaviour that some young people might right their role and consider normal every day. However, the majority of evidence, including from the children's commissioner, was that the bill was not in itself a good reason to exclude young people from the ambit of the offence, not least because the victims of the behaviour will usually be young people themselves. They also deserve the protection of the law, and images on the internet can live forever. The committee agrees with this. However, in the expectation that the vast majority of cases involving children and young people will not go before the courts or even before the children's panel, there will be some discretion as to what happens with young people. Now, to the second part. The bill agreed in its current form, then, for the first time, and I emphasise first time, it will set out in statute what directions judges must give to juries in certain cases. To put the matter broadly, if evidence is led us to an apparent delay in reporting or telling anyone what is in the ledge sexual assault, then the judge must direct the jury that there may be good reasons as to why there was this delay. If evidence is led us to an apparent absence of physical resistance to the ledge sexual assault, the judge must direct the jury that there may be good reasons as to why a person may not have physically resisted such an assault. The Government's view is that it is necessary to make this intervention because misconceptions about how people respond to sexual trauma may lurk in the minds of some jurors. There was some consensus in evidence that the Scottish Government is probably right. Jurors are after all composed of ordinary people, some of whom may well bring their misconceptions into the jury room. Beyond that point of general agreement, that provision very much split our witnesses and split the committee. Evidence from the law society, the faculty of advocates from legal academics and from the judiciary itself was to the effect that their proposals would, at best, achieve little and, at most, risk doing actual harm. They said that they would effectively force judges to give guidance as to apparent matters of fact that, in the view of the judge, were not relevant to the trial the jury had just sat through. Evidence from victims groups, from the police and Crown Office and from some other legal academics was equally strong in support of the proposals. The directions were seen as uncontroversial statements of fact that could only be of assistance to a jury in coming to a more informed view. It was that view that prevailed in the Justice Committee's report, with what the report describes as a clear majority of the committee, agreeing that directions may, in relevant cases, help to ensure that justice is done. The majority also took the view that setting out the requirement to give the directions in statute will also ensure a more consistent approach in courts. Those of us in the minority would have preferred to wait at least for the conclusion of a forthcoming piece of research on decision making by duries, which the Scottish Government is sponsoring before any decision is taken in this area. I knew that I would not have time to address non-harassment orders, the domestic abuse aggravator, new civil orders and sexual acts elsewhere in the UK—always all very important and serious parts of the bill. I hope that members who have not used up all the information will take this opportunity to develop those points and say that the committee does support the general principles of the bill, subject to our recommendations, some of which I know that the cabinet secretary is already chewing over if that is not too colloquial of phrase. I thank the clerks and the witnesses who gave both written and oral evidence at stage 1. There are two parts of the bill that were more contentious than the rest, judicial directions and whether the provisions regarding the distribution of intimate photographs without consent ought to be extended to other forms of communication. Section 1, which introduces a statutory aggravation where an offence consists of the abuse of a partner or ex-partner, was generally welcomed by witnesses. The aggravation also includes where an offence is committed against a third party with the intent to cause distress to the partner or ex-partner—for example, actions taken or threatened to be taken against a person's child. The aggravation also applies where the offender has been reckless as to whether they cause the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm. The intent to cause harm does not have to be proved for the aggravation to apply. Some witnesses would have liked a specific offence of domestic abuse to be introduced. The bill does not do so, though I understand that the Government is consulting on that possibility. The aggravation in the bill also only applies to partners, ex-partners and people who have been in an intimate personal relationship and therefore would not apply to the physical or psychological abuse of children or elderly relatives, for example, and I hope that if a specific offence is introduced in the next Parliament, a coercive control of a wider range of victims will be included. Section 2 introduces two offences related to so-called revenge porn, though that is an inappropriate term. Disclosing or threatening to disclose intimate photographs or films without the person's consent. Again, the offence covers the intention to cause fear, alarm or distress and recklessness as to whether fear, alarm or distress is caused. In both the case of the aggravation and the new offences, not meaning to cause the harm to the victim will not be able to be used as a defence. Witnesses were strongly supportive of the proposal, believing that it will send out an unequivocal message about the unacceptability of such behaviour, which, as Professor MacGlyn and Rackley stated in evidence, contributes to the normalisation of non-consensual sexual activity and to creating a climate in which women's sexual expression is not respected. Some witnesses, such as Scottish Women's Aid in Abused Men in Scotland, argued that the offence is too narrow and should also include sound files or texts concerning an intimate situation. Some of us on the committee had considerable sympathy for that viewpoint, although a majority agreed with the cabinet secretary that there could be unintended consequences in drawing the offence too widely. I know that my colleague Margaret MacDougall, who pursues us in committee, will be speaking on that today. Other witnesses argued that the offence is drafted was already too broad. Michael Meehan of the Faculty of Advocates cited the example of a person taking a photo of their flatmate sleeping on the couch in their underwear and sharing it with another person as being within the scope of offence. As a term of intimate images also includes non-sexual images. I have to say that I do not have much sympathy for that situation if the image was shared without the consent of the person involved. Concerns were also expressed about whether the offence would criminalise young people involved in sexting. The Children's Commissioner argued that the crown would have discretion and that offences involving children would be referred to the children's hearing rather than the criminal court. He also argued strongly for an education and information programme advising children and young people of the dangers of some of those activities. The bill provides for a defence of sharing an image that was taken in a public place so that images of people taken on a beach, for example, would not be covered. However, other witnesses drew our attention to the disgusting practice of upskirting, where photographs of body parts are taken without a woman's consent and distributed. The activity in itself is illegal, however, the distribution of such photographic photographs is not caught by the bill. Dury directions were the other more controversial issue in the bill. The bill amended criminal procedure Scotland act 1975, such that when evidence has been led in a sexual offence trial that the victim or perhaps miraculously the complainer did not tell or delayed telling anyone about the offence or whether they did not report or delayed reporting the offence to the police, the judge must have advised the jury that there may be good reasons why the victims of sexual offences sometimes do not immediately report the offence to another person or to the police. Similarly, if evidence is led regarding a lack of physical resistance by the complainer or if the line of questioning lists such information, the judge must also advise the jury that there can be good reasons why victims of sexual offences do not necessarily physically resist their attack. Members of the judiciary, such as Lord Carlaway and Sheriff Little, were opposed to those directions. They argued that making such judicial directions mandatory in cases where evidence of this time has been led or elicited introduced a precedent and that it would be similar pressure for similar treatment of other offences. They also argued that advice on those matters could be included in the jury manual. The law society and the faculty of advocates were also unconvinced, as were some members of the committee. However, Labour members of the committee agree with the Scottish Government on this matter. When the abolition of the requirement for corroboration was introduced in the first draft of the criminal justice bill, we thought long and hard before deciding that we couldn't support it. We felt that more sexual offence and domestic abuse cases might come to trial, but that without corroboration the prosecution would be more likely to fail. We were also concerned about prosecution of other offences on the basis of the evidence of one person. However, that is a very different circumstance. Duries are made up of ordinary people. We do not need to undertake a lot of jury research to know that the general public hold misconceptions about sexual offences. Unfortunately, a lot of people still think that a woman's behaviour can contribute to the offence committed against her. Those perceptions can be compounded if the victim has delayed reporting the offence or has not physically resisted her attacker. If evidence of those matters is part of the trial, the judge should remind the jury that it does not constitute consent. The bill also extends the ability of the courts to award a non-harassment order for domestic abuse offence in circumstances where the alleged offender has not been fit to stand trial, although the evidence suggested that the person was guilty. The committee did not oppose that, but we were not quite clear how useful that would be in practice if the person was not fit to stand trial in the first place. We do not oppose it, but I am not quite sure how useful it is. The bill also extends the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts to prosecute offences committed against children elsewhere in the UK. I think that that needs a slight amendment, but it is welcomed. It abolishes sexual offences, prevention orders, foreign travel orders and risk of sexual harm orders, replacing them with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, similar to the rest of the United Kingdom. Obviously, we will be looking forward to further discussion at stage 2, but I am very happy to support the bill here tonight at stage 1. Presiding Officer, the abusive behaviour in sexual harm bill is an important piece of legislation that seeks to address hugely vexing emotive and, in some cases, complex issues. I am grateful for the constructive views and evidence on the bill's key provisions from many witnesses who appeared before the committee during the stage 1 scrutiny process. I would also like to thank the committee's clerks for compiling such a comprehensive stage 1 report. The bill covers six distinct provisions, namely a domestic abuse aggravator, the non-consensual sharing of images, jury directions in relation to sexual offences, non-harassment orders, sexual acts elsewhere in the UK and sexual harm prevention orders. The committee agreed the bill's general principles and there was general consensus on the findings on the provisions with the exception of jury directions in relation to sexual offences, which was the most contentious provision. Here, both the convener and myself considered that, at the very least, more research must be carried out before such a dramatic provision is enforced, which I consider could be a dangerous and unwelcome precedent by eroding the judiciary's discretion and the division of powers. The resondettra for this provision was to address potential and recognise misconceptions by juries in sexual offences cases relating to an absence of physical resistance, a time delay in reporting by victims. However, those are both issues that can adequately be dealt with by the use of expert witnesses. The only barrier to that is the cost implications, acknowledged by both Catherine Dyer, the chief executive of the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service and Lord Carlyway, the then Lord Justice Clarke. However, cost should not be an issue here. However, it is worth stressing that, if the aim of the provision is to address issues known to make a successful conviction more difficult in sexual offence cases, then there is an opportunity here at stage 2 to look again at legal aid for opposing the inappropriate requisitioning of medical records, which are then frequently used to discredit complainers. Whilst a complainer or a third party has the locus to object to the release of their medical records at the hearing to determine application for their recovery, in most cases they cannot afford legal representation to object, as currently they are not granted legal aid. That is the situation that could be easily rectified. All that is required is the political will. Turning now to the domestic abuse aggravator provision, which would see tougher sentences for perpetrators of domestic abuse committed against a partner or ex-partner and extended now also to a third party such as a child or close friend. The cabinet secretary has confirmed that that will apply to a first offence. In such circumstances, clearly the aggravation needs to be applied proportionately and with common sense. Here, Sheriff Derek Pyle has arched caution when he commented that the judiciary has to identify the cases where there is a concerted and serious abuse as opposed to what he terms little more than domestic arguments expected of any couple. Meanwhile, the Law Society has expressed concern that the inclusion of third parties would make the aggravation difficult to prove due to the requirement to establish intention and recklessness. The introduction of the new statutory non-consensual sharing of intimate images provision was widely supported to create greater clarity in relation to this distressing and humiliating practice for victims who are often vulnerable adolescents and young adults. However, there were differing views from witnesses as to whether that had been achieved and also concerned about the practical implications of the consent defence. The provision to allow the Scottish courts to cover sexual offences against children within the UK were intended to be practical provisions, but again raised concerns about jurisdiction implications and the definition of Scottish residency. Whilst the committee was sympathetic to the intent behind the introduction of non-harassment orders, it questioned the practical implications. Similarly, whilst the reforms to the system of civil orders are well intentioned, they were introduced without full consultation and serious issues and concerns raised in evidence will have to be addressed. I welcome the Government's commitment to do this at stage 2. In conclusion, although the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the bill, there is clearly a lot of work to be done at stage 2 to ensure that it is fit for purpose. I rise to speak to one of the most significant sections of the bill on statutory jury directions relating to sexual offences. At this point, I declare an interest as a former member of rape crisis. I will not speak on behalf of any organisation rape crisis or otherwise, but I am fairly certain that most of what I have to say is that women's organisations in general will agree with me. It is common currency within the organisations that take care of women and children in these circumstances where rape takes place that they believe—this belief has been here for decades—that the deck is stacked against someone who complains about rape. They know that juries have preconceived ideas before they enter into the court. Those are quite common currency within all the different groups. And what juries expect to happen in a trial when it comes to rape? They expect that the demeanour of an individual to be in a particular fashion. They certainly expect them to be somewhat excited. They expect them to be traumatised in some regards. They expect them to show stress, and they certainly expect emotion, including loss of control. When it comes to physical force, they expect that a clinician should be able to produce evidence that force was there and evident. Of course, there are many, many reasons that delay in reporting takes place. It is fairly simple. In rape cases, it is common knowledge that people feel that they will not be believed. In common trauma in itself, people do not understand what has taken place. Many rapes take place by those who are known to the person, the victim, who has been raped, and the fear of the consequences, not just for themselves, but for their extended family, perhaps children that may be in the same room. The other expectation that juries expect is that they expect to see stress and emotion. In 40 years' experience in the motor industry and what my business is about that my son now runs is when somebody has an accident with a car. Let me tell you that people get very, very emotional, or some people get very emotional. Even for a tiny scratch, people have been known, including men, to cry when the car gets damaged. At the present, it will be happening today. No doubt that people will be very, very stressed for something that is very, very small. They also say something very often, don't tell my husband, don't tell my wife, don't tell my boss, can I pay it myself? They do it for a whole range of reasons. Of course, that is the same when it comes to rape trials. People act in a different manner. Some people can be very, very concise in what they do, and the reason they do that is that they want to be concise to get their thoughts out of course. I can see them being asked to wind up already, but can I just say that we need to educate jurors, and jurors must have an open mind, and judges giving jury directions will help to educate and be good for justice in general. I welcome the bill and taking each of its six main proposals in turn. I support the introduction of domestic abuse aggravator, which will allow the relevant offence to be placed within the context of domestic abuse and ensure that the domestic abuse is taken into account in sentences. That should not be a substitute for a new specific offence of domestic abuse. I do not think that either should be broadened out to include wider family members, since the whole of the bill must be seen within the wider context of the Government's work on violence against women, as the cabinet secretary reminded us. Of course, we were expecting a specific offence of domestic abuse to capture coercive and controlling behaviour in the legislation, but I accept the reasons that have been given for a further consultation on that, so we look forward to that legislation in the next Parliament. I think that there could be perhaps an addition at clause 2A to make clear that the offence occurs regardless as to whether it is committed directly against the partner or ex-partner. It is the physical or psychological harm that matters, and perhaps that aspect needs to be made absolutely explicit through amendment at stage 2. I will move on to the second element. I support the new offence of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Perhaps, as various witnesses have pointed out, there needs to be a clear definition of consent around free agreement, as outlined in the 2009 sexual offences act. I also believe that the offence should be extended, because as Police Scotland reminded us—and I am quoting from Police Scotland now—the impact of the written word and sound files of an intimate nature cannot be understated. That extension should certainly be seriously considered. It is right that it should include children and young people. I also support the proposal from Scottish Women's Aid that the Government should take forward a campaign of education and information for children and young people around the criminal legal effect of the new offence and its impact on victims. I move on to non-harassment orders. I disagree with the committee on that. There was a loophole in the law that was highlighted by a prominent figure a year ago. I picked that up in questions and debate last year, so I think that it is not reasonable to expect a victim to instigate a civil non-harassment order in the circumstances that are dealt with by the legislation. Those who are saying that it would not have practical effects should consider the very real practical effect that it would have on making it easier for the police to intervene quickly to protect a victim of harassment. That was, of course, precisely the issue that was highlighted last year in the well-publicised situation in the Herald newspaper. I move on to jury directions. I believe that that will make sure that jurors' decision making is not marred by erroneous preconception. Clearly there are problems in terms of people's jurors' views about delays in reporting and the lack of physical resistance in cases of sexual violence. Those two are explicitly dealt with in sections of the bill. It may be that there are other issues that may be dealt with, but it is good that those are spelled out in the bill. Research by Professor Louise Ellison of Leeds University and Professor Vanessa Monroe of Leicester University found that the introduction of judicial directions of the nature outlined in the bill was likely to increase the prospects for justice. Given how difficult it has proved to secure convictions, particularly for rape but also other sexual crimes, we must do everything that we can to make that work possible. Time is running out. There is, in fact, a great deal in the bill about the civil orders and, indeed, a bit less about sexual offences committed elsewhere in the UK, but I do not think that either of those sections will prove controversial. You know what sexual and domestic abuse is if you have been a victim of either, but refining a specific set of criminal offences that can bring about successful convictions needs hard work, dedication and comprehension of the Scottish legal system. I welcome the consultation on going right now on a definition and I look forward to that coming forward. The nature of legislating is convoluted. We know that, and it has to be precision-led. It needs to be discussed and demated, like we are doing, so that all the potential polls are tightened up and, while at the same time ensuring sufficient flexibility to address all different kinds of situations, we have heard many of them this afternoon already. The Scottish Government, and I believe specifically the Justice Committee, must be commended for an approach that is both thoughtful, caring and also compassionate when taking their evidence. When the evidence was brought about at the committee, they took time to listen and they raised a range of themes that we can continue on into stage 2. Under the law, as it stands in Scotland, there is a crossover between terms like grievous bodily harm and domestic abuse and that is central to the need to produce an effective legislation that meets the specific needs of the victims. As the Scottish Women's Aid convention pointed out in its submission, the overarching objective of the bill is to improve how the justice system responds to abusive behaviour, including domestic abuse and sexual harm. It also aims to help to improve public safety by ensuring that perpetrators are appropriately held to account for their conduct. I remind you of some of the statistics around the kind of abuse in Scotland. In 2014-15, there were 59,882 incidents of domestic abuse recorded by the police, an increase of 2.5 per cent, and I hope that that increase is more about women feeling more confident to report, but we should not just take it in that context. While the incidents recorded last year, 54 per cent resulted in at least one crime or offence being committed, and the victims who are mainly women, 79 per cent of them, are most likely to take place at the weekends and in the age group of 26 to 30. The big problem remains low, though women are not getting justice in the current system, and the bill needs to seek to redress that very issue. Many of you will already be aware of the successful drive to have Claire's Law rolled out in Scotland, which I supported greatly, and the work that I have done myself in bringing forward even awareness of the issue of revenge porn. I am looking forward to that becoming a specific criminal offence. I pay tribute at this point to all the organisations who have informed me and helped me, and I look very, very much to seeing their success being wrung out into decent legislation. Those are good improvements and improving access, but the civil protections that they offer are, however, still not incentive enough for more women to seek the assistance of the law. There are too many aspects that discourage women from reporting incidents to the police. We need to change that. That is why the bill will include the introduction of a statutory aggravator. As the Scottish Women's Convention again says, such a measure in relation to domestic abuse sends a message that those who perpetrate such crimes will be adequately punished. Marking out revenge porn is vital for victims, for the right due process and to get the right convictions that will send out a clear message. That is unacceptable and there will be a zero tolerance approach if we do that. Social media gives us so many ways to express ourselves in our opinions, however, in some cases, bizarre or unpopular opinions may be, but it gives no one the right to post pictures of ex-partners without either their knowledge or consent. It is not a licence to abuse. Personal use of technology in its many forms is very difficult for police. It is easy to press a button, post a picture up and yet the sad and tragic tales of those who have been exposed to revenge porn tell us how utterly devastating the effect can be. I support the legislation in its entirety. I look forward to stage 2 and, as the bill moves forward, I hope that we create a piece of legislation that means that a hefty price will be paid to the perpetrators. I am pleased to speak after Christina McElvie. I know that this is something that she has campaigned long and hard on as well as myself. I thank the Government for bringing forward the bill. In doing so, it has recognised the need to keep battling the damage done by abusive behaviour and sexual harm. It falls short of providing for a new criminal offence of domestic abuse, and I know that campaigners have been concerned by that, but I consider that the Government is right to have chosen to consult separately on that. In order principally to get the definition right, it is worth taking time to do that. I look forward to a commitment from all parties in the chamber, whatever the outcome of the election, that a bill will be brought forward early in a new session. The bill does introduce a domestic abuse aggravator, which is to be welcomed. In the little time that I have, I wanted to focus on two of the provisions within the bill. The first is the non-consensual sharing of images offence. That addresses a gap in legislation that has allowed what is known as revenge porn to gain a foothold in Scotland, just as it has elsewhere. The insidious and malicious sharing of intimate images can destroy lives. It can cause victims huge harm, so we need to ensure that perpetrators can be held to account for their actions, and the creation of a new criminal offence will be an important step in the right direction. I believe that there is a significant underreporting of this issue, and it is important that victims do not suffer in silence and know that they have done nothing wrong. Introducing specific legislation to tackle these despicable and cowardly acts will give victims the confidence that such violations of their privacy are unacceptable and illegal. In addition to empowering more people to seek justice, creating a specific criminal offence will help to overcome any archaic attitudes towards this cruel weapon that is used to cause distress, embarrass, manipulate or humiliate someone. Some witnesses urge us to go further and protect written text and voice recordings as well, but I agree with the Government's response that it would not wish to dilute the offence or cause confusion, and we should keep it very focused. Alongside the legislation, I think that there is a need to have a national strategy, as recommended by HMICS in November last year, to ensure that young people in particular understand the risks of what is known as sexting. The HMICS report warned that sexting, defined as the posting of self-generated intimate images on social and media networks, is now considered a way of life by some young people and could increase the vulnerability of young people at the risk of exploitation, so I would welcome an assurance from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government intends to take forward the report's recommendations to develop a strategy addressing those risks. The second provision that I want to mention is jury directions. I acknowledge that this particular provision has proven controversial, and truth be told at the beginning of this process I was not entirely convinced that it was necessary. Having considered the evidence at stage 1, I am persuaded, not only by the well-articulated case made by organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid and the research carried out with mock juries, but also by some of the outdated and frankly astonishing comments of some judges over the years. Members might be aware of a recent appeal court ruling overturning a lenient sentence that described the sentencing judge's comments as controversial. Comments such as essentially non-violent relationship rapes and condoning or acquiescing in rapes certainly are controversial. Responding to questioning committee, Lord Carlywy told us that, in relation to sexual offences, the law is progressing. It is moving from a certain position where it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago into the modern era. I have to say that the movement is glacial and it's time for change. There are worryingly prevalent views. If the picture across Scotland is that, in jurors' minds, it will go into the courtroom with them as they hear evidence, it will go into the jury room as they deliberate. Jury directions are a sensible safeguard to introduce and the Liberal Democrats will support the bill this evening. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me add my thanks to the Justice Committee team, as well as the clerks and members of the committee who put together this report at stage one. I will also thank the Scottish Government for its response. We are all going in the same direction when it comes to tackling revenge porn. I say revenge porn, Presiding Officer, because abusive behaviour and sexual harm won't do. Revenge porn is what it's all about, really. We heard a lot of evidence, some we took in private, which was very heart-filling and very, very difficult to take. Evidence in case of revenge porn that we are calling to the abusive behaviour and sexual harm. I'm just going to use some of the words in his opening remarks. Let me read from the policy memorandum of the bill. Concern has been expressed that certain ill-funded preconceptions held by members of the public who make up juries about the nature of sexual violence make understanding victims' response to such crime more difficult. But it's what it's all about. To me and many of us, this is where the problem is. Members of the public, us, have ill-funded preconceptions about the nature of sexual violence. We need to admit this. We don't understand how a victim can feel safe, can feel after such an attack. We don't get it, Presiding Officer, unless you've been a victim like Christina McElvie said before me. This is why I agree with the committee, with the majority of the committee, to support jury direction. We receive plenty evidence on it and is the way the bill should be set out. It should be regarded as being part of judicial knowledge. Eleanor Deming, the legal officer for the Scottish Human Rights Commission, said on 24 November last year, article 6 of the ESACHR protects the right to a fair trial. Article 6.1 sets out a number of general aspects for a fair trial. And article 6.2 and 6.3 sets out the minimum rights to be afforded to a person accused of a criminal offence. The commission understands that the proposal is being introduced to address a particular issue. And this is what is all about, Presiding Officer. We know that perception is that people all misconception about the conduct of victims of sexual offences. And I agree with the Scottish Human Rights Commission, jury direction, as per the bill's proposes, will not prejudice an accused personal article 6 right as long as the directions are essential, factual and controversial statements. And this is very important that the money needs to be exactly that. Presiding Officer, I was very much concerned about the impact of the bill could have on young people. I needed not to be, as the governor stated, Tambella is a children and young people's commissioner for Scotland put my mind to rights and when he gave evidence to us. He said he agreed that we don't have to have any concern about jury direction being given on the matter. And he agreed as well that calling the expert businesses to give context one of the most efficient way to proceed. One particular point that I would like to emphasize is that, as the young people's commissioner for Scotland put it, in the fullness of time, as a result of public education and greater awareness, jury direction may not be needed. So it's a very important point to repeat. And because I'm short of time, I won't be able to develop another part of the bill. What I would like in conclusion, Presiding Officer, is to state, one in four women with experienced domestic abuse in a lifetime. One in 10 women in Scotland have been raped. 21% of girls and 11% of boys in the UK have experienced child sexual abuse. This is why these parliaments need to back this stage one report and to agree with the majority of the committee that jury direction is an important part of the bill. Attitudes need to change before we can consider to do that. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, let me remind all members today about organisations that have zero tolerance, rape crisis Scotland, women's support project, Scottish Women's Head, White Ribbon Scotland, Engender and many more organisations want this Parliament to reconsider removing the absolute right for corroborations in Scotland. Many thanks. I now call on Margaret MacDougall to be followed by Roderick Campbell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Bill is a vital piece of legislation introduced to improve how the justice system responds to abusive behaviour, including domestic abuse and sexual harm, following the publication of the equally safe report. The bill is in six parts, and in the very short time that I have been allocated in this debate, I will concentrate on the non-consensual sharing of private intimate images, often referred to as revenge porn. As it currently stands, the sharing of intimate images aspect of the bill only includes disclosing or threatening to disclose a photograph or film showing or appearing to show another person in an intimate situation without prior consent. I am supportive of the creation of the new offence as the law desperately needs to be updated to provide for the new digital age. However, I believe that it is too narrow. Everyone knows or owns a smartphone, tablet or even a computer. Everyone knows that you can screenshot, and this presents a glaring loophole in the legislation, which is the sharing of text. In evidence, Louise Johnson of Scottish Women's Aid stated that, by specifying photographs and films, that excludes the sharing of private and intimate written and audio communications. The exposure of the threat of sharing those has the same outcome. It is designed to humiliate and control the victim. Sometimes text and images can be sent at the same time. Would we criminalise the image, but not the abusive and threatening text? That was supported by many others, including Police Scotland, who stated that the offence should take cognisance of all forms of communication and distribution. I acknowledge that it was pointed out during the evidence sessions that the sending of abusive or threatening messages is already against the law. The sharing of intimate text or messages is not. For example, the sharing of an intimate image on Facebook without consent would, under the bill, be a prosecutable offence. However, if someone was to share an intimate conversation or a screenshot of an intimate conversation, that would not be covered. I would argue that sharing of this type of communication could have the same effect as sharing intimate images without consent. That could cause just as much fear, alarm or distress to the victim and arguably would be designed to do so. Just to be clear here, I am not advocating that we make the process of sexting illegal between consenting adults nor am I suggesting that we criminalise those who are 16 or under who have engaged in the process consensually. In fact, in evidence, the Children's Commissioner, Tam Bailey, stated that he was not looking for any exemption for children or young people, but he emphasised the importance of education and that doing so would be more effective in changing behaviours than criminalisation in non-malicious cases. He also mentioned that the financial memorandum makes no provision for what could be a substantial education programme. What I am proposing is that the sharing of sext or any intimate communications nonconsensually should be included as an offence within the bill, extending it from its narrow definition at present. I believe that the bill does not go far enough in its terms of tackling this issue and I have raised those concerns during the committee's stages. I am considering submitting amendments at stage 2, so I would appreciate it if when closing the cabinet secretary could indicate his views on the points that I have raised today. The bill contains six elements, all distinct, but turning firstly to what is commonly described as revenge porn, it is worth stressing that, as others have mentioned, it is possible to bring criminal proceedings for offences broadly of this nature at the current time, as recent newspaper reports have indicated. I share the Government's view that, for the purposes of clarity and to discourage the defence generally, creating a new offence has clear merit. I was interested by the legal debate on the nature of the offence, in particular section 21b. While I believe the concerns of Mr Meehan of the Faculty of Advocates and what might be described as the boxer shorts flatmate situation are overstated, I am certainly sympathetic to the view of Catherine Dyer of the Crown Office when she talks about the focus of this offence, really ought to be on the impact on the victim. I am heartened by the comments of Professor Chalmers as to the fact that this offence has gone somewhat further than the equivalent offence in England and Wales by incorporating the situation where A is reckless as to whether B would be caused fear, alarm or distress. He thinks that the Government's extension is a reasonable one and he has changed his opinion on that. I certainly agree with those, however, who have concerns about any extension beyond photographs to text, for example. That, to me, would simply open up the matter too far and be particularly difficult, I believe, for children and young people to understand and accept. I believe that if we are to have a campaign of education, which the committee recommended and which is referred to briefly in the Government's response, I think that that campaign needs to have clear and simple messages and I cannot but think that the inclusion of references to text messages would make that more problematic. On the public placed event size, I share the caution of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, however, that it is not the place that the photograph is taken that it is determinative, rather it is whether the photograph infringes on a person's private sphere. On the issue of incorporating the 2009 definition of consent in the Sexual Events in Scotland Act 2009, which some submissions referred to, I note the Government's comments, but I think that we need to be as clear as we can about what constitutes consent. On jury directions, there is still a divergence of opinion on this issue. I recognise that this is breaking new ground and that the proposal does not have the full-hearted support of the legal establishment, but I take comfort from the comment of Lord Carlaway that such directions have been introduced in other Commonwealth jurisdictions and that it could be done here, although, to be fair, his view was that it was not the best way. But let's remember that such directions have been discussed for some while. They were in the SNP's manifesto for the 2011 election and were the subject of consultation in the Government's Equally Safe Consultation. I agree that they set a precedent, but a precedent in the context of widespread agreement that many jurors have preconceptions about what a delay in reporting and defence of rape and sexual assault means or what the absence of physical resistance implies. While it is true that there has been no jury research to date in Scotland, it is for the very obvious reason that such research would require an amendment to the content of court act, if based on actual jurors. I think that we are entitled to draw comfort from the researches of Professor Ellison and Monroe. Let's remember that, as Catherine Dyer of the Crown Office said in evidence, that directions would be given only if questioning from the crown or the defence elicited information that there had been a delay, for example, or that there was an issue about the absence of physical resistance. It's only if that these matters are an issue in a particular case that these directions will need to be given. On sexual assaults in the UK, I think that some of the comments that Professor Jamas might be described as academic but I'm glad that the Government has noted them. Turning to the issue of statutory aggravation, there was a consensus with the notable exception of the Law Society that this was a good idea. The Law Society evidence seemed to highlight the acknowledged prominence given to domestic abuse by courts at the current time with the suggestion that the aggravation was not necessary. I would agree with them as to the current position in the courts, but I'm not persuaded that somehow or other this means that the statutory aggravation is not necessary. As a society would be becoming well used to the concept and I have no doubt that it will be used effectively. Finally, I'm glad that the Government will seek to put the question of oral representation beyond doubt in relation to sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. I commend the bill. Excellent. Many thanks. Zala Malik to be followed by John Finnie. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. I speak on the abusive behaviour and sexual harm bill with interest. The bill aims to bring Scottish law up to date with many changes in how society views domestic abuse, changes in technology and to reflect the improved understanding of the issue. My colleagues have covered the issue of non-consultant sharing of images. I would like to add my voice to those who say that legislation should include the sharing of intimate images that are not necessarily sexual. As images can now be shared in an instant, a great deal of damage can be caused by the reckless sharing of images and therefore that should also be included in the legislation too. I also feel that young people should not be excluded from being charged under these new laws but should be dealt with. This would give some level of support for the victims of any offence who are often young people themselves because I'm sure the courts would take their age into consideration. What I would like to add to the debate is to urge that it is important to consider the various aspects of domestic abuse and not only focus on partner abuse or abuse of physical nature. I feel in order to get general equality, the bill should look into the particulars of abuse of a broader definition of domestic abuse, which includes emotional abuse, control of money and control of movement in adding in addition some minority communities live in extended families. Therefore the abuse could be carried out by someone other than a partner. I also suddenly observed some cases where several family members were involved in extending levels of control over another member of a family. Additional development in our understanding is that domestic abuse is not always men abusing women. We can have abuse, same sex partners or a story that I heard of is a mother-in-law beating her new bride daughter-in-law for burning a roti, which is a chapati in English. We also have violence and control of male family members to give an example of victims of coercion. Around 20% of people asked for help from the forced marriage unit were male, not female. In conclusion, I believe that we need to extend the range of abuse a little more wider. I would like to support the bill in principle. However, I would like to see domestic abuse in particular widened up to ensure that we are not only talking about partners, we are not only talking about photography but we are actually talking about families and how families can be affected by one another. That needs to be assisted in the bill. I, too, would like to thank the witnesses, both for those who provided written evidence and oral evidence for their very thought-provoking contributions. I hope that they are reassured by what they read in the stage 1 report that their commentary was taken on board. I would also like to thank the officials for the compilation of the report and read the Scottish Government for Responding. Like many others, I would like to talk about jury directions and say that that is something that I have simply changed my mind on. Initially, I was very persuaded that the availability of expert evidence, which could be put forward either by the prosecution or the defence, was an even-handed way of addressing the issues, particularly of delay in reporting and resistance. I have changed my position on that, and I will come to explain why. The committee has agreed that those directions would provide relevant factual information for juries, and I do not think that that is in dispute, and that directions would be delivered more consistently than is presently the case. Part of the reason that I have been persuaded is that, because of headlines like campaigners fury as appeal judges clear bottom groper of sex attack in nightclub, that was an incident that went to appeal where a gentleman was initially found guilty of sexual assault placed in the offender's register, properly in my opinion, appealed the sentence, and if I read in judgment what was said was, it seems to us, however, that he, this is the sheriff who makes the original sentence, has not given sufficient attention to the fact that the appellant had consumed a considerable amount of drink beforehand with the result that the assault can be regarded as drink fuelled rather than overtly sexual. That is deeply damaging to a lot of work that is going on. My colleague Alison McInnes alluded to another case, and that was a case that prompted me to put a parliamentary motion down, and that was a case of repeated rapes of an adult in sexual abuse of a children. The trial judge referred to the matter as minor. There was criticised the adult victim for delay in reporting, claimed that the victim was condoning an acquiescent and being raped, pointed out that the accused continued to live with the accused, and used the phrase that there was a benefit grubbing existence. That motion also talked about the appeal court's comments that the judge had no basis for his theories. They welcomed the fact that they increased the sentence, but in my motion I talked about the damage that had done to the good work that has been done by the prosecution authorities, the statutory and third sector agencies to build victims' confidence in coming forward to report sexual crime. In that motion I call on the judicial authorities to examine selection procedures and training, including offering remedial training if required, as I felt that case very graphically illustrated. I have to say that Lord Carlawy addressed this head-on when he came to the committee, and he did say that it is important that the judge should feel free to state exactly what he has selected at a particular sentence and must be given free rein to explain his reasoning. If, in the course of that reasoning, he says something that the appeal court determines is wrong, we will say that, as we did in that particular case, and we will expect the judge to take into account the appeal court's view in act accordingly. That is one of the reasons. The other reason, and one of my colleagues touched on this earlier, Christian Allard, is the very compelling evidence that we have received from the Scottish Human Rights Commission about that. That is all about a balance of rights, and I have to say that, in relation to the jury direction, I think that we have got that right. Beyond that, I think that there are issues that we have to deal with. We clearly have to deal with judicial training. The cabinet secretary talked about unenlightened views. It is quite apparent that they do not just exist with the public. If someone whose views I admire says that the judiciary has had their chance, it is time to legislate, that is appropriate legislation, that is balanced legislation, and the green independent group will support it. Deputy Presiding Officer, I welcome today's stage 1 debate on the abusive behaviour and sexual harm Scotland Bill. I echo the thanks already expressed to the Justice Committee for a substantial and thorough report, as well as to the witnesses and stakeholders who assiduously helped to inform its findings. From the tenor of the contribution that was during the debate, it seems that there is a consensus that this bill will have a positive impact, not least because it adjusts the criminal justice system to the challenges created by modern communications technology. During the debate, I think that there is also emerged a need for some reflection and some refinement of the bill at stage 2. Members have already covered many areas of the bill, but in the time available, I would like to focus my remarks in the new statutory aggravator and the controversial introduction of jury directions and sexual offences cases, which I know exercise both the judiciary and legal practitioners alike. The new domestic abuse aggravation is a welcome acknowledgement that the justice system should treat cases of partner abuse with the seriousness of such cases' demand. I have little doubt that the Crown Office and Procurator of Fiscal Service in the courts are already robust in their current handling of such cases and that special measures are already in place to prosecute them expeditiously and with sensitivity, but the tougher sentencing intended to result from the aggravation will provide reassurance to victims that the disposal fully reflects the reality of repeated psychological and physical abuse perpetrated by someone in a position of trust. However, I note concerns that the flexibility for the aggravation to be used in relation to first-time offences may have unintended consequences, including the possibility that it could be applied in isolated domestic dispute cases. As such, I would urge the Scottish Government to look again at this at stage 2 to ensure that the provision does not inadvertently dilute the seriousness of sustained partner abuse and that it is applied proportionately. Turning next to the introduction of section 6 of 2, jury directions and sexual offence cases in the context of firstly a delay in telling someone about or reporting all the offence to an investigating agency and secondly evidence suggesting that sexual activity took place without physical resistance by the complainer. I am sympathetic to the intent behind section 6, which seeks to dispel the public's preconception surrounding some key aspects of sexual violence. However, I strongly believe that statutory jury directions are not the way to achieve the desired outcome, and I urge caution. Stakeholders were clear that such measures would erode the judiciary's discretion and that there is no empirical evidence that they are required. Deputy Presiding Officer, worse than that, they could have the unintended consequence of the defence-leading expert evidence that it might not otherwise have proposed simply to mitigate a possible anticipated forensic disadvantage. Lord Carlaway, for example, suggested that, and I quote, a better way to do this would be to declare that those measures are within judicial knowledge, I am slightly paraphrasing his quote. Sheriff Little argued that, and I quote, the place for such suggestions would be the jury manual. Those are authoritative views, to me they are persuasive, and the last thing we want to do is, in any way, as Christina McKelvie was observing, make more difficult the possibility of conviction simply because there might be confusion in the judges' charge to the jury. I have said all that. Subject for those comments is a welcome and positive piece of legislation. I do look forward to the governance response at stage 2, but my party will support the bill at decision time. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I stand on behalf of the Scottish Labour and support the general principles of the bill, and I have to say that I found the debates throughout this afternoon most edifying and educational. Much has been said about what the bill seeks to achieve, and I think it fair to say that, in many minds, there is a confusion of exactly what it is that we are trying to deal with. The prejudices that are brought to this environment often confuse the notion of love and sexual intent, where in actual fact what this legislation seeks to deal with are human beings who seek to control others, who exhibit anger in the way that they demonstrate that control and are happy to use violence and or threats, either actual or inferred, to obtain their own outcomes. In that context, I welcome the bill's aim to prevent abuse, harassment or sexual harm, whether using criminal or civil law. The provision that introduces the domestic abuse aggravator is to be welcomed and is worthy of further development as we go forward. I ask the cabinet secretary to bear in mind an issue that was raised with me only this week at the conclusion of a trial that resulted in a conviction where the victim in that case is now left with the duty on her own behalf of returning to the civil courts to seek an interdict in connection with harassment in the future. There may well be a gap there in how to deal with long-term domestic abuse and the impacts for victims. The provision of the specific offence for non-consensual sharing of private and intimate images is one that demands a response in terms of legislation. I believe that further analysis of the impacts of texts and sound files is important and that one should consider the foreseeable impact on an individual of the sharing of such files in the general public, because sound files and texts can probably do as much damage to a vulnerable individual when shared in the public domain as some of the images that we already know about. The aspect of allowing courts to directly protect victims where the court is satisfied a person did harass another person, but a conviction does not take place. I think that, as was alluded to earlier, it is an important aspect too that we have victims who feel abandoned by the system when the full process of law is unable or unwilling to deliver. The requirement for specific directions from a court, I have to say that I am persuaded that that is necessary. There was comment earlier, and I think that it came from Christine Grahame, about the prejudices that ordinary members of the public bring to the process. I think that John Finnie has given a great deal of evidence that that prejudice extends beyond the ordinary members of the public. As a result, we should be able to rely on a judge in placing the right context for a comment to a jury about how evidence might be weighed in their decisions. I think, too, that the ability for sexual offences, if there is time, will not happen. At the comments that the judge should tell the jury how they weigh the evidence, that is the matter for the jury and the jury alone. I either misspoke or Christine Grahame has misheard. I do not imagine that a judge would tell them how to, but at least explain a context in order that they can make that appraisal for themselves. The ability for sexual offences committed in England to be prosecuted here in Scotland again is to be welcomed and removes the barriers in relation to that aspect of legislation. The reform system of civil orders, which is available to protect communities from those who may commit sexual offences, is welcome. I look forward to the committee examining the implications that arise from that. Much was said in the Scottish Government consultation about the levels of support for each of those elements, as recommended in the bill. Although I am not a great one for supporting an X-factor approach to, if we have percentage supports for various elements, there is no doubt that there is a general acceptance among the public that legislation is necessary and that that legislation should have impact. I have to say that, over the years that I was involved as a police officer, none was more soul-destroing than seeing families suffering from domestic abuse and the impacts of sexual assault. I am glad that the Government is taking that approach. I now call on Michael Matheson to wind up the debate until 4.59. I thank all the members for their contribution this afternoon. I think that there has been a very considered debate and there has also been a number of very thoughtful contributions made by members over the course of this afternoon's consideration, which is reflective of the content of the Justice Committee's report on the areas that they have given due consideration. I can confirm that the convener is correct that I am chewing over the recommendations and the points that were raised by the committee in their stage 1 report. I have tried to provide as help for response to that in a limited time since we have received the committee's report and between that and the stage 1 debate to try to set out the Government's views on a number of those particular matters. Clearly, in the contributions that have been made this afternoon, members have taken views on a range of the different matters that are contained in the bill. I want to try to pick up on a few of those in the time that is available to me. Clearly, there is an issue that some members of the committee had around the provision for mandatory jury directions. In saying that, I recognise that two members of the committee, the clear majority of the committee, support the provision of jury directions for the reasons that the Government has set out and that a range of stakeholders have set out. That is a point that I wish to correct Ms Goldior. When she raised the point, she said that stakeholders had raised concerns. Some stakeholders have raised concerns, and a range of other stakeholders are very supportive of the introduction of jury directions. I also want to take up the point that was raised by Margaret Mitchell, which was also echoed to some degree by Christine Grahame on that they would prefer to wait for research to be conducted into the whole issue of jury directions before we were to make those particular provisions. As I said in my opening comments, the reasons for taking forward jury directions is on the basis of that. We already have evidence around ill-conceived ideas and views that jury members may have and how that can have a bearing on the judgment of evidence that is led within a particular trial. Evidence has already been gathered on that particular area, and there has also been some research in England into that particular area. We already have a body of research in this matter. The jury research that we are undertaking in Scotland is about the provisions around post-abolition of corroboration and some of the measures that will be required around that, which are specific to the Scottish system. The last time that I was here dealing with a piece of legislation, it was in relation to the criminal justice bill. At that particular point, Margaret Mitchell brought forward an amendment in order to introduce a new provision into her quotes to deal with medical evidence being led in particular trials and the right of legal representations by her other. I set out the reasons for not supporting that was on the basis that we are undertaking some research into that matter to identify how effective the existing provisions are operating around section 274 and 275, but the member chose to ignore that particular aspect of that. Despite that, the provision is supported by the very organisations that Margaret Mitchell said that we should have been listening to in the criminal justice bill, rape crisis Scotland and so on, which are very supportive of the jury direction. I think that there is an issue about the consistency of the approach that the Conservative Party has around some of those particular matters, but I am grateful for the broad support that has been provided by others around the provision of jury directions for the very purposes that I have set out about tackling issues around preconceived and ill-founded attitudes about sexual offences that are committed and how victims should react to those matters and how that can cloud a jury's considered evidence on those issues. I want to turn to the issue around the sharing of intimate images or revenge porn, as some members have referred to here this afternoon. I have no doubt that, with the advances in technology that all members will be aware of, the issue is increasingly finding its way into our criminal justice system. By providing a very specific offence set out in the legislation, it will help to support our police and our law enforcement agencies and also support victims in making sure that those types of offences can be effectively addressed. I have heard the views that have been expressed by some stakeholders that we should look at extending that particular offence to include issues around audio files and written word. I know that Margaret MacDougall raised the issue and Malcolm Chisholm raised the matter as well. However, as I have set out to the committee in my evidence, there are some challenges around extending it too far in terms of the lack of clarity that it could then provide, particularly to our prosecutors in being able to bring those matters before the court, an issue that was raised and highlighted by Alison McInnes in her own contribution. However, as I have said to the committee, I will consider where there is way in which we can do that without potentially compromising the intention behind that very specific offence that has been created within that particular bill to ensure that we continue to have the clarity that is necessary in order to deliver the intentions behind that particular provision. A number of members have raised the issue around the potential unintended consequences of extending it further, particularly for young people around texting and how that could end up criminalising many young people and bringing them into our criminal justice system in a way in which this piece of legislation is not intended to. Hence why the issue around providing education and information around this matter is an issue that we will give further consideration to. Guidance has already been issued to local authorities around this matter to provide directions to schools and education authorities and how they should deal with some of these matters in educating young people around the risks associated with this type of behaviour. We will, of course, give further consideration to those matters as we progress with the legislation. The other points that have been raised by members on the use of non-harassment orders I thought were very well articulated by Malcolm Chisholm and some of the very specific cases that have occurred where there has been a lack of protection from victims, from harassment by certain individuals because of the deficiency within our criminal justice system at the present moment. The specific intention behind the provisions that we have put into the bill is to address exactly the point that has been raised and the example that was raised by Malcolm Chisholm set out very clearly here this afternoon. I understand some of the concerns that committee members have about the practicality of its application but I am absolutely in no doubt by the creation of those additional measures around non-harassment orders it will give greater clarity in particular to the police and when they should intervene and when they have the authority to intervene in particular cases and provide reassurance to those victims that there is clarity around that the police have been able to intervene in these matters. I am again very grateful for all the contributions this afternoon and I am grateful for the support that the committee and the other parties have offered at this stage 1 in considering this particular piece of legislation and I will of course look to work constructively with all members in considering what further improvements can be made to this legislation between now and the stage 2 process. Thank you cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 14926 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill. I call on John Swinney to move the motion. The motion will be put at decision time to which we now come. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 15440 in the name of Paul Peelhouse on the succession Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and the succession Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is at motion number 15441 in the name of Michael Matheson on the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14926 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.