 I now Colin Fergus Ewing to speak to move the motion. Mr Ewing, you have 10 minutes and I note that the Labour front bench spokesperson is not here. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open the debate on the general principles of the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland bill. I thank those who gave evidence, both written and in person, and the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, for their detailed scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. In particular, I welcome the latter support for the bill's general principles. As many of you will be aware, this is the very first bill to have been considered under the new Scottish Law Commission bill procedure, and I wish to comment on that. When the Parliament decided in May last year, Presiding Officer, to accept recommendations for changes to the standing orders to allow certain Scottish Law Commission bills to be referred to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, it recognised the valuable role of the commission in reforming the law of Scotland. It was also intended that the new process would go some way towards increasing the implementation rate of commission reports. In my view, the process is working very well. I have been impressed with the way in which the committee has taken on their new role, and I hope that this will be the first of many bills to be considered in this way. I note the committee's recommendation in its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government takes steps in order to ensure appropriate research has been undertaken to provide statistical evidence to the committee in connection with the Scottish Law Commission bills in future. The committee has my response to the stage 1 report. The Scottish Government has a key objective of sustainable economic growth and business competitiveness. We want to ensure that Scotland is an attractive place for business. The reforms contained in the legal writings bill, whilst modest and technical, will, but not in an insignificant fashion, promote business and economic growth and modernise Scots law. The bill does two main things. First, it enables documents to be executed in counterpart. That puts beyond any doubt that this is permissible in Scots law, a matter about which there is currently great uncertainty, and will give the legal profession and the business interests they represent the necessary confidence to use Scots law for these sorts of transactions. Second, it makes provision for the facility to deliver—in the legal sense, traditional documents electronically. Any document that is created on paper may become legally effective by being delivered by electronic means such as email or fax. I was very pleased to note that the committee supports the general principles of the bill, and in particular those two key provisions. The provisions have the potential to help those involved in complex transactions, where parties and their legal advisers can be in different countries or even in different continents, and meeting together may be impossible or highly impracticable. However, they also have the potential to help anyone in Scotland conducting a transaction that involves a number of parties who are unable as a practical matter to get together, for example, where parties live in remote, rural or island areas. For the avoidance of doubt, the consequence of the present uncertainty in this area is that practitioners sometimes choose not to use Scots law to govern the document. There is a consistent view that this is common. It happens regularly and may happen at the outset of a transaction or just before the transaction is finalised. We are not just talking about multinational and multi-jurisdictional transactions, but also transactions that are entirely Scottish in their make-up and which, for want of any clarity about the use of execution in counterpart, the decision is made to use another law. If Scots law is not used, it will often have the nopon effect of any consequential litigation not being conducted in Scotland. The committee recognised that the current uncertainty as to whether execution in counterpart is competent under Scots law appears to have led to a drift away from transactions being concluded under Scots law with parties opting to conclude under the law of a different jurisdiction, for example, English law, where the execution in counterpart is recognised. The number of people giving evidence to the committee have described the bill as being capable of addressing this drift. A clear benefit of the bill will be that in circumstances where Scots law should have been used, but because of doubt over the legality of executing in counterpart it is not used, parties will now have the confidence to use Scots law. Scots law requires some documents to be delivered in order to take full legal effect. In the same way as doubt exists around whether execution in counterpart is valid under Scots law, there are also conflicting authorities on whether a paper document may be legally delivered by its electronic transmission to the grantee or a third party such as a solicitor or agent for one of the parties. That question has arisen from the 1990s onwards, mainly in respect of purported delivery of documents relating to land by way of facts. One of the principal aims of the bill is to resolve this uncertainty, in particular, but not only as it impacts on transactions completed by way of execution in counterpart. It does so by saying that delivery of a copy of a paper document or a copy of part of that document by electronic means constitutes delivery. Beyond that, it does not attempt to alter the law on delivery. During the stage 1 evidence sessions, the Faculty of Advocates did level some criticisms towards the bill. The faculty's concerns were around increased potential for fraud and, more likely in their view, error associated with execution in counterpart, particularly if, as the bill allows, only the signature pages of the documents are exchanged between parties as part of that process. We have considered those concerns very thoroughly and have concluded that the bill will do nothing to increase the prospects of fraud or error as a result of executing in counterpart and exchanging only the signature pages of the document. That view was shared by other stage 1 witnesses. The committee noted that the majority of those giving evidence at stage 1 expressed the general view that fraud and error would always occur to an extent and that the bill was unlikely to lead to an increase in either fraud or error. The committee, Presiding Officer, were particularly thorough in their examination of this issue and I note that they are not persuaded that the bill will lead to any increase in instances of fraud and error. In summary, Presiding Officer, this is a small but important bill that will provide certainty in relation to execution in counterpart and electronic delivery of traditional documents in Scots law. Importantly, the approach of the legislation has been to ensure that it is permissive and as flexible as possible. Inherent in that flexibility is the ability of the parties to do a transaction to set out how the process will work for them. The bill has been very warmly welcomed by the majority of the legal profession and there has been some very positive and encouraging articles about the bill in the press and in other publications. I firmly believe that the bill creates a light touch yet helpful framework for a variety of transactions. We are in the Scottish Government confident that it will meet a clear and pressing demand from those likely to be affected by the bill and we would not wish to overestimate the value in bringing clarity, flexibility and certainty to the law. I move therefore that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the legal writings, counterparts and delivery, Scotland Bill. I now call on Nigel Dawn to speak on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee around seven minutes or so, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I do genuinely welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on the legal writings, counterparts and delivery, Scotland Bill. This bill, of course, is of particular significance as it is the first to be known as the Scottish Law Commission Bill. This follows changes to standing orders last year, which provided that certain Scottish Law Commission bills may be referred to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I should start by saying that the Scottish Law Commission plays a vital role in recommending reforms aimed at updating and improving Scots law. However, until recently, the implementation rate of the commission's proposed bills has been low. The new process, which we are undertaking for the first time, will allow these bills to be given the consideration they deserve and for important reforms to be implemented. I would at this stage, Presiding Officer, just like to pay tribute and give my thanks to the parliamentary staff who, a couple of years ago, did the background work, which considered whether or not we should be changing our standing orders. I would also like to pay tribute to Christine Graham MSP, who is the Justice Committee's convener, and Bruce Crawford, who was the Government Minister responsible at the time for providing the political impetus, which enabled us to change the standing orders in order to make sure that these bills do come forward. We must do what we can to ensure that Scottish law is up to date and competitive. Through the passage of the bill so far, it has been much interesting to see what other jurisdictions have been making of this process. I believe that some of them may even be envious of the process that we now have in the Scottish Parliament. Turning to the bill itself, I would firstly like to thank all those who provided written and oral evidence. In addition to the written submissions, we heard from the legal business and academic representatives over five oral sessions. The detailed evidence received was greatly appreciated by the committee. As the Minister has said, the bill has two key provisions, that execution in counterpart should be clarified as a valid process in Scots law and that paper legal documents should be deliverable in the legal sense of the word by electronic means. Execution in counterpart is the process by which documents can be given legal effect by each party signing separate but identical copies of the document rather than the same single physical document. The bill seeks to remove the current uncertainty as to whether this is a valid way of creating legally effective documents in Scots law. In providing for the delivery of paper legal documents by electronic means, the bill aims to resolve any doubt as to whether a document is legally effective if it has been faxed or emailed rather than delivered by traditional means. Evidence to the committee suggested that there is widespread support for these provisions amongst the legal business and academic sectors. The current system for signing contracts under Scots law is generally considered to be inefficient and burdensome with parties having to go to great lengths to ensure that one single document is signed by them all. To achieve this, they have to organise signing ceremonies where each party is required to gather at an agreed place at an agreed time in order to sign a single document. Alternatively, of course, the document is sent to each party sequentially for each signature to be attached one by one. By making clear that documents may be executing counterpart under Scots law and by allowing for traditional documents to be delivered electronically, the need for such procedures is completely removed. Therefore, it follows that the process of agreeing a contract may be much more efficient and straightforward as each party can simply sign their own copy before delivering it to the others. In the committee's view, one of the main benefits of the bill is its potential to increase the number of contracts carried out under Scots law. A committee heard that the perceived inability to execute documents in counterpart often leads parties who would otherwise have drawn up their contracts under Scots law to state within the document that will be governed by another legal system, such as the English legal system, allowing them to avoid processes such as the aforementioned signing ceremony. Many witnesses argued therefore that by providing for execution in counterpart, the bill could lead to an increase in contracts contracted under Scots law. However, we should not get carried away about this. The bill is unlikely to bring an influx of contracts to Scotland from those who would otherwise have no reason to use Scots law. Parties choose which law will govern their contract for a variety of reasons, and the committee also heard that English and New York law are dominant internationally and will in all likelihood continue to be so. For some, however, the inability to execute a document in counterpart is the determining factor behind their choice of law. The committee heard examples of contracts that have been switched to English law at the 11th hour as it became apparent that all parties would be unable to gather together in order to sign a single document. It could therefore be argued that by allowing for execution in counterpart, the bill will encourage such parties to use Scots law rather than switch to another form of law. The committee therefore considers that the bill has the potential to stop the drift of contracts away from Scots law, which would otherwise have been made under our law. In addition to assessing the potential benefits of the bill, the committee considered its potential challenges. In its evidence, the committee, the Faculty of Advocates, suggested that the bill's provisions could potentially lead to an increase in instances of fraud or error. Faculty was particularly concerned that the bill allows parties to exchange signature pages as opposed to whole documents. It considered that this would increase the likelihood that the content of the document could be altered. Faculty's view was not, however, shared by other witnesses. Having considered all the evidence, the committee was not persuaded that the bill would lead to an increase in either fraud or error. In reaching this conclusion, the committee took account of the lack of evidence of instances of fraud or error in other countries in which execution in counterpart and electronic delivery of documents is already commonly practised. Further to this, the committee noted the existing safeguards which are in place in our law to both prevent and deal with both fraud and error. At the same time, the committee encourages the Scottish Government to continue to ensure that the potential for fraud and error is accounted for and to consider how such risks could be reduced further. The committee therefore recommends that the general principles of the legal writings, counterparts and delivery of Scotland Bill be agreed to. Thus far, the new system for implementing Scottish law commission bills appears to be working well and I agree with the minister on that and I'm grateful for his comments. I look forward to the continued process of the bill and to scrutinising further bills under this welcome process. Many thanks. I now call in Margaret Mitchell. Seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this afternoon's debate on the legal writings bill and thank the delegated powers and law reform committee and its clerks together with the witnesses and those who submitted evidence during the consultation process. For their contributions and scrutiny of the bill. Presiding Officer, I'd be surprised if there were not support for this legislation from everyone in the chamber this evening. It certainly has the support of the Scottish Conservatives. For this is legislation which seeks to improve contract law by making some important changes to the way that legal documents can be signed and brought into legal effect in Scotland. In doing so, as the minister stated, it focuses on counterparts, that is the signing of identical copies of documents, the counterparts, rather than the same physical document. It is also on electronic delivery of scanned documents. At present, as previous contributors to the consultation made clear, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether or not documents can be executed in counterpart under Scots law, despite this being deemed more efficient. This is because the current preference of legal practitioners, depending on the type of transaction, is to follow the often time-consuming and cumbersome practices of either assigning ceremony or alternatively the round-robin process, which ensures that the same document is signed by all the parties involved. In addition, both of those options can at times be excessively costly, inefficient and impractical, particularly if the transaction is multi-jurisdictional in nature and the relevant parties are separated by different locations. Location is a key issue in our increasingly globalised society. This was highlighted in the Weir Group's written submission, which stated that 90 per cent of that company's contracts involve multiple parties and locations. Furthermore, the bill's provisions crucially bring Scots law into step with other legal systems and modernise these out-of-date processes that have caused delays and ambiguity. For example, in England and other jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Australia and America, legal documents can be executed that is brought into legal effect if signed in counterpart. The University of Glasgow's Dr Ross Anderson made a very perceptive comment when he remarked that it is crucial that Scotland stops exporting transactions that are carried out by the ordinary people of Scotland and by Scottish businesses and companies and which relates to assets in Scotland. That underscores the pressing need for change. It is, after all, unacceptable that we cannot persuade our own citizenry to use our law, which, as Dr Anderson further comments, reflects poorly on its content. With that in mind, the bill's proposed changes are extremely positive for the development and application of Scots law, for legal practitioners and for those who seek to use it. However, as Robert Howe, AQC, emphasised during his evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, it is important to manage expectations and to understand that this legislation is not presented as a panacea that will then automatically lead to an increase in contracts made under Scots law. That was a point that was re-emphasised by Nigel Don in his contribution today. In particular, in commercial and other transactions, it is often the legal jurisdiction rather than the associated processes that take precedence. In many cases, New York and English law are likely to continue to be widely used. That is recognised in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee's stage 1 report, which assesses that the bill will put Scotland in a more equitable position with other jurisdictions rather than emphasising a potential competitive advantage over other jurisdictions. It is also fair to say that, although the legal community was generally supportive of the bill's provision, there was some criticism. Both the Faculty of Advocates and the law firm Freshfields, Brookhouse and Derringer have pointed to several drafting issues that may merit further consideration at stage 2. The faculty also expressed concerns that, with the bill's proposed changes, parties may execute different versions of the documents in question, either due to error or fraud. Although other witnesses suggested that this was a moot point and that fraud can already occur under the present arrangements, it is important to bear this possibility, however, remote in mind and to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place as the bill moves. In conclusion, the bill will have a positive impact on Scots law and will help to ensure that those individuals and businesses seeking to undertake transactions in the jurisdiction do not experience obstacles or delays. I therefore confirm again that the legal writings bill and this stage 1 report has the Scottish Conservatives support. I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate for Labour today, and I welcome the general principles like the other parties of the legal writings bill, because it is important for our businesses here in Scotland. Firstly, there has been confusion to date about whether execution in counterpart is legally binding in Scotland. That is one of the most important parts of the bill, because it clarifies that signing in counterpart is a valid way of executing a contract in Scotland under Scots law. I commend the second key element of the bill, which states that paper legal documents should be deliverable by electronic means, including by email and fax. The increase in efficiency and flexibility that those people will provide for make it easier for businesses to contract in Scotland under Scots law, and that is the key thing about the bill. It is encouraging to see that the bill largely follows the Scottish law commission's recommendations, which outline that the current law is not serving the needs of businesses in a modern electronic age, since it has been more difficult for parties who are in different locations to enter into commercial transactions. I am sure that the law firms will be very pleased to see that their taxi bills are sending their young trainees off with contracts from offices to offices will be significantly reduced by this bill. Even though the bill could be viewed as an inevitable technical change to how a contract is concluded, it is crucial to note that today's debate brings to the fore a matter that is far more significant. It signifies a moment of modernisation, a moment that we can grasp and use to enter a new phase of digital progression and business innovation. Firstly, let us look at the aspect of the bill that allows contracts to be signed in counterpart. That means that the parties involved do not have to be in the same location at the same time to sign the contract. Simply, counterparts of that document need to be supplied and delivered appropriately. Although the ability to do this existed before, its clarification and reinforcement through the bill makes forming contracts and thus doing business much easier. It stops businesses, as the Conservative spokesperson and the minister said, from changing into English law at the last minute, a thing that none of us want to see for businesses in Scotland. That was increasingly common when all parties could not be present in the same location at the time of signing. That will bring Scots law into line with many other international jurisdictions, as Margaret Mitchell said, including England and New York, as the two biggest legal centres in the world. The crucial thing about that is that they do more business than anywhere else. This bill makes it more attractive to do business in Scotland. In a submission to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, Dixon Minto outlined that the bill becoming law would present an immeasurable improvement to the process of execution of documents in Scotland. They said that the bill will provide greater flexibility to businesses and improve the speed at which transactions are completed. Thus, not only does signing contracts using counterparts increase efficiency, it makes it easier to form, deliver and execute contracts in Scots law. The second part of the bill addresses electronic signatures. That improves the efficiency of the contractual process and makes the important signing of the document the centre of the process dispensing with matters such as location, calendars, travel, accommodation costs and so on. Digital modernisation is key for Scotland. It is a matter that we have discussed many times in this chamber. We can see why, when we look to countries such as Estonia, Estonia is now widely recognised as one of the most tech-savvy nations in the world. They made innovation policy a political priority and paired it with initiatives such as giving its population free access to Wi-Fi. Similarly, in Finland, recovery from its deep depression of the early 1990s was achieved by putting technology innovation at the heart of its response, maintaining spend on technology in the face of wider cuts. The legal writings bill paves the way for time and cost savings for those entering into a contract in Scotland, be it a business providing services to another business or to an individual buying a house. An interesting innovation that the Law Society of Scotland has been working on illustrates the legal world's keenness to embrace what the legal writings bill outlines. It is a smart card secure scheme that registers a secure digital signature, which then allows practising solicitors to sign documents and contracts entirely electronically and to receive signatures from others knowing that they came from a trusted professional system. An increasing number of solicitors are registering to the scheme, which aims to have completed its roll-out by November next year. The scheme, along with the proposals that are brought forward in the bill, allows us to go forward with confidence in avoiding fraud and error as much as possible. As well as making business easier, I think that there are numerous benefits that this bill brings, and I hope together that we can build on them with the consensus across the chamber. Labour is pleased to support the principles of this bill at stage 1, Presiding Officer, and we look forward to its passage through Parliament. We now turn to the open debate speeches of around seven minutes. Please, there is time in hand. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Margaret McCulloch. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. You are so generous with the time. First of all, I want to add my thanks to those of the convener, Nair O'Don, regarding the assistance that our committee received when we went through the scrutiny of this bill. The bill, as we have heard, is a first for the Parliament, and it has been very interesting through this particular process. There has not been as many time constraints placed on it, which I believe in this instance is probably of great benefit, but I am sure that when more bills from the Scottish Law Commission go through the delegated powers and law reform committee, then the timescales involved will reduce, whether slightly or greatly. The bill has been non-contentious, but, as with any bill, there have been parts that have had some conflicting evidence. The evidence that we received from the Faculty of Advocates, in particular, as we have already heard, certainly seem to be at odds with other interested parties. It has been helpful. It has certainly managed to provide an opportunity for some further debate within the committee as we went through the process, and it is certainly aided when we had our private discussions in terms of putting the report together. It has certainly aided that particular part of the process, too. However, as it allows us the chance to have a questionable bill, a bit more and also its stated aims. However, I do however believe that the bill will be a welcome addition to business in Scotland. We heard from a number of people giving evidence that some business transactions end up taking place under different jurisdictions, particularly that of under English law and also sometimes from New York law. Scotland has lost business as a consequence of a system that did not actually provide flexibility. Although the bill will not change the world, it aims to rectify that, by making this part of Scots law more flexible and competitive, more businesses can take place in Scotland. At the very least, the bill will make it easier and cheaper for transactions to take place under Scots law, which is something that we all welcome. As a committee, we are not sure how much additional business will be retained in Scotland, but we all believe that it clearly will happen, which will result in an economic benefit and will certainly aid businesses within the country. In paragraphs 158 to 174 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee report, we discussed the issue of an electronic repository. This was an area that first came to my attention a couple of years ago when I was a member of the EET committee and we were scrutinising the land registration bill at the time. The concept of an electronic repository to store independently legal documents did receive some attention, and we put it through this particular bill. As a committee, we took the view that it was supported the concept and for it to be maintained by the registers of Scotland. That element of being an independent body maintaining the register was very important when we had the discussions. We certainly considered that this particular electronic repository to be a useful tool to store records of contracts. We also thought that it could also be a means of executing documents by way of electronic signature. Certainly, that was an issue that my colleague Stuart Stevenson was very keen to highlight on a regular basis through the scrutiny of the bill. However, we were also reminded that two main issues that were required to be addressed, the first being that of sufficient safeguards, needed to be in place to ensure security. In the fast-moving pace of IT software development, that could be a challenge, but it is not one that is insurmountable. The second point that we thought was crucial was that the committee took the view that if a repository is to be created, there really should not be an obligation for parties to actually use it. It should actually be their choice. We did hear in evidence of examples where firms may cease trading and documents that they had may no longer be available. We have already heard today in the past some activities that have taken place that have not been thoroughly legal, to say the least. However, we were very much aware that that was a small number of cases, but it could create large problems. That was one of the strongest supporting comments for having a central repository. The bill is an important piece of the jigsaw in facilitation, but it is also an important piece of the jigsaw in facilitating a more modern business legal system. It aids with the Scottish Government's digital economy policies. Scottish business transactions will be more efficient and there will also be a more positive environmental impact as business representatives will no longer need to travel all over the world just to sign some particular contracts. I certainly welcome the bill and I am certainly sure that it will have a positive impact on the legal side of things but also on business in Scotland. If we can do that, there will be a better economic return and a more prosperous Scotland can come from that. I certainly welcome the general principles of the bill. It is the first time that a recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission has been taken forward in this way, with a bill being brought to Parliament by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. The bill that the committee has asked in Parliament to consider it is one that my Labour colleagues and I are inclined to support at stage 1. Not only do I believe that the general principles of the bill are sound, but I also believe that the work of both the Scottish Law Commission and the committee demonstrates that there is a very clear need to modernise our contract law in Scotland. In supporting this bill, I hope that Parliament can give clarity, as asked before, in concepts of counterparts and delivery, bring about a legal framework for contracts that reflect changes in technology and business practice, and I also hope that we make some wider contribution to the Scottish economy. I congratulate the Scottish Law Commission for their work in this bill. They have undertaken an informed and extensive consultation. Their work has highlighted the need for a new bill and demonstrated that there is support for reform across the legal, academic and business communities. In their work, the Scottish Law Commission identified two problems with commercial and contract law in Scotland, which they believe could be dealt with through this Parliament's new approach to law reform. They highlighted the need for clarity in respect of counterparts. It is not clear whether a legal document can be brought into effect if it is signed in counterpart. In other words, the commission will not clear whether it is acceptable under Scots law for different parties to sign identical copies of a contract instead of signing the same physical copy of the document. Secondly, they call for clarity in respect of the law and delivery. It is not clear whether a paper document such as the traditional written contract can be said to have been delivered if it is sent and delivered electronically. The view of the commission is that the current law is not fit for purpose because the letter of our law in Scotland is at variance with a common practice and also with contract law in neighbouring jurisdictions. The commission even found evidence that businesses are sometimes choosing to use English law to govern agreements instead of Scottish law because counterparts are permitted under English law. That disincentive to using Scots law coupled with legal uncertainty over methods of delivery will be doing harm to our economic competitiveness. By allowing the use of counterpart signatures as an option to execute a contract and by allowing contracts to be delivered electronically, we could help businesses to make time cost savings and reduce travel and accommodation costs. Bear in mind that there will be a limited number of people within our business who are authorised to sign legal documents on behalf of their company. I would also emphasise that the costs to businesses outlined by the commission are costs that would not face in jurisdictions where contract law has already been modernised and where laws take sufficient account of technological change. Just as we want to be clear about what the bill does do to modernise our laws on respective counterparts and delivery, let us also be clear about what it does not do. It does not mandate the use of electronic signatures. It does not change the law on fraud in both civil and criminal law. The existing rules on fraudulent signatures will remain in place. It does not change the standard of proof required in relation to execution. The general rules on whether a person claiming to have signed a document has actually done so remains the same as before. It does not alter general contract law. Issues such as whether a contract has been formed, the rules and breach of contract, damages and so forth, are not affected by this bill. It does not create an electronic repository for legal documents, although this was a recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission. It is an area of work that the Scottish Government is keen to pursue once the bill has passed. The bill simply brings the law up to date. It allows for contracts to be signed in counterpart, as is acceptable in other jurisdictions, and it allows for paper contracts to be delivered electronically. With this bill, we have an opportunity to remove a disincentive to conducting businesses in Scots law and to make it easier for parties to enter into commercial contracts and transactions. With small but significant changes, which are largely uncontroversial, we can bring contract law up to date and make it fit for purpose. It is for this reason that I intend to support the general principles of this bill. Mike McKenzie, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, because the work of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is seldom properly recognised. It is unlike any of the other committees of the Parliament because it does not deal with policy. As a consequence, less visitors attend the public sessions, or very few visitors attend the public sessions and even fewer journalists, perhaps a bit like today in the chamber. We members therefore are perhaps the least scrutinised of the scrutinisers in this Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, as it is now known, still mainly deals with subordinate legislation. That is where our legislative teeth are often found, rather than on the face of the bill, certainly. I do feel for the committee and its lack of interest for the public, but does it feel that it is not just inevitable and that perhaps some of the most valuable work in this Parliament is done that is not the most seen by the public and the most exciting? I absolutely agree with Mr Mason, and indeed that is the point that I was hoping to make, whilst I have the opportunity of speaking about the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee this afternoon. The legislative teeth are often found buried in the subordinate legislation rather than on the face of the bill, although it is on the face of the bill that they are most often looked for. It is sometimes thought to be a dry committee dealing with a dry subject, but I have found it otherwise. I have found that its focus, its clarity of thought and its discipline are both demanding and instructive. I have found that the words in our SSIs are words often of real power, words weighed by the committee with an almost poetic search for intent and for purpose. Indeed, I have sometimes said in the committee that it reminds me of a remark attributed to Oscar Wilde, who said that I worked very hard on my latest poem today. In the morning I took a comma out and in the afternoon I put it back in again. I have found that our deliberations on appropriate levels and forms of scrutiny, on clarity of meaning, on the width and breadth of powers, to be at times almost philosophical in nature. The language of our law, despite the best intentions of generations of lawyers, is much more than the language of mere mathematics because it often goes beyond logic and it is capable of carrying both objective and subjective meaning. That is where it seems to me often lies the challenge and the interest of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. We filter our legislation through the finest of serfs. It was therefore interesting, Presiding Officer, to see this committee's approach to its first piece of primary legislation, the legal writings bill, and I should pause at this point and pay tribute to our clerks and to our legal advisers. They brought the same disciplined and painstaking approach to bear as they do in all of our work, and I must commend them, not just for their grasp of the law, not just for their impeccable skills of reasoning, but also for that most important ability, the ability to explain their thoughts in plain terms for us, the laypersons, who in the main make up of them. The committee, certainly. Nigel Dawn. I'm grateful. I'm pretty much enjoying the member's contribution. I'm grateful that he's keeping praise on those who do much of the work for us. I wonder whether he shares the same enthusiasm for the work of the Scottish Law Commission, who, as I remember, came along and gave us a remarkably precise and careful description of what was all involved, complete with drawings, which I still remember, and which seemed to me to be exactly the way to describe law. I certainly am very happy to agree with the point that Nigel Dawn makes, and in fact I know that the Scottish Government has said that due to the work in the consultation work that the Scottish Law Commission did, it's not really necessary for government to have a further consultation. I think that's the hallmark and the stamp of approval on the work of the Scottish Law Commission, particularly as it's approached this bill. I ought to perhaps say a few words about the bill itself. Although I say that I'm beginning to run out of time, by facilitating the execution and counterpart and the electronic transmission of documents, the legal writings bill quite simply brings this aspect of Scots law up to date. In the year 2014, that part of our law, which is within the scope of this bill, will once again become fit for purpose. The merits of the bill, Presiding Officer, are self-evident. They are obvious. The committee were unanimous on this, as were almost all of our witnesses. Only the faculty of advocates perplexed us, maintaining that the bill won't give rise to an increase in fraud. We were perplexed only insofar as we made a genuine attempt, I think, to understand this argument. In the end we were not persuaded. The bill, it seems to us, neither adds to nor removes the possibility of fraud. But this is not a bill of grand and sweeping intent. It's not radical. It's not controversial. It's perhaps even not all that exciting. But I commend it to the chamber, because modest improvements are often worthwhile and often important. Many thanks. I now call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Richard Baker. Mike McKenzie has been grossly unfair to the committee. Only this morning we had a piece of secondary legislation on food. The table in the schedule to that particular legislation told me, correctly, as it turned out, that corned beef must have 120 per cent meat in it, and the figure was correct. I'll let you go and read the order for yourself. It will be going to the policy committee shortly, and the figure is correct. I would never have known that if I wasn't on the delegated powers and law reform committee. John Mason? How can it be 120 per cent? No, no, no, no. This is not the place. You've got to go and read the relevant piece. I can tell you that it's on page 7, and the explanation is in a small six-point print on page 10, if you can understand it when you get there. Believe me, it's interesting. The point is that we deal with the minutiae, and the minutiae around contracts is often actually minutiae with very profound effects for our business and for life in Scotland and beyond. I myself have been involved over the years in dealing with a number of contracts. I had a quick jot down, and I found 10 jurisdictions ranging from Delaware to Norway where I've signed contracts. I have only been in San Francisco once in my life, and that was simply for the reason to sign a contract. I was in the United States for a grand total of 14 hours, and I slept for 10 of them because it was overnight. A friend of mine got up in the morning, got the plane down to Heathrow, got on Concord, met somebody airside at Kennedy Airport, signed a contract, got back on the same Concord, flew back to Heathrow, got the plane back to Edinburgh and was home an hour earlier than usual. What a waste of time and effort to go all that way to sign a contract. The modest little bill will have profound and useful effects. Jenny Marra said that Estonia, of course, I'm surprised that she didn't name-chat Skype, which comes from Estonia and was written by software engineers there, a country with some considerable things to offer in the electronic world. Electronic signatures and electronic repositories are going to be something that will move us a little bit towards. The Law Society is producing its electronic card that will be out to everybody in about a year. It remains the case that that card is shared among people in a firm. There isn't individual certainty about who may have used a card to sign something electronically in that context. So, while the bill takes it forward, it has emphasis on electronic signatures. It doesn't take it all the way. Electronic signatures, yes, I will. Mike McKenzie. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Does he agree with me that the Scottish Government is due praise for implementing across the Highlands and Islands the backbone for a fibre optic broadband system that will facilitate and allow this kind of technological improvement in our law to take place? Does he also agree with me that more work is required to be done on the part of the UK Government in rolling out 2G, 3G and 4G across the Highlands and Islands and also the rural parts of Scotland? Stuart Stevenson, I can give you an extra minute or two on to your seven minutes to make up for the interventions. That would be very helpful, Presiding Officer, although I have to say that I might need about an hour to deal with the scope of that particular intervention. I do note, however, that the Irish Government, this very day, has committed itself to delivering 30 megabit broadband to every single location in Ireland, so perhaps we've got a little bit to travel. 2G, 3G, 4G—I'd welcome any G at home. I currently have none, so yes, it's very important. However, to return to the subject of the bill, which I'm sure, Presiding Officer, you would wish me to do, and to look at electronic signatures. The electronic signature is, of course, useful in a whole variety of different ways. In that, it enables you to sign something, and if any change, even a missing dot, comma, a single letter has changed, the signature becomes invalid in relation to the whole document. It's the kind of technological approach that will give us certainty in future. Lawyers are quite reasonably conservative, small-sea, conservative about adopting technology. It is very straightforward to describe the public key cryptography now with the appellation of Rivest, Shamir and Edelman, three American mathematicians who developed the system that we generally use today, but in fact it was done by GCHQ some years earlier but kept secret. It is a system of cryptography that you can describe in a single page, but it takes a lifetime of study to understand that single page. It involves the multiplication of two very large prime numbers together and then a matrix transformation so that you can have one key for locking, for signing and a different secret key for unlocking. You don't have to share keys with anyone. That is the essence of a secure system. The system is not new. Mary Queen of Scots used a system of that kind. With a little casket that she corresponded with her lovers, she had a key that she locked the lock, having put a message in it, sent the casket to her lover who locked another lock with his own private key, sent it back to her. She unlocked her lock, sent it back to him. He unlocked her lock and at last he could access the key. The key was never shared with anyone. That is exactly how electronic signatures work today, except instead of the physical keys that were kept secret by the owners, we use electronic keys. Of course, prime numbers, as a mathematician, are particularly interesting things. They come up time and time again, and some of that technology has been described in The Simpsons. The Simpsons, the most of the team who write The Simpsons, are mathematicians, which may surprise you. 18 years ago, Homer Simpson, in fact, made reference to Belfaigar's prime, which comes from James Milton's Paradise Lost. Belfaigar is one of the seven princes of hell who is charged with helping people making genius inventions and discoveries. Belfaigar's prime number, and the reason that it's attributed to him, is 31 digits long. I'll not give you them all. It's one followed by 13 zeros, followed by six, six, six, which is why it's Belfaigar, followed by 13 zeros, followed by one. Of course, it's also symmetric. You read it either way around. Prime numbers are exciting and interesting, as well as being useful for electronic signatures. For Scotland, there is an opportunity beyond what we are doing today. An opportunity perhaps to encourage registrars of Scotland to develop a secure repository based on this kind of technology, that means that they hold contracts during the development and people access it in a secure way to sign, to annotate, to amend. That gives us security against the failure of companies so that contracts don't get lost over the years to come. It gives us security of control and access. Everybody is working off the same document and it could in future give us significant commercial advantage. Scotland's law has been around for a very long time indeed. It stood the test of time. The Scottish Law Commission has very usefully helped us to take this forward to bring us up to the mark that some other jurisdictions have, but I think that the debates and discussions and the information that we've had from witnesses in the committee show us that there is more that we can do. I do hope that we take the opportunity to do that, to pick up the challenge of signatures, encryption in a secure way, because in mathematical terms, and you can look this up, this is an NP problem. Nobody knows how to solve it, nobody yet has broken this kind of key, nobody shows any sign of doing so. Many thanks. I call Richard Baker to be followed by John Mason and if you both take the seven minutes allocated, that will take us to the closing speeches. Thank you very much indeed Deputy Presiding Officer. An interesting debate, perhaps a much more interesting debate than many of us had expected when we first came into the chamber this afternoon, and it's impossible to follow or to compete with Stuart Stevenson's tales of transatlantic adventures, Da Vinci code-style mathematical problems and indeed the Simpsons, and that's been an interesting addition to the debate today. We always enjoy Mr Stevenson's ability to spice up debates of this nature, but it certainly has been a pleasure as well to be a member of the committee and a part of the committee in taking forward this bill as our consideration for the first time of a bill through our new responsibilities. The bill has proved a good candidate to initiate that new role because, as we've heard, there's been a great deal of consensus around this legislation. While it's quite narrow in its compass, it will have a beneficial effect for legal practice in Scotland. Like others, including the Minister and the convener, I'd like to take the opportunity to reflect on the fact that dealing with bills brought forward by the Scottish Law Commission in this way will be beneficial generally to legislative reform in this Parliament. For two long bills, which have been the subject of considerable consultation and a great deal of work by the commission, they were left to gather dust. The commission was left reliant on members coming forward to take up these bills individually, as my colleague Bill Butler did successfully in the last Parliament with the Damages for Wrongful Death Bill, which I'm sure the minister will remember. Unfortunately, the bill was a relatively isolated example of too many bills, which could have been equally as beneficial as this bill we're considering this afternoon were not progressed on an important issue. It's good that, in the parliamentary consideration of this bill by our committee, we can look forward to more progress with such legislation in the future. Can I join with others in congratulating the convener and the committee's clerks and advisers on the stewardship of this process? I've perhaps not found as many moments of the philosophy and poetry in the committee's deliberations as Mike Mackenzie has. I congratulate him on doing so. He clearly sees debate over the definition of quantities of corned beef in a different light to me. I do think that it's very important to recognise the good work that this committee does. He's right to say that it's an opportunity to reflect on that. In this process, the work of this committee will be very beneficial, not just to Parliament but to the quality of law in Scotland. As others have said, the evidence that we took on the bill was almost unanimous in its support for the proposals. I took the opportunity during our deliberations to ask questions of witnesses on the issue of the potential for fraud, which members have referred to this afternoon, and which the Faculty of Advocates had expressed concerns about particularly in their oral evidence to the committee. All other witnesses were clear that they did not see the proposed legislation as opening up a greater potential for fraud in transactions. As we heard from witnesses, if individuals are determined to commit an act of fraud, they will find a way of doing so in relation to those transactions, whether the legislation is passed or not. We haven't heard evidence of a higher number of examples of fraud or error in England since they allowed execution in counterpart and the electronic delivery of documents. I think that the issue is best summed up by those who said that it will neither reduce nor increase the risk of fraud if we proceed to pass this bill. The other issue that I pursued with witnesses when taking evidence on the bill was on the issue of pre-signed signature pages because, in relation to this area, there have been specific concerns raised about the potential for fraud. Here, there were concerns raised by witnesses if not with the actual legislation itself but with the whole concept of the use of pre-signed signature pages. As a policy memorandum makes clear, the bill does not change the existing position in that respect but neither does it prevent a pre-signed signature page being attached to a different document, provided that it can be shown that the party concerned clearly authorised or mandated this in advance or subsequently ratified what had been done with full knowledge of the content of the new document. Witnesses described sub-uneas about the use of pre-signed signature pages in general. When I asked Dr Ross Anderson of the University of Glasgow when he gave evidence to the committee about the issue, he said that, as a solicitor, he would never use them. It seemed to him that the authorisation that has been given by the client in that situation is essentially a power of attorney to the solicitor to sign the document. He found the use of pre-signed signature pages odd, but he also acknowledged that, on this issue, the bill may be taking the approach that it is simply to reflect some of the practices that are going on currently in England and to be facilitative for cases that may arise. I think that the committee has reached the right conclusion on this issue, given that this legislation is intended to aid flexibility for legal practice in Scotland. We have concluded that, while there may be misgivings about the use of pre-signed signature pages, we recognise those misgivings and we mention them in our report. There also might be circumstances in which their use may be justified. I think that it would be wrong to overestimate the economic impact of the legislation for our legal services industry, but I do think that this is a beneficial legislation even if it is narrow in its effect. I think that it is right that we heed the advice of the law society that existing practice of signing contracts under Scots law is in need of updating. A society informs its parties to a contract by switching to English contract law at a later stage because it is more convenient for the execution of contracts. By passing the legislation, we can ensure that contracts can, in future, be concluded under Scots law, including that this is beneficial for an important legal services industry. That is why it is right to support this bill today. I have been spending some time this morning reading about it, and it had been suggested that it would be useful to somebody from the finance committee speaking on the subject, although I do not think that there is a huge amount of financial issues on the bill. It did strike me that we could have had somebody from the education and culture committee speaking or even from the public petitions committee or the justice committee or the health and sport committee or one of the various other committees. However, it seems to me clear that the process of signing documents has become somewhat outdated, so I do very much welcome this move to improve the system for executing and delivering documents. I have often been part of one of those round-robin processes where one hard copy gets posted to somebody for signature, they eventually get it signed possibly with a witness, it then gets returned to the firm of solicitors, then goes out to the second person for signature and so the process goes on. Clearly, all of this takes a considerable amount of time and we are all expecting things really to happen a little bit faster these days. On that point, I would make the general point that there are other areas of legal process that could also do with a bit of modernisation. I do very much welcome the fact that a relative outsider is becoming the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and perhaps he will come forward with more proposals about how to update and improve the legal process. It does strike me that other professions and trades have to meet very tight deadlines nowadays, for example auditors in my own profession having to complete a company audit within a very short number of days. It seems to me that sometimes there is not strong enough emphasis on the time deadlines that there could be for court cases and other legal processes. Anyway, this bill is clearly a step in the right direction in all of that area. I think that there are actually two arguments that most convince me of the need for this legislation looking at the committee's report. One of those is that Scots law is losing out perhaps to other jurisdictions and the other one is obviously the potential cost savings including time of the updated procedures. To mention the second of those, I suspect that we have to accept that the potential cost savings are estimates and time will tell if they have been a little bit over or under optimistic. That is certainly a view that the Faculty of Advocates seems to take at paragraph 73, where they talk about most of the contracts that are under Scots law or smaller scale contracts that are made not in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen but in small towns around Scotland. In such cases, we suspect that the saving of cost and the convenience that are envisaged as a result of the electronic execution and exchange of counterparts instead of simply having people come into the office to do all that will be limited. Mike McKenzie? I just thank the member for taking an intervention. I wonder if he feels that there may be some help in meeting our climate change targets as a result of this legislation. Certainly Mr Stevenson's worldwide journeys merely to sign contracts may not be necessary in the future. I certainly think that if it cuts down air travel that is very much to be welcomed and clearly travelling anywhere takes time even if it is locally and by car and so on. However, I have to say to him that I think that one of the suggestions that I noted in relation to this bill that the less paper might be used, which I accept would also help the environment, in my opinion is a little bit doubtful because throughout my working life I have heard many suggestions that there would be less paper used in offices and sadly that has not tended to be the case. My suspicion is that if there are six people signing one of those documents we will still end up with six copies if not more of the same document, albeit hopefully not slightly different but at least being signed by different people. The other argument that convinces me most that this is important is the suggestion that Scots law is losing out or could be losing out while accepting that some parties to some contracts will always prefer to use the law of a larger jurisdiction such as England or the United States. I noted the evidence given by Todd Murray in paragraphs 46 and 47, which I thought were certainly quite convincing for me because they said in paragraph 46 first that it has been suggested that the lack of a law in counterparts can cause damage to the reputation of Scots law internationally Todd Murray's written submission suggested that the existing Scots law, particularly the lack of counterpart execution as a valid form of execution, can cause problems in terms of transaction logistics and requirements as well as giving a poor impression of Scots law. This is the bit that hit me, Scotland generally as a place in which to do business because although this may be only one small part of what is happening in Scotland, if there is the impression that Scottish business as a whole is not up to date and not efficient and not doing things in the best possible way then I for one would be extremely concerned about that quite apart from the whole legal process. I think part of this for me as a non-lawyer is where is Scotland positioning herself in the global market and of course legal system is not just another product like whisky or cheese it is much more than a product but it is a product nonetheless and if Scotland is to be out there competing on quality with the best food and the best drink on top of the range engineering and one of the cleanest environments in the world then similarly we want one of the best legal systems in the world so from that perspective I do not see today's debate as just being of narrow interest to the legal profession but I think it has potentially a much wider economic impact and if this Parliament cannot fight the corner of Scots law I don't know who can. Next I note the committee's study of potential for fraud and error in paragraphs 106 to 129. I was going to read some of that more extensively but I think... I could ask you to draw it to a conclusion now please. That's good, I'm happy to do that. Paragraph 110 points out that fraud and error can always occur and I have experienced that myself some years ago when a rogue photocopier salesman forged my signature on an agreement to buy a new copier. But the minister in paragraph 111 notes that there is an existing risk and I think that raises the question of how we deal with risk. I suspect that there are parts of the legal profession that want no risk whatsoever but I do not believe that is what we're aiming for. As in other areas of life we want to manage risk and minimise risk but we have to weigh up the practicalities and costs of reducing risk beyond a certain level. I'm afraid you really must close. Therefore I will close. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches and I call on John Scott maximum six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking members for the quality of the debate this afternoon? It's clear that the legal writings bill has achieved cross-party support across the chamber and I'd like to reaffirm that the Scottish Conservatives are supportive of the general principles of this legislation at stage one. There are however three points that I too would like to address and the first point is the potential benefits of the legal writings bill to the business community, legal practitioners and those individuals who seek to use Scots law for transactional purposes. As we have heard in evidence and indeed from the minister, Fergus Ewing and Margaret Mitchell, there is uncertainty in Scots law at present as to whether execution in counterpart is permissible. This is acted as a deterrent for businesses and the legal profession. In addition, parties are often unable to undertake the time-consuming, impractical and costly signing ceremonies which are required currently. Further, it is unclear whether a traditional paper document can be delivered electronically. As a result, in many cases the relevant parties have opted instead to use English or New York law to remove any doubt which has been to the detriment of Scots law. This legislation will help to ensure that those who wish to operate under Scots law can do so by removing many obstacles and constraints. Although we must manage expectations regarding the potential increase in transactions under Scots law that may arise from this legislation, but evidence suggests that measures to put execution in counterpart on a statutory footing will give business and ordinary individuals the confidence to stop exporting contracts to English law and elsewhere that would otherwise be governed by Scots law. That is an extremely positive and welcome development. Turning now to the risk of fraud is raised by others and indeed raised by the faculty of advocates. The faculty commented that execution in counterpart could lead to different parties signing different versions of a document, either knowingly or unknowingly. Furthermore, the faculty expressed concern that parties will be able to exchange signature pages as opposed to counterparts in their entirety. Expanding on those concerns, Robert Howe, QC, explained that if one permits execution by the exchange of back pages of a contract each signed by a particular party plus the front page, it is all too easy for the rogue or fraudster to amend the critical stuff in the middle of the sandwich. Further, the faculty touched on the possibility that such a scenario could potentially lead to an increase in parties coming to court in order to resolve disagreements over the content of the documents. For large transactions where millions of pounds are at stake, the potential for deception should not be ignored. However, along with my colleagues in the committee on balance and based on the evidence that we heard over a number of sessions, it would seem that the potential for fraud and error is no greater than that which already exists under the current system in Scotland and that in jurisdictions where execution by counterpart is commonplace such as England and Wales, incidents of fraud are relatively few. Nevertheless, it is worth well bearing the faculty's concerns in mind as the bill moves through its various stages in Parliament. Lastly, it should be pointed out that the bill does not include the SLC's recommendations that a central electronic repository should be established. However, that was broadly supported by witnesses during their evidence to the DEPLR committee, and we felt that this concept should be explored further, always providing that adequate safeguards could be put in place and that the technology used would be suitable, adaptable and enduring. I therefore welcome the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism's update earlier this month, which indicated that the keeper of the registers of Scotland has expressed interest in exploring the creation of an electronic repository for both the execution and the preservation of documents. I understand that preliminary discussions between the registers of Scotland and the Scottish Government will be set in motion early next year, and we will await the outcome of those discussions with keen interest, particularly in relation to whether new legislation will be required to bring this initiative into effect, given the possibility that it will allow for the execution of documents as well as their preservation. I conclude by reiterating that this is a helpful piece of legislation that will benefit the business community in Scotland, as well as the legal profession and individuals who seek to carry out transactions under Scots law, and that it is very much to be welcomed. Finally, I also thank all those who gave evidence to our committee, and particularly all those who appeared before the committee, particularly the Scottish Law Commission. I would also like to thank our clerks as well, and I look forward to the bill becoming law. As a footnote, I commend Mike McKenzie, who managed to speak for the first four minutes of his speech without referring to the bill at all. Stuart Stevenson, beware, your role as the Parliament's best filibuster may be under threat. I have to say that when I noticed that we were debating this week, I realised that it might not be a widely popular or populated debate, but then I remembered the importance of this because I have been lobbied on the very issue of electronic signatures by constituents who believe that it is very central to their business. To have this amendment made to Scots law, to make it easier for them to conclude contracts, to make it less costly for them to conclude contracts, and to make it easier for them to do business, to get more clients and to contribute to the economy of Scotland. The fact that I have been lobbied on this in my short time in Parliament shows that the bill that we are considering today is very important for our business community and for our economy. Indeed, it was only a couple of weeks ago that I was speaking to a lawyer who was telling me that, despite having struck a deal three weeks ago, he was waiting for the contract to be delivered from Solicitor's Office to the next Solicitor's Office to make sure that all parties to that contract had signed up to the contract appropriately before they were able to actually set the deal in motion. This seems in our fast-moving technological world to be a very slow process, and therefore I would congratulate the minister today on bringing this bill forward very neatly and bringing this process to a quicker conclusion. The issue came up about climate change this afternoon, and I'm very glad to hear that the flights might be cut down on them. I'm sure that Patrick Harvie and the new minister, Eileen McLeod, will also be glad of that and contributing to their climate change targets. I'm not, however, convinced that the amount of paper in legal offices around this country will reduce anyone who has ever been in front of a lawyer at a lawyer's desk and knows the amount of paperwork that they seem to have in their offices. I think that maybe this is a challenge to the legal community as well. Parliament is allowing them to go electronic and so they should. I was also half-hoping this afternoon for a little lecture on Roman law from the minister. I know how learned he is in this matter. As I read the bill and the briefings on it, I was reminded of my interest in the whole concept of delivery in the legal sense and the fact that the Scots legal concept of delivery goes right the way back to find its origins in Roman law. The thing that possession has to be delivered with the intention to make things happen is not simply a matter of handing things over. Therefore, I think that it's very interesting that in 2014 we are debating whether email or facsimile, which we don't even use anymore, constitutes the ancient legal concept of delivery. There was still ambiguity in our law until this bill came forward today. Stuart Stevenson? Just to illustrate how cautious professions can be in 1881, the Bank of Scotland installed its first telephone five years after it was demonstrated, and the board took the decision on condition that the telephone not be used to conduct business. I suspect that some of that attitude is still around in our professions today. I think that that's very true of some things to be binding. It's to definitely be on paper. Maybe the minister will be able to explain the whole ancient concept far better than I can. I think that today's debate has been very useful. Again, it covers the counterparts in contract signing, which I think is very important. It covers delivery in a very modern and up-to-date sense. I think that tackling the barriers of inefficiency for business means that we can enter into contracts, work better together and improve the economic landscape of Scotland. I'm very pleased that the committee is supportive of the general principles of the bill. I also congratulate the committee, the clerks and the convener on taking through this bill. I wonder if some of the questions that were raised during evidence—I wonder if the minister can indicate in his closing remarks this evening—if the Government is likely to bring forward amendments to address those at stage 2. I think that it's a very good piece of legislation, Presiding Officer. I think that it will help business, and I've outlined—I think that we've all outlined—some practical examples of that. I'm very pleased that there's consensus across this chamber, and I thank you for your time. Many thanks, and I now call on Fergus Ewing to wind up the debate minister you have until 5 o'clock. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I cannot recall in 15 years there having been a debate in which there is such a marked absence of any significant controversy. That perhaps is a reflection of the fact that the Scottish Law Commission, headed up by Paul Cullen, Lord Pentland and his staff, did an excellent job prior to that. Prior to the legislation being submitted to this Parliament, but also a tribute to the work of the clerks, both of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Parliament as a whole, Presiding Officer, and the members of the committee convened ably by Nigel Don, who led the debate for the committee. That solid hard work and application has produced, at stage 1, a piece of legislation that appears to lack significant criticisms so far as the conclusion of the committee is concerned. I think I should accept the invitation from Jenny Marra to comment on some of the key questions. She's quite rife in that. Although she's quite wrong at the time in authority in Roman law, my recollection is that, despite the excellent tuition of the learned professors and lecturers at Glasgow University, I only barely scraped a pass at that. It's taken several decades to confess that, but nonetheless better late than never. Many members have asked, do you think that the suggested electronic document repository is helpful? I think that John Scott alluded to this. This is an idea worth exploring. Following my appearance before the committee at stage 1, I wrote to the keeper seeking a general update on a firmer timescale by which she had been positioned to have preliminary discussions. We should take place early next year. Of course, we have the books of counselling session, as members will be aware, in which documents can be registered for preservation and execution, and that is a very useful facility available to Scots lawyers. Views and electronic signatures have been mooted, not least by Stuart Stevenson. I think that the use of those signatures is still in early stages and that market conditions will effectively dictate whether or not more use is made in future. The bill does not restrict growth in this area. The benefits of the bill, it's difficult to be clear whether the benefits will be significant, but most members were, I think, confident that it was a valuable piece of legislation. Jenny Marra said that she'd been lobbied on it. Margaret Mitchell gave some examples, I think, John Mason as well, and plainly there will be circumstances where Scots law can be used as a result of this bill where it presently may not be so used. Secondly, it may now cut down costs on travelling, on meetings and on the time that busy people have to spend. Therefore, I think that it is foreseeable that that's the case. I think that Jenny Marra made reference to Dixon Minto and the evidence from Colin McNeill. Someone else made reference to the evidence from Todd Mitchell. I think that it was fairly clear that it is likely and foreseeable that there will be financial benefits and benefits in time. The area where I think we… Yes, of course I will. I thank the minister for giving way. I was reflecting on this before the debate this afternoon. I wonder if the minister sees if there might be an increase in business done in Scotland as a result of this bill or simply that we'll be able to make existing business a bit easier. I think a bit of both, actually. Yet again, I'm happy to agree entirely with everything that Jenny Marra says. I don't think that I've ever uttered that sentence before in this place. I think that the serious issue, which John Scott quizzed me on quite rightly in the committee, was whether the evidence from the faculty of Advocate signifying that the bill may lead to greater propensity for the risk of fraud or error. Error was the greater likelihood so far as they said. We spent a considerable amount of time with Scottish Government officials who provided some excellent briefing material on this. We concluded that the bill doesn't change the substantive law. Fraud exists. That is because there are criminals in the world. The problem is not unique to execution and counterpart. It has been a practice in England, used for decades, to apparently no ill effect. Clients place their trust in solicitors, which tends to minimise the possibility of these things happening. Professor Rennie made the point that the bill's documents since 1970 have been signed on the last page only. Therefore, for those reasons, I was persuaded, after looking very carefully at the evidence from the faculty of Advocate, that this is not a risk. However, just to pursue approach of Belt and Brace is always a sensible one for ministers to pursue. I am writing. I inform members that I am writing to the faculty of Advocate to ask if, from the light of reading the official report of this debate, they have any further comments to add. I am going to copy my letter to the Lord Advocate and the President of the Law Society to boot. References have been made to some of the lighter contributions in this debate. In the short time available, perhaps I could turn to that. We had from Mr Stevenson not so much a speech but a travelogue, where he took us from Delaware to Norway, throughout the globe, sustained by an improbable diet of overstrength corned beef. He also ensured that Mary Queen of Scots made an unexpected entree into the debate, something that was of sub-tangential relevance, equally equaled only by his reference to Homer Simpson. I certainly will. Would the minister accept that, in Mr Stevenson's contribution, the one obvious and current element that was missing was the contribution of touring to cryptography? I am sure that he will put that right in due course, because we know that Mr Stevenson is a sort of human equivalent to Google or Wikipedia. The difference being that, whilst we ask Google or Wikipedia for information, Mr Stevenson just provides it whether we want it or not. Mr McKenzie. Well, okay, yes, why not, Mr Findlay? No, Findlay. The only difference is that, occasionally, Wikipedia is correct. Well, I'm not sure if everybody would agree. I mean, Mr Murphy, I don't know what this debate is fairly laughning up, Presiding Officer. Mr McKenzie did really regale us with a terrific speech, which he himself admitted was wholly irrelevant. He stood up for the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and, of course, his predecessor was the subordinate legislation committee, and I volunteered for that in 1999. And so boring were my contributions that one of the members of the committee actually resigned from this Parliament to get away from me, and the clerk left to further employment elsewhere. You've got 20 seconds, minister. That's a good conclusion. Could I say it was Donald Dure who said that, prior to devolution, that Scotland was at that time the only country in the world which had our own legal system but which lacked a legislature, we're indebted to this Parliament, to the work that everybody has done, to reform our law, where hitherto, prior to the reconvening of this Parliament, that was something that we could not do for ourselves. Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on stage 1 of the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland Bill. We now move to the next item of business. There is only one question to be put as a result of today's business, and the question is that motion number 11664, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the legal writings, counterpart and delivery Scotland Bill, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly. Quietly.