 Siwetar wrth ymateb yn ysgolwlltyd diinsig iawn i gynnwys. Fania Continue yn dechrau ar gyfer, ond hyn yn ddefnyddio'r iawn. A fawr, mae'n gwaith Tomorrow. Fawr, mae'n gweldi'r iawn, ac mae'n gweldi'r iawn gyda'r iawn gyda'r iawn gyda'r iawn. Mae fy mwybodaeth emôr i dien nhw i'r cyffredinol iawn i gyd yn dweud o fain i gyng 2011! Mae'r iawn ei gwybod, a'r iawn yn dweud o byddiad hynny i gyd yn wedi gweldio i gyd. will be suspended for five minutes for the first division on proceedings this afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds, thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshal list of amendments and I call group 1 and I call amendment 3 in the name of Margaret MacDougall group to amendments 4 to 14. Margaret MacDougall to move amendment 3 and speak to all amendments in the group please. Thank you Presiding Officer and I have got the wrong papers in front of me. Sorry about that. I rise to speak to amendments 3 to 14 in my name. Currently the bill before us only covers the sharing of photographic images and film. My amendments 3 to 14, supported by Scottish Women's Aid and others, seek to broaden the definition to include photographic images or film of an intimate situation, sound recordings containing intimate content or any intimate written communication. The purpose of amendment 5 is to tackle a loophole present within the bill when it comes to sharing screenshots of intimate text-based conversations or the sharing of intimate audio or text conversations on the social media, the internet or by any other means. As Scottish Women's Aid stated in evidence, by specifying photographs and films this excludes the sharing of private and intimate written and audio communications. The exposure or the threat of sharing these 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 is also supported by Police Scotland, who said in evidence that the offence should take cognisance of all forms of communication and distribution. The sharing of an intimate image on Facebook without consent would under this bill be a prosecutable offence. However, if someone was to share an intimate conversation, a screenshot of an intimate conversation or intimate audio conversation, that would not be covered, even if a non-intimate picture of the victim was attached to identifying them. The sharing of this type of content could have the same effect as sharing intimate images without consent. It could cause just as much fear, alarm and distress to the victim and would be designed to do so. Looking online, I found numerous examples of this, especially in abusive relationships, where the threat of sharing this kind of content was used to control the victim. Amendment 3 is a technical amendment that updates the bill to reflect expanding the definition to accommodate amendment 5. Amendment 4 and 6, through to 11, are all technical amendments that replace references to photographic and film throughout the bill to item. What we mean by item is defined in amendment 5. Amendments 12 and 13 are further technical amendments, which add a reference to the new subsection 1a, which was created by amendment 5. Finally, amendment 14 clarifies what we mean by intimate in terms of conversation, messages or communications. It needs to include references to an act that is considered sexual or content when taken as a whole is considered to be a sexual nature. Further to this, the content must not have been expected to be distributed or that there was an understanding that it would have been kept private. My amendments ensure that we criminalise the process when the intent is clear that the action of sharing photographs, film, written and oral communication was designed to cause harm or be malicious. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I support my colleague Margaret MacDougall with the set of amendments. I believe that there is a gap that needs to be plugged. Margaret MacDougall has narrated the Scottish Women's Aid position on this and about what is important, namely, letters, text, messages, emails and voice recordings. I agree with Scottish Women's Aid. I do not accept the position laid out in the policy memorandum that it would be difficult to define and interpret. Strangely, there would be a risk of unintended consequences in terms of interference with freedom of speech. At stage 2, the Opponents of those amendments made much reference to the Communication Act 2003, with my colleague Rod Campbell highlighting it nonetheless. It still provides a punishment. He added that, for that reason, he did not accept the amendment. Similarly, the Cabinet Secretary has made much reference to that legislation, because that legislation is conducted under summary rather than solemn procedure and therefore places limits on the disposals. There is also a specific time limit in bringing a prosecution under section 127, which would not apply if those amendments were to go through. It is important to note who supports those amendments. Scottish Women's Aid supports them, Victim supports them, Scotland supports them and Police Scotland supports them. We will have to return to that at some future date. I do not believe that this legislation is future-proof. I believe that the activities that we address are about cumulation and control, and I urge members to support Margaret MacDougall's amendments. I do not support Margaret MacDougall's amendments, I do not support them at stage 2, and I do not believe that she has actually made the case. I think that there is a danger of drawing the offence too widely, and I think that we need to take a very cautious approach in this new legislation. No call on Roderick Campbell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Sorry for my late pressing of the button. I just wanted to say that, as far as future-proofing goes, I would like to think that the impact of this legislation will be kept under review, and if necessary, consideration will be given to extending it. For the moment, I agree with my colleague Alison McInnes. I need to take the cautious view. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 3-14 would expand the scope of the intimate images offence at section 2 to cover the intimate sound, recordings and intimate written communications. As I set out in the Scottish Government's response to the Justice Committee stage 1 report, and as I explained during stage 2, when these amendments were debated, we have taken a decision to focus the offence on the sharing of intimate images as almost all the cases that we are aware of have involved the sharing of images. Unfortunately, we are all too aware that there are websites set up specifically to enable people to post intimate photographs or films of their partners or ex-partners. I am not aware of similar websites where people post voice messages or emails written by or to their partner or ex-partner. The sharing of intimate images that may enable a complete stranger to identify the victim is, in our view, a betrayal of trust and breach of privacy, which is especially likely to cause distress. That is, of course, part of the justification for the new offence. It is worth remembering that it will remain possible for prosecutors to use existing laws in relation to the sharing of written or recorded material by using, for example, the Communications Act 2003 offence or the offence of threatening or abusive behaviour in appropriate cases. The committee stage 1 report noted that a majority of the committee supported restricting the scope of the offence to photographs and films and that the committee was mindful of the risk of unintended consequences if the bill takes too wide an approach in this area. With regard to the question of unintended consequences, we note that those amendments apply not only to intimate recordings written or spoken by the victim but also those directed to or left for the victim. As I explained at stage 2, it would seem to us that one perverse effect of this is that a person could face criminal liability for publishing or disclosing a communication that they themselves had written or an email message they had left. It may be helpful if I give a practical example of the kind of unintended consequences that could result from those amendments. We think that those amendments would criminalise behaviour in the following circumstances. To 13-year-olds exchange text messages about a celebrity. During the exchange, one of the teenagers indicates that they fancy the celebrity and would like to have sexual relationships with them. The other teenager decides to share that text message with other people in their class. In that situation, a communication has taken place that a reasonable person could consider to be sexual in nature and a reasonable person would expect to be kept private. The teenager who has shared the text has committed a criminal offence if it can be shown that they were reckless about whether sharing the message would cause the other person fear, alarm or distress. Although it would probably be embarrassing and potentially distressing for the person whose message has been shared, our view is that the teenager who has shared the message should not be committing an offence in those circumstances. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary giving way. Cabinet secretary, you must have more faith in the Crown Office procreator, fiscal service and indeed the reporter system. It is a question of proportionality. That is precisely the point that I am making. It is the danger with those particular amendments in terms of how they could be interpreted, which is why we do not believe that the amendments proposed by Margaret MacDougall are an appropriate way to go about criminalising this type of behaviour. More generally, although it is hard to envisage circumstances in which someone would have legitimate reason to share intimate photographs or films of their partner or ex-partner with a third party without their consent, we think that it is easier to imagine circumstances in which they might wish to share a written message or voice message with a friend. A person may, for example, be confused or even fearful as a result of what they might consider to be the disturbing sexual content of a message sent to them by a friend or wish to seek advice about what to do about it. They could be criminally liable if those amendments are agreed. As I said to the Justice Committee at stage 2, we are happy to monitor this issue as the offence is implemented to assess whether there is a need to reconsider the scope of the offence in the future. However, we consider the focus of the offence contained in the bill should be on images and photographs only, and therefore we oppose amendments 3 to 14 in the name of Margaret MacDougall. I thank John Finnie for his support with my amendments. I know that the sending of abusive messages is a criminal offence. The same does not always apply to the sharing of intimate material. My amendments ensure that the sharing of any intimate material without permission are all covered under one bill. As I said during the stage 2 debate, the current offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is not an appropriate offence for dealing with this type of behaviour. As first, it sets a very high threshold of the content of the message or other matter being grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. Furthermore, as John Finnie has already pointed out, the offence can only be tried under summary, not solemn procedure, and as such offers less protection to victims who have had intimate audio or text conversations shared about them if you can even get a conviction. With advances in technology making it easier to distribute information with or without consent, it is vital that the law keeps up to ensure that those who wish to cause harm are dealt with appropriately and consistently by the justice system. I am not looking to criminalise the process of sexting nor do I wish to see under 16-year-olds who may have shared content of a sexual nature accidentally or without thinking through the consequences to be criminalised. However, in cases such as this, common sense should be applied. Of course, we should be educating under 16-year-olds regarding the danger of using private communications without consent. I believe that in cases where this relates to those under 16 it would be dealt with by the children's panel. Tom Bailey, the children's commissioner, said in evidence that children should not be exempt but did say that there should be a robust education programme for this legislation. The cabinet secretary used the same example that he did today at stage 2 of the two teenagers fantasising about having sex with a celebrity. This is not what this is about. It is about people who have been in a relationship and the relationship has broken down and one of the partners is threatening to use or distribute intimate photographs, film or audio communication to cause harm to the ex-partner. I move the amendment to my name. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. This will be a one. There will be a five-minute suspension. No. There will be a five-minute suspension. I need to catch up. Thank you. We are not. Please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment 3 is yes. 34. No. 71. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 4 in the name of Margaret MacDougall. I'll ready to debate with amendment 3. Is MacDougall to move or not? No. Thank you. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment 4 is yes. 34. No. 68. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 5 in the name of Margaret MacDougall. Margaret MacDougall to move or not? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not. There will therefore be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote and amendment 5 is yes. 34. No. 69. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 6 in the name of Margaret MacDougall. Margaret MacDougall to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. I now call amendment 7 in the name of Margaret MacDougall. Margaret MacDougall to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. 8. Mae oedd-dwygol dockf Order-mè desde i gael, oedd-dwygol dockf Order-pèside SDF? N case… 9. Mae oedd-dwygol dockf Order-mè desde i gael, oedd-dwygol dockf Order-pheus Gesheith 10. Mae oedd-dwygol dockf Order-pheus ? 11. Mae oedd-dwygol dockf Order-p Favorive to ride, oedd-dwygol dockf Order-p Hariип Posgiao 12. Mae oedd-dwygol dockf Order-pheus o'r ddiddordeb o bobl ddigol oedd o'r ddiddordeb o'r ddiddordeb? Mae ddiddordeb o'r ddiddordeb, ac rwy'n fyddwch i'ch gweithio wneud i 2 ymrwy oeud i amgylchedd gwaith 19 jwrthwyff erioed yn ddiddordeb o gweithio awrach o'r yr holl cantol yn ddiddordeb os maen nhw I-29 yma. Mael sorryd mwnghwylol i tawr i I-29 eithaf yr argyflant ydw i cirgyndiadau yn rylech four that I submitted at stage two but did not press on agreement to discuss its intention further with the cabinet secretary and his officials. I am grateful for their assistance in drafting this improved version and also for their investigation into some of the wider issues that cannot be addressed in this bill but, hopefully, will be pursued in the next session of Parliament. Professors Erica Rackley and Claire McGlynn of Birmingham and Durham universities, respectively, submitted written evidence to the committee. They welcomed the creation of a new offence criminalising the disclosure of an intimate film or photograph without the consent of the subject. They were concerned, however, about the disclosure of sexual images taken without consent in a public place, such as those obtained by the objectionable practices of upskirting downblowsing. Upskirting the taking of photographs of genitals, buttocks or underwear in a public place without the consent of the individual is covered by section 94B of the Sexual Offences Scotland Act 2009. Indeed, only a couple of weeks ago, a case was taken in Dumfries Sheriff Court on this very issue. However, there is no legislation which covers the distribution of such images. Unfortunately, those images appear on websites created for that purpose. In May 2015, one such site was exposed by the mail on Sunday. It was estimated to be receiving 70,000 views a day and to be valued at £130 million. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary's officials for the work that they have done between stages 2 and 3 that they investigated whether the distribution could be included in the scope of the bill, including seeking the views of the Lord Advocate. Unfortunately, there has not been time in this session to draft robust amendments to that effect. The cabinet secretary agrees that that should be revisited in the next session of Parliament, when I hope that further legislation on coercive control and sexual exploitation will be considered. However, it has been possible to address circumstances when intimate photographs are taken in a public place of someone who has been subjected to an act by another individual. If the amendment is passed, the defence will not apply when it is subject of an intimate film or photograph as a result of a deliberate act by another person to whom they did not agree. Victims would be protected from the sharing of such images by the perpetrator, as the public place defence would not be available. The person who took images would be committing an offence if they shared them, although it does not cover further distribution of such images beyond the taker of the photograph. Someone who took a photograph of a victim who, for example, had been stripped or was being sexually assaulted would commit an offence if it was distributed, but someone who took a photograph of a streaker or a naked rambler and shared it would be able to use the public place defence. I am not a lawyer, but I think that the amendment would also apply to people taking up skirting images and subsequently distributing them, because the upskirting image would be an offence under the sexual offences act, but the distribution of that image would then become an offence under the amended act. I think that we are going somewhere towards where we want to be in achieving that policy and tension. As I said, I am grateful to the minister's officials for their assistance in drafting the amendment. I have concerns about the definition of a public place and just how the distribution without consent of a consensual image is taken in a situation, for example, behind the bike sheds. Is that covered? I do not think that it would be the member's intention that that would be covered in the public place definition. Perhaps I have misunderstood her, but that would be a grave concern for me if that was the consequence of the amendment being passed. Amendment 29, in the name of Elaine Money, seeks to close a potential loophole in how one of the defences in the intimate images offence operates. We are happy to support the amendment. The defences section 25 of the bill currently operates so that, where the image or film shared was taken in a public place, where members of the public were present, there is a defence that means that the accused will not be convicted. That is to avoid a situation where someone shares without consent a film or image of a person, for example, streaking at a sporting event and a criminal complaint is made to the police. In that situation, we do not think that a criminal offence should have been committed by sharing of such an image or photo. The effect of amendment 29 is that this public place defence is not available where a person was in an intimate situation as a result of a deliberate act of another person to which they did not agree. The public place defence would not be available where a person distributes an image showing, for example, a subject of a photograph or film that has been stripped against their will or sexually assaulted in a public place. The amendment will close the loophole in how the defence was previously crafted. I thank Elaine Murray for bringing the amendment forward and we urge the Parliament to support it. I now call on Dr Elaine Murray to wind up and press her with draw your amendment, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, just to ask Margaret Mitchell, answer Margaret Mitchell's point. I think that the cabinet secretary made it clear in his contribution that a public place is where members of the public are present. Therefore, I do not think that, unless it was a very strange sexual practice that was going on, I know that there are some of that nature. However, it is unlikely that somebody around the back of the bike sheds would have members of the public present and therefore would not really be covered by this particular amendment. I intend to press the amendment. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, we are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. Result of the vote and amendment 29 is yes, 96, no, 0. There were 12 abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 13, in the name of Margaret McDougall, already debated with amendment 3 to move or not. Not moved. Thank you. I now call amendment 14, in the name of Margaret McDougall, to move or not. Not moved. Thank you very much. We now move to group 3. I call amendment 30, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, in a group of its own. It is essential to move and speak to amendment 30, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officers. Members will know that this is the third bill in which I sought to address the issue of medical records, including psychiatric and psychological records being released in sexual offence cases where the complainer, if he had the ability to employ legal representation, would object to their inappropriate release. The stumbling block for rape victims and other sexual assault victims has been the lack of available legal aid to pay for the representation at a pre-trial hearing. When the release of medical records and medical history is sought merely in an attempt to discredit the victim in court, I am therefore delighted that Lord Glennie's recent judicial review petition of WF against Scottish ministers and interveners, Rape Crisis Scotland, found that denying a complainer, in this case, a domestic abuse victim, legal aid in order to oppose the release of her medical records was contrary to the duty imposed on the Scottish ministers in terms of the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014. Section 1 of the 2014 act states that a victim or witness should be able to participate effectively in the investigation and proceedings. The cabinet secretary, in his encouraging response to the verdict at stage 2, stated that the Scottish Government will not appeal the decision. It is an important judgment and clarifies a number of issues that will lead to significant changes in procedure in cases where an application is made to cover sensitive information. This to the legal aid system required to be made for cases of this nature and plans that are being developed to deliver the necessary changes. In the meantime, I have put in place interim arrangements that will allow the Scottish legal aid board to provide legal aid in future similar cases. Importantly, a means test will not be applied in this interim arrangement. Legal aid in the form of assistance by way of representation will be available in appropriate circumstances for individuals whose sensitive records are being sought. I also note that the cabinet secretary stated that we think that the inherent flexibility of rules of court in comparison with primary legislation is what is required. However, in order for the Scottish Parliament not to lose sight of this issue following the dissolution of Parliament and the election in May and, crucially, for the ruling to be fully effective, complainers need to be aware of A, their right to object to the release of those records and B, crucially, that legal aid will now be available for them to have legal representation. Amendment 30 therefore seeks to place a duty on the Scottish Government to, as it considers appropriate, raise public awareness in relation to the rights of complainers in rape and sexual assault cases as a result of Lord Glenny's verdict. I have deliberately not specified the timing or nature of the campaign that the Government should undertake in the hope that this amendment will gain cross-party support today. Here I thank Alison Le Guinness for her support for this amendment and the whole issue of unjustifiable release of medical, et cetera, records. I move the amendment in my name. No phone, Dr Lynn Murray. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise to support the amendment in Margaret Mitchell's name and also to congratulate her on her tenacity in bringing forward this issue through a number of bills and in the form of a number of different amendments to try to address the issue of complainers whose medical records, whose sensitive records are sought by the Defence Council. I think that this is an appropriate bill for this amendment to be placed in and I think also that some of the issues around apparently legal representation within the court have been tackled. Actually, all that it's really doing is actually asking the Scottish ministers to ensure that complainers are aware of their rights and to implement that recent court decision. We will therefore be supporting that. I pay tribute to Margaret Mitchell's persistence on this matter. She has been rewarded at last on it. The recent judicial review has vindicated a position taken by both Margaret Mitchell and myself on the issue of representation at the stage of recovery of documents. I was pleased that the cabinet secretary set out clearly at committee and in answers to myself the Government's acceptance that they had been wrong in law in refusing legal aid in such circumstances. Injustice has been addressed. Margaret Mitchell's amendment 30 rightly addresses the need to raise awareness of this change of approach. It's a very modest amendment. It's not onerous on the Government, but it could make a dramatic difference to the protection of victims of sex offences. Sadly, we know that too often of attempts by the defence discredit witnesses by accessing medical records can have devastating results. I do hope that the cabinet secretary will be able to support this amendment. Amendment 30 raises an important issue. I want to explain clearly the Scottish Government's position and the wider context in which amendment 30 sits. As I said, it made clear at stage 2 that the Scottish Government welcomes the recent judgment by Lord Glenny in the WF case. That judgment was an important judgment and clarifies a number of issues that will lead to significant changes in procedure in cases where an application is made to recover sensitive information in criminal cases. The judgment is wide-ranging in that it relates to all sensitive information that may be disclosed in any criminal proceedings. It is not restricted to sexual offences and it is not restricted to medical records. It is not restricted to complainers. What Lord Glenny confirmed was that where someone's sensitive records are being considered for disclosure in criminal proceedings, including but not only where that was the complainer, rights exist to help safeguard the privacy of any person whose records may be disclosed. Those important rights that Lord Glenny made clear exist are a right to be intimated that disclosure of sensitive records was being considered, the right to be heard in proceedings considering whether disclosure was appropriate, including a right to be represented at those proceedings and where necessary to give effect to those rights, access to legal aid, taking account of the individual's circumstances. Lord Glenny was clear that courts already had the ability to self-regulate their own procedures and courts must ensure that those important rights are protected. For the future, Lord Glenny recommended rules of court were developed to cover procedures in this area. Separate from the rules of court, I acted swiftly following the judgment to put in place interim arrangements to allow the Scottish legal aid board to provide legal aid in the future where those rights were engaged. Importantly, a means test will not apply in this interim arrangement. Legal aid in the form of assistance by way of representation will be available in appropriate circumstances for individuals whose sensitive records are being sought. Turning now to the detail of amendment 30, it would require the Scottish ministers to raise awareness of the rights that Lord Glenny has confirmed exist. However, it would do so for only a limited number of cases and only for certain types of sensitive records rather than for all cases where sensitive records are being considered for disclosure. Amendment 30 does not cover the whole gambit of cases and people where those rights exist. Indeed, the amendment does not even cover the type of case WF was involved in, namely a domestic abuse case. There are also some drafting issues with amendment 30, including the placement of such provisions in section 301A of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, which is an existing provision for a different purpose from what the amendment seeks to do. That itself could create confusion. Notwithstanding the technical issues, we are happy to accept the spirit of what lies behind the amendment. It is important for people whose privacy rights may be breached to know what rights they have in that situation. Lord Glenny's judgment has already received considerable publicity and parliamentary debate, such as this can only help to raise further awareness. In addition, the Scottish Government will be contacting key third sector stakeholders who do such valuable work with sexual offence victims and domestic abuse victims to ensure that they are aware of those rights so that they can help to raise awareness with the people that they are helping. In addition, we are also updating relevant Scottish Government webpages and social media to ensure that wide dissemination of details of the judgment and the rights that Lord Glenny has confirmed exist. At stage 2, a similar amendment was lodged relating to publicity for the intimate images offence. Members were content not to accept the amendment for two main reasons. Firstly, on the basis of the commitment that I gave that publicity efforts would be undertaken, and secondly, because legislation is not necessary for the Scottish Government to raise awareness about matters within its remit. In fact, the statute book would become very crowded and cluttered if we had provisions about awareness raising in relation to every policy or set of rights that exist in law. As I have indicated, the Scottish Government is happy to undertake work to ensure that awareness is raised of Lord Glenny's judgment. As far as the reasons that I have provided, the Scottish Government will be opposing amendment 30, and I would ask members to do so for the very reasons that I have outlined here this afternoon. I thank the Margaret Mitchell to wind up and press a withdrawal of your amendment, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The terms of the amendment were left deliberately vague to give the Scottish Government the maximum flexibility to formulate any campaign that it wanted to cover its reasons-warning issue. While it is disappointing that the Government has been unable to agree to the amendment, I am gratified and heartened that at least the Cabinet Secretary has said that he will try to publicise the fact that legal aid is now available and that he will contact groups where there are individuals who would benefit from the provision. I hope also that, by tabling the amendment today, that in itself will help to raise awareness that legal aid is available to these vulnerable individuals to oppose the inappropriate release of their medical records and psychological and psychiatric physiological records being sought in order to discredit them in court. I hope also that the press may pick up on this to inform victims about their rights. For all of these reasons, I will still press the amendment. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. The result of the vote on amendment 30 is, yes, 49, no, 58. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now move to group 4. I recall amendment 15, the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendments 16 to 27. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 15 in respect to all the amendments in the group, please. Chapter 3 to 6 of part 2 of the bill replaces the existing suite of orders used to protect our communities from those who pose a risk of sexual offending. In its place, the bill establishes two new forms of order, the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order and makes provisions about the enforcement of older orders and equivalent orders made elsewhere in the UK. The amendments in this group are all minor amendments of those particular provisions. Amendment 15 deals with what happens to existing sexual offender notification requirements under the sexual offences act 2003, when a sexual harm prevention order is made. The making of such an order has the effect of keeping alive any notification requirements that would otherwise expire. In the bill, as introduced, it was not clear how long the notification requirement would continue in place. The amendment clarifies that it will be until the expiry of the order. Amendment 27 deals with a similar issue in terms of what happens to existing sexual offender notification requirements under the sexual offences act 2003, when a person breaches an order granted in another part of the UK, which is equivalent to the sexual risk order or interim sexual risk order. Breaches of any of those orders has the effect of keeping alive any notification requirements that would otherwise expire. In the bill, as introduced, it was not clear how long the notification requirement would continue in place. Amendment 27 clarifies that it will be until the expiry of the order. Amendment 16, 17 and 18 adjusts the provisions relating to the requirement to hold a hearing or invite written representations in respect of applications for variation, renewal and discharge of sexual harm prevention orders to take account of the fact that the High Court of Judiciary, not just to sheriff, may vary when you or discharge an order. That is because currently section 19, 7 and 8 are too narrowly drafted in referring to the sheriff only. Amendment 20, 21 and 23 adjusts provisions in the bill that deal with the appeals processes in relation to sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders respectively. The amendments provide that where an appeal results in an order being granted by the appeal court, any subsequent variation, renewal or discharge of that order should be considered by the sheriff court. That could be an issue if, for example, a condition containing within the order needs to reflect a change of the person's accommodation, family life or employment. Those amendments will ensure that application of variation, renewal and discharge of orders, whether granted at first instance or appeal, is considered by the first instance court. Section 31A of the bill requires the clerk of the court to serve a copy of the sexual risk order on the subject of the order. Amendments 24, 25 and 26 make minor changes to those provisions by replacing the term sheriff with the wider term court, to take account of the fact that in appeal cases orders may be granted by courts other than the sheriff court. Amendments 19 and 22 relate to interim sexual harm prevention orders and interim sexual risk orders respectively. Currently, section 27B and section 37B of the bill anticipate that an application for those interim orders may be made by separate applications, from an application for a full sexual harm prevention order and a full sexual risk order. Upon reflection, we consider that it is unduly restrictive. Instead, we consider that it is more appropriate for the criminal court rule council and the Scottish Civil Justice Council to frame the necessary rules surrounding how applications for an interim sexual harm prevention order and an interim sexual risk order should be made where an application for a full order of either type of order has already been made. I move amendment 15. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now call amendment 16 to 27, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendment 16 to 27 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 16 to 27? As no member does, the question is that amendments 16 to 27 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now move to group 5. I even call amendment 28 in the name of the cabinet secretary, in a group on its own. Cabinet secretary, to move and speak to amendment 28, please. Schedule 1 makes special provision in relation to the application of intimate images offence to providers of information society services. Amendment 28 is a technical amendment removing the definition of certain terms from paragraph 4 of schedule 1. As a result of amendments made to paragraph 3 of that schedule at stage 2, amendment 28 is necessary to reflect the fact that those terms are no longer used in the schedule. I now move amendment 28. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. That ends consideration of amendments for this day and indeed for this session. I now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15994, in the name of Michael Matheson on the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill. Members are wish to speak in the debate, please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on the cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, to speak to and move the motion, please. Cabinet secretary, of 13 minutes or thereby, please. I begin this formal stage 3 debate by thanking the members and clerks of the Justice Committee, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their careful consideration of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill. I would also like to thank the external stakeholders who have taken the time to engage in the bill process and have shared their knowledge and views during the scrutiny process on the various issues that the bill deals with. It is fitting that the final piece of legislation to be dealt with by this chamber in this parliamentary session relates to abusive behaviour and sexual harm. There are few more important issues for this Parliament to deal with than taking the necessary, important and far-reaching steps to improve how our justice system can respond to such distasteful behaviour as domestic abuse and sexual offending. The bill contains provisions in six areas. The provisions introduced statutory jury directions have probably been the most debated and it is worth spending some time to explain why we consider they are so important. You know that some members of the public who make up the juries who decide sexual offences cases hold preconceived and at times ill-founded beliefs about how sexual offences are committed. Those unenlightened views concern the way in which someone who is sexual assaulted or raped will likely react when the offence is being committed and afterwards. Some people quite wrongly assume that anyone committing a sexual offence will always have to use physical force to overcome their victim. Some people think that a victim would always try to physically resist their attacker. Some people think that a victim will always make an immediate report to the police after an offence has been committed against them. No one seriously doubts that some people within our society hold those views. It is not that the people who hold those views necessarily hold them as a result of malice or ill will towards victims of sexual assault. It may simply be that such views are held through a lack of understanding as to what the research has told us about the reaction of victims to sexual assault both during the assault and in the aftermath. We know from extensive research that the reality of what can be expected from a victim to a sexual offence is quite different from those unenlightened views. We know that there is no standard type of reaction with people reacting in many different and normal ways. Dwellers who start from the premise of having preconceptions about how sexual offences are committed and how a victim may react may assume, without considering the specific evidence that a delay is a delay in reporting the absence of the use of physical force by the attacker or physical resistance on the part of the victim is an indication that an allegation is false. The intent behind those statutory jury directions is to ensure that the focus of the jury is on the evidence laid before them and that any misconceptions that jurors hold about how people react to sexual crime should play no part in how evidence in a case is considered. At stage 2, comments where—of course, I'll give way to the member. I'm grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Does he agree that the use of expert witnesses would serve the purpose of dealing with these misconceptions in a very effective way, just as effective as statutory jury directions? That was a point that was raised at stage 1 and at stage 2. I will come on to that in my speech, because it was an issue that was identified by the Crown, but I recognise that it is a valid point that has been raised by the member and by Christine Grahame, the convener of the committee. At stage 2, comments were made that providing statutory jury directions would somehow threaten the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. I find it hard to reconcile such comments with the fact that other jurisdictions have already legislated in this area without interfering with judicial independence. In addition, the provisions in the bill are deliberately framed so as to ensure continuing judicial discretion in any case as to whether it is necessary to use the directions. That means that they are not required to be given when they are not relevant to a given case. I will give way to the member. Christine Grahame Would you however concede that the Lord President and Sheriff Gordon Liddle, the chair of the Association of Sheriffs, had very serious views that this was a constitutional crossover that should not take place? That was the breach of the constitutional differences and distinctions between the legislature and those who put it into action? I recognise that they raised some concerns regarding those particular provisions, but I do not recall them saying that they would not take them forward if the Parliament was minded to make provision within the legislation to do so. If I recall correctly, the evidence that they submitted was that if the Parliament was minded to do so, they would obviously have to consider how that would be taken forward. In Scotland, judges are already required by case law to give jury directions on relevant law and on certain evidential matters. For example, in dealing with expert evidence or identification evidence, common law on jury directions has developed incrementally by way of appeal court cases challenging child judges' directions or the lack of relevant directions. The reason why we have included in the bill statutory jury directions is because we have taken the view that the courts have not been sufficiently innovative in this area and it is necessary for statute law to intervene to deal with such an important matter. There are many precedents for Parliament moving into areas of law that have until then been entirely based on the common law. For example, the sexual offences Scotland Act 2009 restates and codifies the common law of sexual offences. Similarly, the law of evidence is largely common law but it is supplemented by statutory provision in the criminal procedures Scotland Act 1995. Let us remember that the provisions contained in the bill do not attempt to prescribe the form that such a direction must take and that they give the judge the freedom to tailor any direction to fit the facts and circumstances of that particular case. The bill also provides that where such a direction is clearly inappropriate. For example, in a case where the alleged victim could not have reported the offence at the time it happened because they were in a coma or because the alleged victim was a very young child, there is no requirement for the direction to be given. Nothing in the bill affects the ability of expert evidence to be led in a given case. The Crown Office has already indicated during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill that it will continue to use expert evidence as they consider appropriate in relevant cases. We are pleased that the Justice Committee supported the attention of duradirection provisions in the bill at stage 2, as we consider they will help to make a real difference in helping to ensure that jurors only consider the evidence laid before them in sexual offences cases without allowing any preconceived or ill-founded views to cloud their judgment. We are pleased that the broad support for the intimate images offence within the bill will help to ensure that perpetrators and victims understand what is against the law and help to improve how victims can access justice. We have heard arguments for extending the offence to cover non-consensual disclosure of intimate written and recorded sound communications such as text, email, letters and voicemail messages. It has also been suggested that the offence should be extended to cover the distribution of voyeuristic images taken in public places. We have some sympathy with the intent behind those particular suggestions. We know that there are a myriad of ways in which a person can seek to abuse or control someone, especially a partner or an ex-partner. However, the offence was developed to deal with the problem of people. Usually, partners or ex-partners share images that are likely to have been taken with consent, either with the intention of causing that person fear, alarm or distress or else reckless as to whether they would have that effect. As I outlined earlier, extending it to cover written communications or voyeuristic photographs taken in public could risk unintended consequences. We consider that it would be difficult to amend the offence to cover written and sound communications and put in place appropriate defences without inadvertently providing a loophole for people distributing intimate images. As with all legislation, there may be issues that a future Parliament will wish to revisit in due course. The scope of the offence may be one such issue, but we believe that the offence contained in the bill strikes the appropriate balance at this time and will help our justice system to deal with such behaviour. The bill also introduces a new domestic abuse aggravator, helping to improve the recording of such crimes and ensuring courts to take the domestic abuse circumstances of an offence into account when deciding an appropriate sentence. The bill strengthens protections for victims of harassment in cases where the person who harasses them is unfit to stand trial or lacked capacity to commit an offence because of a mental disorder. It gives our courts new pillars to hold perpetrators of child sexual abuse to account for offences committed elsewhere in the UK, extending extra-territorial jurisdiction to apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland just as it already does in the rest of the world. The bill modernises and reforms the pillars of our courts in relation to orders available to help protect our communities from those who pose a risk of sexual offending. Those reforms will streamline the operation of the powers that courts already have in this area, as well as expand the ability of our courts to impose orders to protect our communities in Scotland. The bill makes a number of important reforms to address specific issues, to improve the way our justice system responds to abusive behaviour and to sexual crime. I move that the Parliament agrees that the abusive behaviour and sexual harm of the Scotland bill be passed. I am honoured to open the stage 3 debate for Scottish Labour on the last bill to be considered in the fourth session of the Scottish Parliament. I thank the clerks, the witnesses who wrote to or attended the committee for their contributions to our deliberations, not just on this bill but over this session. I joined the justice committee in 2013, but I understand from the committee's legacy report that, since May 2011, the committee has considered 13 Government bills and four members' bills, a considerable burden of work not just for committee members but for the clerks and the legislation team who have helped with our amendments. I also thank the committee convener Christine Grahame and fellow members of the committee. It has been an interesting and informative committee to be a member of, but it has also often been quite a lot of fun, which maybe seems rather unlikely. The committees of this Parliament have attracted some negative comments in the press recently for not holding the Government to account. Now I do not consider this to be a fair criticism of the justice committee, which I believe has continued to effectively scrutinise legislation. The composition of the committee does not give the Government a majority, and the convener is capable, as ministers know, of independent opinion. I thank the cabinet secretary and the minister for community safety who is sitting beside him for being prepared to work with the committee and to work with Opposition members on amendments. Again, not just on this bill but in other bills, which we have considered as well. To return to this bill, it is pleasant to conclude this session on a consensual note, given that we will all be fighting like cats and dogs for the next six weeks. The bill has been generally welcomed despite the division of opinion over the provisions on judicial directions. Scottish Labour would have liked the forms of communications covered in the offence of distribution of intimate photographs and films to have been extended, as my colleague Margaret MacDougall argued when moving her amendments. We also hope that the matter of the distribution of sexual images taken without consent in public places on unsavory websites might be able to be addressed further, but we can understand why it has not been possible on this bill, and we look forward to further discussion on that matter. Scottish Labour members are pleased that the amendment in my name agreed today will mean that anyone who takes a photograph in a public place of a person deliberately placed in an intimate situation without their consent and distributes it will not be able to use the fact that it was a public place as a defence. I thank the cabinet secretary for agreeing to have his officials look into these issues, and while not being able to achieve everything that we would have liked to have done, we have been able to make progress. We are very supportive of the provisions on judicial directions, believing that that might help to achieve justice for rape victims and other victims of sexual offences. Where the complainer at a trial did not tell or delayed telling another person or the police about the offence or where the evidence is led on the absence of physical resistance, the judge must now advise the jury that there can be good reasons for the complainer's behaviour and it does not discredit their evidence. Amendments to removed judicial directions were submitted at stage 2, which we opposed, and I note that similar amendments were submitted but not selected for debate today. Duries are made up of members of the public, and research demonstrates that members of the public often have misconceptions about how the victims of rape ought to behave, believing, for example, that physical resistance will always be given or that a victim will always immediately report rape to the police. That is not the case. Victims of sexual attacks may belay themselves, may indeed hold themselves to be in part responsible. In fact, very often women who are affected by unwanted sexual advances or sexual attacks actually think that they have done something to ask for it. That is quite common. People feel ashamed and they feel partially responsible. They may feel far too ashamed to come forward straight away. Indeed, victims can be far too shocked or scared about what else could happen to them to offer any sort of physical resistance, because who knows what else could end up being murdered as well as attacked. People may not offer physical resistance through fear or just generally being in a state of shock. We also know that around 15 per cent of rape cases and not proven verdict is returned—excuse me—and that, indeed, is the highest percentage of returns of that verdict. We also know that it is more difficult for rape cases to come to court due to the difficulty in presenting corroborating evidence. I know that we have had a lot of discussion around that in the session of Parliament, too, in the problems around the abolition of corroboration, but it is still the case that corroboration is a problem in those sorts of cases. We consider that the provision for judicial direction enabling, for example, a judge to advise a jury not to be swayed by misconceptions about the reaction of rape victims will help rape victims to achieve justice. Opponents within the judiciary, excuse me, argue that similar directions will creep into other areas of legislation. I had this confidence a fifth of January, I should go away, but that can only happen if this Parliament agrees in future that it should happen. I do not think that the mission creep is going to happen by itself. Those sort of decisions would have to be made by this Parliament if we extend the ability for judicial direction. The bill also brings into effect a number of other measures that have attracted less comment. It extends the ability of courts to award a non-harassment order for domestic abuse offence to circumstances where the alleged offender has not been fit to start and stand trial, although the evidence suggests that the person was guilty of that offence. It also extends the jurisdiction of Scottish courts to prosecute offences committed against children elsewhere in the UK and amendments at stage 2 clarified how that would operate. The bill abolishes sexual offence prevention orders, foreign travel orders and the risk of sexual harm orders, none of which were used very often. In fact, there was a petition looking at the fact that some of those were not used very often and replaces them with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. That is very similar to the provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom, and hopefully they will be more easy to use. While we welcome the bill and will support it tonight, we do not consider by any means that the job is now done. The wider issue of coercive control, which exists in cases of domestic abuse but also in the abuse of children and the abuse of older people, has yet to be tackled. We appreciate the difficulty in defining such a broad offence that can be committed in many different circumstances, but we all know that the behaviour of that nature can be very damaging indeed to the victim. A victim is often not aware of what is being done to them and indeed yet again may blame themselves for what is happening to them. There is a need for awareness raising whatever the shape of forthcoming legislation. In fact, there is work to be done in our society and in our schools on respect and consent in intimate situations. The education programme will accompany the bill, much needed in the light of recent evidence about the amount of sexting reported to be taking place, I believe, in Perth and Kinross schools. I am sure that Perth and Kinross is not for any other local authority in Scotland as far as that is concerned. I was reading today that there have been very similar reports in England, and I believe that the Labour Party at the UK level has proposed that there should be compulsory sex education on those matters. That is something that we may wish to return to in this Parliament, too. Although the bill is not intended to prevent the activity of sexting, young people need to be aware of their vulnerability to bullying and exploitation. Colleagues on those benches have raised the importance of tackling other issues. Rhoda Grant has raised the need to change both attitudes and legislation on the purchase of sex, introducing a member's bill on the issue and proposing stage 2 amendments to the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Act. I am sure that she will return to those issues in the next session. Cara Hylton, during the Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Act, highlighted the harm done through the exposure of young children to exploitative, sexualised and degrading images of women. That also remains an outstanding matter of concern to the next Parliament, and maybe the ones after that will have further work to do. There has been much dissension and disagreement during this fourth term of Parliament. However, we end on a note of agreement on an issue of great importance, taking action on sexual and domestic abuse, changing court procedures to secure greater access to justice for victims and protecting victims from what has sometimes been described as revenge porn. I look forward to this final debate, and in particular I look forward to the contributions of Malcolm Tism and Margaret MacDougall, who will speak in this chamber for the last time this afternoon. Deputy Presiding Officer, the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Scotland Bill is, as others have mentioned, the last bill that the Parliament will consider a session for draws to a close. It is therefore fitting that this is legislations with provisions that address and have the potential to make a positive difference in deterring, among other things, what has been dubbed revenge porn. That is a particularly vexing and disturbing crime that can have far-reaching consequences. Section 2 therefore creates a new offence of disclosing or threatening to disclose an intimate photograph or film that criminalises behaviour that is deeply distressing to victims and keeps pace with similar legislation in England and Wales. It also ensures that Scott's law now covers the abuses arising from the subversive and psychologically damaging misuse of modern technology. In addition, the bill seeks to tackle other complex and emotive areas such as domestic abuse with provisions that include the introduction of a domestic abuse aggravator. That, as the Crown Agent has confirmed, will result in abusers getting tougher sentences. Although that provision is most certainly welcome, I still have a concern about the aggravator applying to a first offence as opposed to a second and subsequent offences for behaviour that is categorised as reckless. Time will tell if that concern is justified. Turning now to the issue of the release of medical, psychological or psychiatric records in sexual offence cases, I have over this parliamentary session made a number of attempts to address the unjustifiable requisitioning of these records by arguing that the complainer must be notified of their rights to oppose this move and crucially have access to legal aid to enable them to appoint an independent legal representative to act on their behalf. I am therefore delighted that, having previously argued that this legal aid provision was unnecessary, the Scottish ministers have accepted Lord Glenny's ruling relating to the judicial review petition WF against the Scottish ministers, which makes clear that this legal aid must now be made available. However, although that is very good news in order to be effective, it is essential that complainers are aware of this right in future and, hopefully, the discussion on the amendment i table to cover this issue will help to achieve this aim. Here I want to put on record my thanks and gratitude to Alison McInnes for her consistent support regarding this entire issue. There is much that the Parliament can be proud of in this bill to be depated in the chamber, but, sadly, the Parliament can take no pride whatsoever in the blocking of the opportunity of the entire chamber to fully scrutinise and debate the most controversial provision within the bill, namely putting jury directions in certain sexual offences on a statutory footing. Since stage 1, the Scottish Conservatives have strongly opposed this provision, as has to her credit Christine Graham, the Justice Committee's convener. At stage 2 and again at stage 3, I lodged an amendment to remove statutory jury directions. The cabinet secretary's justification for opposing the amendment has been that he wants to focus on the misconceptions of juries in those cases, but the use of expert witnesses could easily dispel those misconceptions about why there may be a delay in reporting or a lack of physical resistance on the part of the victim in rape and sexual assault cases. In other words, exactly the same outcome could be achieved without the adverse constitutional implications of statutory jury directions. Quite simply, the reluctance to use expert witnesses is entirely due to the cost. Furthermore, grave concerns about the precedent that those provisions set have been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, Lord Carlywy and Sheriff Little. It is important to understand why those grave concerns have been expressed. That is because provisions for statutory jury directions compromise the independence of the judiciary, which is a central tenet of Scots law. They blur the constitutional divide between legislators and the judiciary. They strike at the separation of powers and they raise constitutional issues that compromise democracy in Scotland. To put that in context, under the additional member PR voting system, we were told that there could never be a majority government, only a minority one or a coalition, both of which introduced checks and balances on the party that has the largest number of MSPs. However, we now have a majority government. The consequence being that any amendment that the Government opposes is ruthlessly whipped and has been consistently defeated in the chamber. Scotland has therefore a democratic deficit, a situation compounded by the Presiding Officer's refusal to allow Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise and debate an amendment of this magnitude. Despite being aware, it raises crucial separation of powers issues. It is, of course, as the Presiding Officer has stated, entirely a matter for her to decide. While that is certainly true, it does not make the decision right. In conclusion, this is a dark day for our democracy in Scotland and it is a very great pity that the end of the Presiding Officer's tenure and offer should be marked by this controversy. Those comments are notwithstanding. As my colleague Annabelle Goldie, who I pay tribute to for her exceptional service, Cuthie Contributions and General Witt, since her election to this Parliament will confirm in her final speech to this chamber, the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time. I thank all the committee members for their hard work and not the least for their tolerance of my idiosyncrasies in the chair. The bill has two main elements. The first, as everyone knows, is the new offence of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images colloquially labelled revenge porn, not the pleasantest of terms but well understood by the public, so I will use it. With advances in technology and increasing use of social media, it has become all too easy to use the internet as a weapon to humiliate, bully and intimidate other people. When that involves sharing intimate photographs or videos of another person that were never meant to be shared with a wider audience and are perhaps sent out in the internet following an acrimonious break-up, it can be particularly poisonous and harmful. This new law provides an opportunity to make it clear that sharing intimate images of another person without their consent and with intention or, and this must be stressed, recklessness as to whether it causes hurt or humiliation is a crime. Images in the internet can live as we know forever. This new offence is to be welcomed and, hopefully, it will not lead so much to prosecutions but to a change in society's behaviour. Let's call it preventative legislation rather than punitive. Of course, if you do breach the legislation, you may have, at the end of the day, a criminal record. There are some, particularly the young perhaps, who may lack the insight or maturity to realise just how much harm it can cause, and it is usually other young people who are the victim as well as a perpetrator. There is here an expectation that the vast majority of cases involving children and young people will not go before the courts or even the children's panel and that there will be some discretion as to what happens with young people. The second main element of the bill is jury directions, referred to by my colleague Margaret Mitchell, relating to sexual offences. The bill proposes that for the first time we set out in statute what directions judges must give to juries in certain cases. If evidence is led about an apparent delay in reporting or telling anyone about alleged sexual assault, the judge must direct the jury that there may be good reasons for the delay. In addition, if evidence is led about an apparent absence of physical resistance to an alleged sexual assault, the judge must direct the jury that there may be good reasons why a person may not have physically resisted such an assault. I hear what the cabinet secretary says about case law, but case law is made by the courts, not by Parliament. This is Parliament, in my view, interfering too deeply in the courts discretion. I understand that behind that was to tackle alleged prejudices or misconceptions in the minds of some jurors, but juries are at their very heart, comprised of ordinary people, some of whom may very well bring their misconceptions into the jury room. In fact, I would be astonished if they did not. As the Government is carrying out research and has instructed research into the way juries behave, I do not understand why we are leaping to this before we have a result of the evidence of that jury research. This is where I fall out with the Government, not for the first time of a re-elected, probably not for the last time. Like my colleague, I am very disappointed that her amendment, which I supported to delete this requirement, was not selected for debate, because it led to substantial debate at stage 2. The cabinet secretary devoted quite a chunk of his speech to addressing this issue. What do we have in the chamber now? If it had been in the amendment process, we would have had a full chamber listening to the arguments. Now we are sparsely populated with a few hardy people, most of whom are contributing to the debate. It is, to me, not democratic, and I regret that I have to support my colleague again in being extremely disappointed in the Presiding Officer's decision. A quote from the Lord President, who has written the evidence, said, What is proposed is that the judge should essentially take on the mantle of the prosecution in making statements of fact dressed up as law. He also went to say in oral evidence, I quote, I return to what I have said already. We, the judges, direct the jury on the law that is to be applied to the case. That is our primary purpose. We tell juries at beginning that the facts are for them, that is for them to assess the witnesses and make up their minds applying their collective common sense. That is the jury's function. If a judge is seen to dictate or attempt to dictate to a jury on what facts should or should not be found, that would be in the realms of counterproductive. The final quote, Yes, it sets a precedent. If Parliament dictates what should be said to juries by a judge in this area, other people will no doubt seek to extend that to other areas and will wish other directions to be given. That is where we get into the constitutional divide. Those are not light words and not from a light weight. Those are from the Lord President of the Court of Session, a man just as much as us wants to see justice to be done in his courts. If he has these substantial concerns about crossing this constitutional divide, I think that it is an issue that the Parliament should have debated more fully. Of course, it is right to say that, if we vote for it tonight, the judges will obey. Of course, they obey. They obey the statutes that we have put down for them, but the question is, should we be doing it? Yes, I will. I have only a few seconds. Would the member accept that she has talked about Lord Carlaway's comments that he did say what I am trying to say is that it could be done but it is not what we would see as the best way of doing it. Exactly, so why do you if there is a better way of doing it? I think that you have shot yourself in the foot, no matter that you are a member of the faculty. So we are crossing this constitutional line, with Parliament not being given the opportunity to fully debate it. That said, and I very much regret criticising the PO as it were on her penultimate day in Parliament, but I have done it and there it goes, but I will be supporting it because I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I will support this bill at decision time, but I hope that we return to this. And this is not the thin end of the wedge. Thank you very much. Before I call Malcolm Chisholm, I can advise the chamber that this is Malcolm Chisholm's valedictory speech. He has been a member, like myself, since 1999, and prior to that he was a very well-known Scottish MP. He served as a Government Minister and has also been a very effective backbencher in Government and in Opposition. And above all, Malcolm Chisholm is not just a politician, but he has been a parliamentarian for all of his long and distinguished political career, and I would like, on behalf of the Presiding Officer team and the Parliament, to wish Malcolm all the best for the future. Well, I thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for your very kind words. Today's bill is another step in the significant progress on action against violence, against women that we have seen in this Parliament since 1999. I welcome the measures on a domestic abuse aggravator, on an extension of non-harassment orders, on action against image-based sexual abuse and also the measures on jury direction. I respect Margaret Mitchell and Christine Graham, but I have to say that when I read the research of Professor Louise Ellison and Professor Vanessa Monroe, I found it overwhelmingly persuasive, and that led to the similar changes that took place in England a little while ago. The consultation document for the bill also included a proposal for a new specific domestic abuse offence covering coercive control and the long-term repetitive nature of much domestic abuse. I look forward to that becoming law in the new Parliament, and I hope that other measures will be taken in the new Parliament. Perhaps a response, for example, to the recent Scottish Women's Aid report on homelessness and domestic abuse, and I hope that there will be a renewed focus on prevention. I first spoke on that subject in the House of Commons in July 1993, and then I was highlighting the great zero-tolerance prevention campaign that was taking place in Edinburgh at that time, and of course bringing violence against women out into the open. It was challenging men with striking messages and shocking facts. It also transformed my understanding of the issue as a consequence of and also a cause of gender inequality. At the centre of that campaign was Evelyn Gillan, who many of you will remember and who tragically died a few months ago. However, I know that her partner wrote to the First Minister quite recently and suggested that perhaps the Scottish Government could look at a prevention campaign that at least drew on the lessons from the zero-colonance campaign. I hope that the Government will reflect on that. We have certainly come a long way since 1993, because at that debate at that time I mentioned a Scottish Office campaign of the time that focused on women taking precautions rather than on challenging men. I do not say that to criticise the Conservative Party, because I doubt that any other party in the Scottish Office at that time would have been doing anything different. Without being complacent in any way, especially in view of the horrifying continuing prevalence of violence against women, I think that we can regard progress on this issue as one of the great achievements of the Scottish Parliament. I believe that Scotland is regarded as the leader of the UK on those issues, and that is certainly what I found when I spoke at a meeting 10 years ago in the House of Commons involving English groups involved in the working against violence against women. I am sure that we are still the leaders now because, of course, the current Government has carried on the work from the previous Government. I think that there are two fundamental reasons for progress in this area in Scotland. The first is that, from the very beginning, the key stakeholders were involved in developing the strategy. That is still the case. I pay tribute today to Zero Tolerance, whom I have already mentioned, to Scottish Women's Aid, to Rape Crisis Scotland. There are really too many groups for me to remember, but I can especially thank certain inspirational women connected with those and other campaigns. Women like Jenny Kemp, like Evelyn Gillan, of course, like Lily Greenan, like Marcia Scott and other women, as well as Sandy Brinley of Rape Crisis Scotland, who have inspired me and, I think, inspired many people in this Parliament and across Scotland. They have actually driven the strategy and, with due respect to both Governments, I think that they deserve perhaps the most praise. However, the other key factor, of course, is the large number of women who have been in this Parliament from the start. Of course, that is only much larger than Westminster, and I should add that it is not large enough until 5050 is achieved across the whole Parliament. The issue has also been characterised by collaboration and even by consensus, which cannot and should not be the case with all issues. I do not believe in a consensus that buries genuine differences and turns a blind eye to injustices that need to be addressed, but we should collaborate and work together whenever we can and where we agree we should say so. I think that that has been one issue where we have been able to work together and, for the most part, agree, even whether there are disagreements on one or two specific policies. With one minute to go until my end as a speaker in this Parliament, unless I am lucky to get to question 9 at general question time tomorrow, I better keep in with the Presiding Officer. In conclusion, as I said on television last night, I like the Westminster Parliament very much, but I have loved the Scottish Parliament. There are so many amazing MSPs from all parties in this Parliament, and I would like to thank you all for being such great colleagues whether we have been agreeing or disagreeing. I also want to thank my brilliant staff, Leslie Montgomery, April Cumming and Jason Thomson. Finally, I would like to thank all the wonderful people who work in this Parliament, whom I will miss so much, although being Edinburgh based, I may pop in from time to time. Thank you very much. I now call Christina McKelvie to be followed by Alison McInnes. Thank you very much. On 11 September 2013, I led a members debate in this very chamber on a very sensitive subject called revenge porn. It was a new campaign by women's aid, not many people had heard about it. I thank the people and the colleagues across the chamber for supporting that debate, because until that debate came to this chamber, we hadn't spoken about it, and if we didn't, we wouldn't be where we are today. I opened that debate talking about the history of domestic abuse. It was not recognised or spoken about in the decades gone by, and, in fact, during the suffrage movement, it was promoted to keep those upstart women in line who were seeking the vote. Now that we have moved on, domestic violence is still very much a blight on our lives, and the bill seeks to redress that fact. I commend the work of this place over the many years to tackle domestic violence. At this point, on fallen Malcolm Chisholm, I would wish to offer him my good wishes and my personal thanks. He has worked for many years, and he has co-chaired with me the cross-party group on domestic violence. I wish him every best wish that I could give him, and I wish him my personal thanks for all that he has done, but for everything that I have learned from him, especially the support that he has given me during this campaign, to ensure that the sharing of intimate images becomes a criminal offence. We are realising that today, Malcolm. I also wish to thank Alison McInnes for her support, too, because, without the cross-party support that we have had in this chamber over many years, we would not be here discussing this very good piece of legislation today. As we all know, an image can go viral on social media within minutes. I have said in that debate that I heard a few years ago that revenge porn is every bit as abusive as any other type of domestic violence. Freedom of speech and freedom of protest cannot be translated into cyber abuse. Those actions are exploitative and very cruel. They ruin lives, they cost people their jobs, they take away self-respect, they take away somebody's dignity, and, in some cases, people have taken their own lives. There are many key aspects of the legislation that bring me great comfort, and I hope that all the organisations that we have worked with over the years—rape crisis, women's aid, zero-tolerance and I make no apology for mentioning them all again—given that the work that they have done to ensure that we are educated, that we understand the issues, that we can do something about it and that they expect us to do something about it. Again, that is why we are here today. To hear that there will be an aggravation of the offence, where there is abuse of an expater, partner is very, very welcome indeed. In non-harassment orders and criminal cases, how many times have we sat at the cross-party group hearing of cases where women have been continuously harassed, whether it is from a prison cell or from a text message or a phone message or through other people? I believe that the direction of duty has caused a bit of controversy today, but given that some of the evidence that we have seen, some of the young people that we have spoken to and some of the older people that I have spoken to, we have preconceived ideas, mar judgment in those cases. I welcome that. I welcome the direction to jurors who have those preconceived ideas. Also, the fact that the bill will include provisions to criminalise the incitement to commit certain acts, especially in other parts of the UK, not just in Scotland, but if you are inciting that. That is something that has become very, very important, especially in some of the issues when it comes to revenge porn. Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, coming from a social work background, when you get orders like that in place that protect people, you cannot underestimate the comfort and the support that that gives to a victim of domestic violence. All of those parts in the bill will send a clear and unambiguous message to those who perpetrate domestic violence or sexual harm. There will be zero tolerance to those who attempt to coerce and control. To those who use revenge porn and sharing intimate images to shame or blackmail, there will be zero tolerance. I believe that the bill supports and gives protection to those most vulnerable men, women, children and families and makes communities stronger in my view. Can I commend all the work of my colleagues in this chamber? Can I commend all the work of the Justice Committee? All the organisations that I have just mentioned and especially the Scottish Government for having the courage to bring about a piece of legislation on our final day of this session, very fitting that this final piece of legislation is about people and protecting people who are victims of violence? Can I commend them all? I hope that everyone supports the bill at the decision time today. Many thanks. I now call Alison McInnes to be followed by Roderick Campbell. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This bill addresses the need to tackle the damage done by abusive behaviour and sexual harm. The Government has acknowledged that it deals with only part of a wider problem and I hope that Parliament will return as soon as possible to the issue of creating a specific offence of domestic abuse. I believe that we need legislation that can properly capture the complex web of coercive behaviour used to abuse victims. Controlling and humiliating women is not new but the ways of doing it change and our understanding deepens and the law needs to keep up. The reckless or malicious sharing of intimate images can destroy lives. It causes victims huge harm. One victim of so-called revenge porn explained, and I felt sick, violated and completely crushed by this. I have been a nervous wreck since I became aware of it. The impacts of sharing intimate images can be far-reaching and long-lasting, with most people suffering some form of long-term anxiety, some facing self-harm and suicidal thoughts. Perpetrators must be held to account for their actions, and the creation of a new criminal offence in this bill will be an important step in the right direction. Such violations of privacy are unacceptable and will now be illegal. During the committee stages, we explored concerns about the impact of the new offence on children and young people. However, there was a significant body of evidence that we should not exempt children from this, as the law society had suggested. However, I would seek assurances from the cabinet secretary that the appropriate route would be her referral to the children's hearing rather than the criminal courts. At stage 2, I submitted an amendment relating to the need for a public information campaign and for schools to do much more in relation to consent and respect in personal relationships. I was grateful for the cabinet secretary's assurance that he intends to tackle this prior to the implementation of the legislation. Part 2 of the bill introduces jury directions relating to sexual offences, and that has been, as we have heard already this afternoon, the most controversial part of the bill. However, it is clear that women face too many misconceptions and prejudices in rape and sexual offence trials, and I believe that they are nothing more than a sensible safeguard to introduce and I support them in this bill. I might be given a moment's reflection. This is, I think, the 17th bill that the Justice Committee has dealt with in this session, and many of them have been of significant import, and it has been my privilege to serve on the Justice Committee for the whole of this session. I came into politics to make a difference and to speak up for those with no voice, and if ever there was an example of a group of women with no voice, it was the women in Caunton Vale. I am particularly pleased that I have been able to play my part alongside progressive voices such as the Howard League and many others in Civic Scotland in securing the reform of the women's prison estate. In 2011, disturbed by a succession of damning HM, IPS reports into Caunton Vale, the Justice Committee called the SPS and the Government to appear at committee to account for the lack of action on the recommendations of Brigadier Human Role, who was then the inspector of prisons. The Justice Committee's on-going scrutiny led to the Government announcing the commission on women offenders and set in train reform that resulted eventually in Michael Matheson's bold decision to support the calls to scrap HMP in reclied. I should pay tribute to the convener of the committee, Christine Grahame. She has been a benign and independent and very relaxed chair. She has always allowed committee members space and time to pursue issues of importance to them. I send my thanks also, of course, to my fellow members of the Justice Committee for their diligent scrutiny of justice matters. If I can return to that decision and in reclied, it has presented us with an opportunity to do things differently, to redefine the experiences of women who come into contact with our justice system in the future. However, let's not stop there. Prison has proven to be hugely ineffective, even disruptive for people given short-term sentences. It causes untold collateral damage to prisoners' families. More children in Scotland each year experience a parent's imprisonment than experience divorce, and yet Scotland continues to have one of the highest prison populations per capita in western Europe. Reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. Too many people still find themselves in the criminal justice system because of poverty, addiction and mental health issues. I have long argued for radical and ambitious reform across the whole prison estate. The largely supportive welcome that Michael Matheson's decision received last year shows, I believe, that Scotland is ready and willing to consider taking a different approach. I ffermly hope that whatever the make-up of this Parliament in the next session, prison reform will at last be at the forefront of that work. I refer to my register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates, but perhaps I could begin by acknowledging the immense contribution that Alison McInnes has made to the question of the alternative to content veil. Turning to perhaps the most controversial part of the bill in relation to jury directions, the provisions in the bill in relation to such directions are designed to tackle two very important issues. Firstly, in relation to the question of delay in reporting a sexual offence, and secondly, where there is an absence of evidence of physical force, two issues which we know regularly feature in crimes of sexual violence, and we know from the Police Scotland management information for 2013-14 that a quarter of all sexual crimes and 36 per cent of rapes were reported one or more years after the incident. I think that we have to accept that Lord Carlaway's view was that there were other ways of dealing with these issues, one way being to seek to declare these matters to be within judicial knowledge, but even he acknowledged that that was not without difficulty, whilst he took the view that it would be easy to encompass within the two directions the concept that they were within the ambit of judicial knowledge, he did not think that every member of the judiciary would necessarily share that view. Yes, it does break new ground, but not one that is unfamiliar to other jurisdictions, and yes, jury research might have assisted, but alas the provisions of the Contemptive Court Act prevented that up to now. However, we do know from expert evidence elsewhere that juries often have misguided, as well as preconceived views on these issues. Above all else, I think that we need to remember that these directions only apply whether these issues are raised in the trial itself. They will not be given as a matter of course. Let's remember that judges are of course used to giving directions to juries. I believe that they can give directions here without undermining the jury's role as masters of the facts. As the Cabinet Secretary has said, nothing in the bill restricts the ability of expert evidence to be led in any particular case. I think that we should also bear in mind one other matter, which I don't think it's been referred to this afternoon, the question of a joint minute of agreement between the prosecution and the defence on matters that could be considered uncontroversial. It's said by Mr Myan of the Faculty of Advocates that more use could be made of it to reduce the likelihood of evidence being led on the matters that are addressed in the two directions. Lord Carlaway agreed with that view, so there are other ways of looking at this matter other than the question of these two directions. Would the member agree that juries may have preconceptions and prejudices in other types of cases? For instance, a young man covered in tattoos and earrings and cropped hair comes before them. Do we need to give judicial directions here about appearance? I am not for one minute suggesting that this doesn't set a precedent, but I think that you need to look at every case on its facts and we'll see how these directions work in practice. I think that they need to be kept under review. Perhaps I move on to the question on the issue of the domestic abuse aggravator. I know that the Law Society in particular have been lukewarm about this. I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that domestic abuse cases are assiduously prosecuted at the present time. Clearly, there is some danger in over-promoting the aggravator as some kind of panacea, but it represents simply as Catherine Dyer of the Crown Office described it as an additional tool. I think that we need to look at it also in the context of the consultation on a new offence of domestic abuse, which has recently finished. I think that the right way to look at this is as a further incremental step in dealing with the scourge of domestic abuse, and certainly not as an alternative to the creation of a specific new offence. Turning now to the question of non-consensual sharing of images, this part of the bill generated much discussion at both stages 1 and 2 and here today. Whilst there was general agreement on the benefits of having an offence dealing with what has been described as a relatively new type of socially unacceptable behaviour, there was a difference of view as to whether we should seek to criminalise the disclosure of texts or written materials. I think it's very important to look at the impact of prosecution on the victim. That should be the first and foremost thing when looking at this offence. Certainly my view is in terms of the question of the disclosure of texts or written materials that we should, for the moment, take a conservative and cautious line. I understand the arguments that Margaret McDougall was putting forward. I am concerned about the wider implications on young people. I think it's right to point out the evidence of the Children's Commissioner Tam Bailey that he was not looking for an exemption for children and young people, but I honestly believe that the sharing of texts between teenagers is an industry in itself. Whilst I understand the views of those who sought to extend the offence, I think on balance we've got the position right. I agree with all those who think that we need for a proper campaign of information and education to accompany the commencement of this legislation. As the Cabinet Secretary has said, we should keep the provisions of this part of the bill under review. I could not let this speech pass with at least mentioning the contributions of Professor Chalmers and Mayer in relation to issues arising from what was described in the committee's report as sexual acts elsewhere in the UK. I am glad that the Government addressed the academic points at stage 2. As to sexual harm prevention orders, I also welcomed the fact that the amendments at stage 2 put the right of any person against whom such an order is sought to have the opportunity to make oral representations beyond doubt. In conclusion, this is an important bill. I wish it well, and it is important that this is the last piece of legislation to be passed by this session of the Scottish Parliament. Thank you very much. Before I call Margaret McDougall, the chamber will wish to note that this is her valedictory speech. Margaret McDougall became a member in this session of Parliament in 2011. She has contributed fully to the work of Parliament and its parliamentary committees, and most recently, of course, to the Justice Committee. Margaret has worked steadfastly for her constituents across the west of Scotland and on behalf of the Presiding Officers and Parliament. We wish you all the best for the future. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for your kind words. I am disappointed that the Scottish Government has rejected my amendments to the bill today. I will continue to push my case. As it now stands, the illegal sharing of intimate images section 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 far too narrow. Everyone these days who owns a smartphone, tablet or even a computer knows that you can take a screenshot, which then becomes an image. That presents a glaring loophole in the legislation, which is the sharing of text. In effect, the Government has missed an opportunity here by not future proofing the bill. As I said during amendments, women's aid are clear that written and audio communication should be included in the bill, as is Police Scotland. While I acknowledge that it was raised 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 this bill, be a prosecutable offence. However, what if someone was to share a non-intimate picture of a person and then included intimate text relating to that person? That seemingly would not fall under the remit of the bill. It is not good enough to say that this does not happen online or that there is no dedicated website for it. It may be rarer than the sharing of intimate images but it does occur. The sharing of this type of content has the same effect as sharing intimate images without consent. It is designed to damage, embarrass or shame the victim. Just because it occurs less frequently than the distribution of intimate images does not mean that we should ignore it. Again, as I said at stage 1, and I feel that it needs repeating, given the cabinet secretary's comments during stage 2 committee proceedings, 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 under 16 who have engaged in this process consensually. What I was proposing is that the sharing of sex or any intimate photographic film written or audio communication non-consensually should have been included as an offence within this bill. When the action is designed to be malicious or cause harm, that would include such messages from those aged under 16. Indeed, the Children's Commissioner, Tam Bailey, did not want to see children exempted from this offence. What he and others have recommended is the provision of a robust education programme for school children on the dangers of sexting. I heard a report on television this morning that said that sexting has increased 12-fold in England. We need assurances that the education will be adequately funded to discourage this issue here in Scotland. While I support the bill as it is a step forward in tackling revenge porn, I feel that the Government is being short-sighted by refusing to acknowledge that this loophole exists. The legislation is not future-proofed, and just because the Cabinet Secretary does not seem to be aware of the extent of the problem, it does not mean that it does not exist. As I said earlier, and the Presiding Officer has mentioned, this is my last speech in the chamber. I have been here a relatively short time compared with some of my peers. Over the past five years, it has been a great honour and privilege to represent the people of West region, particularly in the North Ayrshire area, where I have largely focused my efforts. The Parliament is a very different place now to how it was five years ago. We now have three female party leaders and, of course, Scotland's first female First Minister. This is a great example for women and girls across Scotland, yet more work still needs to be done to get a better gender balance representation in this place. Apart from all the bills passed, constitutionally, we had independence referendum, Scotland's first ever democratic say on whether we stay in the union, which has created a more engaged and politically aware electorate than ever before. We have seen one of the biggest transfers of power since devolution, which will make this Parliament one of the strongest devolved parliaments in the world, and I am proud to have been part of this historic term. I hope that parliamentarians make the most of those powers in the future. My time here has been varied, but never dull. I have been a member of five different committees—lastly on the Justice Committee, I have to say that I was not on them all at once—but I would like to thank the clerks of all those committees for the help and support that they have provided over the five years that I have been here. I have also been convener of the cross-party group on volunteering and the voluntary sector and the cross-party group on housing. I have greatly enjoyed both, and again I would like to extend my thanks to the secretariat and members of both of those cross-party groups. I hope that they will continue into the next parliamentary term, because they are important. I would also like to extend thanks to Sir Paul Grice and all the Parliament's staff for their support, which has been exemplary—not forgetting all the auxiliary staff who make this place function behind the scenes. I thank my Labour colleagues, because we have gone through quite a journey together in the past few years. I wish them, especially, and all the other MSPs across the chamber all the best for the future, whether they plan to stand again or are moving on to pastures new. Finally, I would like to thank my constituency staff, those past and present who have supported me over the past five years. That has been a fantastic experience and privilege. One thing that I have learned is that this Parliament is at its best when we pull together across the chamber, because we all want what is best for Scotland. There is a lot of work that takes place before we get to this point in any piece of legislation, and I would like to thank all the contributors who have got us here. I am going to allude to information provided to us by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 1 December, where he outlined the latest figures. Those figures showed that just under 60,000 incidents of domestic abuse had been reported to the police, and that was an increase of 2.5 per cent. We might view that as being a positive about people being more willing to come forward. In 79 per cent of those incidents, where the gender was known, the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. That is an important thing to say, but it is also important to say that we took a lot of evidence in written form and privately and confidentially with victims, both male and female, and learned a lot from that. Perhaps, quoting from that letter, we also know that the police only become aware of around one in five, 12 per cent of the incidents of partner abuse each year. It is for those reasons that I am happy to support the abuse aggravator. It will bring about a situation where victims have more confidence that the regard will be had in an offence in the context of an abusive relationship when sentencing takes place. That is not a new concept, but there is existing legislation covering offences of prejudice. The consultation showed that that was well understood. Most importantly, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal have said that this will be a useful tool for prosecutors. I know that Scottish Women's Aid supports the specific offence and we are aware of the consultation that has taken place. It is timely to remind us what they describe domestic abuse as. It is a cause and consequence of women's inequality and occurs within the context of on-going control and repeated abuse. It is right that we address that. Similarly, in that letter, I outlined the latest stats on sexual offences. I will not go through all of them other than to say that there was a 13 per cent increase in convictions for rape and attempted rape. However, depressingly, overall convictions remain lower than for any other crime. We also heard, and other members alluded to the fact that recent figures indicate that 36 per cent of rape supported were historic, namely that they took place at least 12 months prior to being reported. There is a delay in reporting for you. Over a third of cases reported are a delay in reporting. I think that we need to have a situation where that is explained to jurors. I am disappointed that there was not an amendment included that meant that we could discuss the directions to juries. I have to tell you that I have changed my position on it. Initially, I was minded that the situation of expert evidence being led and, of course, it still can be led by both sides was sufficient. We have heard from Roderick Campbell that, of course, the use of joined minutes can take place. There are two cases that I alluded to when we spoke at stage 1 that significantly changed my view on it. In one of them, I will very briefly go through and resulted in an individual in place in the sex register appealing. The appeal has been upheld on the basis that the sheriff had 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 a deeply damaging statement to make after years of trying to correct misunderstandings about pernicious sexual offences. That was swiftly followed by my colleague who I pay tribute to her all-our-work, Alison McInnes, and myself who questioned a case that involved repeated rapes of unaddable and sexual abuse of children, which the trial judge referred to as minor and he criticised the adult victim for a delay in reporting the assaults claiming that the victim was condoning or acquiescing being raped and pointed out that the person continued to live with the accused and talked about the party's benefit grubbing existence. Deeply offensive language, I have to say that the appeal court said that the trial judge had no basis for his theories, but it does to me show that there is an education process that is required here that goes way beyond the public, way beyond prosecutors and will require judicial training. For those reasons, I think that it is very appropriate that we have duty directions. I often look to other sources for an opinion, and the Scottish Human Rights Commission often will give you the weighing up, the conflicting positions that people take, and they say in relation to that. The commission's position is that the duty directions of the type set out in section 6 of the bill amount to uncontroversial statements, which may indeed serve to address misconceptions held by some members of the public around the behaviour of victims of sexual assault. The commission does not consider those statements, if delivered appropriately, would prejudice and accuse article 6 rights. I think that that is very important information and I certainly welcome that. I am disappointed that Margaret May-Dougall's amendments, which I thought were very well presented, were not adopted. I respect the decision that was taken and I respect the fact that it has been said repeatedly that this whole area will be subject to on-going review. Hopefully, a future justice committee will have sufficient time to perhaps look at post-legislative scrutiny. I think that there are a lot of important issues in it, the non-harassment orders and the fact that an appeal process, although clearly present throughout it was reinforced that that present is important. Margaret Mitchell's work is worthy of commendation to in relation to that. I am very pleased that she got the result. This is about education, this is about judicial training, this is about post-legislative scrutiny, but most of all it is about supporting this good legislation. I now call Rosa Grant, after which we will turn to closing speeches. I start by paying tribute to Malcolm Chisholm. His contribution to tackling violence against women is second to none. He spoke out against violence against women long before tackling the abuse that was universally supported. At a time when the phrase, a domestic was still common, Malcolm spoke out. He leaves the Parliament that is now committed to ending violence against women and that is in many ways due to his tireless work in the area. I also pay tribute to Margaret MacDougall, who has been in the Parliament, as she said herself, at comparatively short time, but has yet made her mark and not least during the consideration of the bill. I will come back to that. However, I wish them and others to leave the Parliament for the last time well for the future. I know that they will, wherever they choose to do in the future, continue to influence this Parliament and use their knowledge and experience for the good of the people of Scotland. One of the main parts of the bill was tackling revenge porn. It is right that that has been legislated against. With an increase in the use of technology and social media, intimate information can be disseminated quickly with devastating consequences. Making this a crime might force people to think twice before sharing this information. My colleague Margaret MacDougall sought to strengthen the aspect of the bill in order to extend it to sound unwritten information. I believe that she was right to do so, and I am disappointed that that was not agreed. Indeed, some of the reasons that the Cabinet Secretary gave for not agreeing that could have been attributed to any of the other parts of revenge porn. I am concerned that that was indeed the case. The bill needs to cover every aspect of the type of information that could be disseminated to embarrass, humiliate or indeed blackmail another. The wider the definition, the better in order to deal with developing mediums of communication, but also to ensure that there are not any loopholes. We need to inform young people about what they should and should not be sharing. Intimate pictures should never be shared over the internet by text or by social media. Once they are out there, they can never be recalled when you have very little control over them. Sexting is no different. Actions and messages that are sent consensually but privately can then be used against the other as revenge at the end of a relationship to humiliate, embarrass and indeed blackmail. Those should have been included as well. Young people come under huge peer pressure to do this, and we need to look at how we make them aware of the dangers of those actions. The ramifications of this information being distributed widely can impact someone's mental health and indeed have devastating consequences. Advice and information about the internet and social media safety needs to be delivered both at home and at school and indeed through youth groups. However, I believe that social media platforms also have a duty to educate and they also have a duty to highlight this new law as a prevention measure. There has been controversy over jury direction, however, misunderstanding of the nature of rape and sexual assault is widespread. Judges need to make sure that the jury understands the impact of those crimes and the natural responses that victims have to that kind of attack. We need to make sure that the jury does not assume a media portrayal of rape, stranger danger and extreme physical violence. We need to understand the requirement to obtain consent and to ensure that the person is able to give informed consent to sex. I have concerns about the ability of some judges to give that direction themselves. It is clear from some judgments—indeed, John Finnie gave examples of that—that are handed down, that some judges have very little understanding of those concepts. There should be a requirement for training judges in the legal profession of what constitutes rape and sexual assault and what is acceptable in cross-examination of a rape victim. It may be that juries need to be trained before taking part in those kinds of trials. That is because of the widespread use and access to pornography, which peddles the myth of men's entitlement to sex. Young people are getting their sex education from pornography, which leads young men to believe that they are entitled, and young women to believe that they have to deliver. How can people with those preconceptions provide safe judgments in rape trials? I touch on an aspect that has not had much discussion during the debate, and that is the non-harassment orders for someone who is unfit to stand trial. I believe that that is a step forward. However, again, I am not sure that it will provide the protection required, because breaching a non-harassment order is a criminal offence. However, if the person is not fit to stand trial for the behaviour that led to the granting of the order, it is difficult to see how they can stand trial for the breaching of the order. Surely someone who is causing harm to another person, albeit that they are unfit to plead, should be restricted or detained in a way that protects their victim until such time as they can be treated or no longer pose a threat or are able to stand trial. While I understand that the law must protect vulnerable, it should also not lead their victims in fear. In conclusion, I believe that the bill will make a difference, and we will be supporting it tonight. However, I regret that there was very little time, commitment and effort, and had there been more of that, we could have gone so much further. This is the only piece of legislation that supports equally safe. If this is the level of the Scottish Government's commitment to the issue, then it does not logger well. If we tackle violence against women, we need to take steps to criminalise every aspect of that violence. We need to take steps to stop the perception of men's entitlement. Violence against women is not a women's problem, it is a problem with a minority of men. The views and actions of this minority cannot be condoned or tolerated. We need a brave Government to tackle that, and I am afraid that the current Government has fallen short of that. We now move to the wind-up speeches. I am delighted to participate in this afternoon's proceedings on the abusive behaviour and sexual harm Scotland bill, the final piece of legislation in this Parliament. From the contributions this afternoon, there is a clear consensus that this bill contains many positive provisions to help to tackle the very worst manifestations of abusive behaviour in Scotland. I thought that the cabinet secretary spoke eloquently about that. In the time available, I have focused my remarks on three specific areas of the bill, the domestic abuse aggravator, the new offence covering unauthorised disclosure of an intimate photograph or film and statutory jury directions. Turning first to the domestic abuse aggravator, incidents of domestic abuse are increasing and breach of the peace convictions for offences related to domestic abuse have also risen significantly. That probably reflects the targeted efforts of Police Scotland and the prosecution service to secure justice for victims who have been tormented at the hands of their abusers. That is repugnant and particularly unforgivable behaviour, because such acts violate and exploit the very bonds of trust implicit within a relationship. I welcome the introduction of a statutory aggravation of the abuse of a partner or ex-partner. It bolsters support for prosecutors in dealing with such crimes, it creates a possibility of more severe sentences for perpetrators of such abuse, and I consider that to be a positive step. Let me now turn to the provisions creating an offence of disclosing or threatening to disclose an intimate photograph or film of another person without their consent. Such behaviour is inexcusable and profoundly distressing and damaging for victims, often young adolescents, but it is increasingly facilitated by advances in technology, which provide perpetrators with the medium to make such images as well as a platform to share them with a widespread audience. This new offence recognises advances in electronic communication and provides clarity. I know that some concerns are expressed in the stage 1 report. I would urge the Scottish Government and the prosecution service to closely monitor the implementation of sections 2, 3 and 4 in the next parliamentary session. I would now like to address the introduction of statutory durate directions for sexual offence cases, which Margaret Mitchell described as a one-a-ing example of constitutional creep in her opening remarks. I regret that this issue could not be the subject of specific debate this afternoon. It is important that it merited such discussion and I share my colleague Margaret Mitchell's reservations. Although I understand the intent behind this policy proposal, the Government is not getting this bit right. Like many in the legal profession, I am concerned that such measures will blur the constitutional divide between legislators and the judiciary. In any criminal proceedings, the judge must remain master of the law and free to exercise judicial discretion based on the circumstances of the particular case and the evidence led. I thought that Christine Grahame made a particularly cogent contribution on that aspect. In the absence of the opportunity to amend the bill at stage 3 on that aspect, I hope that new and returning members to the Parliament will assess the impact of those provisions on the courts. Notwithstanding that one reservation, my party will support the bill at decision time. It takes us into new territory and offers new help and hope. As you indicated, this is my final speech in this Parliament. With your indulgence, I should like to share a few concluding observations. My first speech in the Parliament was in the first ever debate. We were all a fine set of rookies, pretty clueless as to what was going on. Indeed, some may say that I leave this place as I entered it. Back in May 1999, I was supporting my colleague Alex Ferguson in his attempt to secure prayers for the Parliament. I have to say amidst a general confusion I felt the combination of Alex Ferguson and the Almighty offered a good start. That led to time for reflection and the weekly and welcome presence of these quiet people and red, the parliamentary prayer group, and I would like to thank them for their unwavering interest in and support of us all. Presiding Officer, this has been an extraordinary job. It has been a privilege and a great honour to be allowed to serve this Parliament and Scotland. It has afforded me pleasure, satisfaction and fulfilment. To have come in at the beginning as provided an added luster, none of that would have been possible without the extraordinary range of people and talents that make this place function. Together, they constitute a tangible familial ethos. I thank them all and my political friends on those benches and my adversaries on the other benches for that vital contribution. I take away a rich repository of memories, the wit of Donald Dure, the effect on David McLeach's central nervous system with the mere mention of the word consensus, discovering that minority government made Mr Salmond biddable with the rare pleasure of witnessing having to dance to a few bars of my tune for a short time at least, and achieving what I consider to be one of my major triumphs in this Parliament, getting these ghastly turn-up-like red plums banished from the fruit salad in the cafeteria. Presiding Officer, I have seen the character of this place evolve and I would ask that none of us or our successors should forget our primary obligation as MSPs is to the institution of this Parliament. If we fail to discharge that responsibility, the Parliament and we along with it are diminished. The matter of legislative scrutiny is unfinished business and with the powers that are coming, that is not good enough. I urge that serious consideration is given to how we secure a more robust mechanism for that scrutiny. Perhaps committees should be chaired or certain committees chaired by Opposition members and I do think that a new code of practice should remind committee members that they are Parliamentarians first and party emissaries second. Finally, robust debate and passionate exchanges are the currency of any Parliament and we should celebrate that vibrancy, but too easily, rancor and casual use of language can create an impression that Scotland is fractious, divided and rhythm. That is much less attractive. Whatever we do, whatever party we represent, we should remember that this place and our country are bigger than any of us. Presiding Officer, Oscar Wilde's last words have been paraphrased as either that wallpaper goes or I do. No such dilemma for me. I think that the wallpaper in here is just fine. I go and in so doing I wish my fellow retirees every happiness and I wish this place the institution and the family of the Scottish Parliament every success for the future. Ms Goldie, on behalf of the Parliament I would like to thank you for your substantial contribution to the Parliament as an MSP, committee convener and as the leader of the Conservative party. Your contributions have always, as we have seen again today, been filled with wit, grace, style and great knowledge. You will be greatly missed in this Parliament but we know you will continue to make a substantial contribution to public life. Thank you. I now call on Elaine Murray. We have a bit of time in hand, Ms Murray, so if you want to stretch out a wee bit, feel free. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I often wonder about how much more can be said about a bill when we get to the final debate at stage 3. In fact, the cabinet secretary and I had discussed whether we might only have half an hour's final debate and we ended up with an hour and three quarters. However, that has actually been a very comprehensive conclusion to this session's debates. Margaret Mitchell and Christine Grahame expressed concerns about not being able to discuss their judicial direction amendments today. They would not have been passed back and understand the frustration and not being able to air your arguments again. Christina McKelvie and Alison McKinnon spoke very effectively about the work that has been done by the various organisations and the psychological effects on victims of things such as Rengeporn. Alison also spoke, and I hope that it is not her last speech in this Parliament, about the work that she has done and what the committee has done around court and bail and the great change in direction that has come during this session of Parliament with respect to the women's prison estate. Margaret MacDougall reminded us that Margaret MacDougall knows an awful lot about screenshots. She was able to show us all how to do them and so on. I did not know much about that. Markham and I made very important points, and I am going to come back to Markham and Margaret's contributions again later. I think that they both made very important points about this place. Markham said that collaboration and working together we make progress by collaboration and working together where we agree. We should never allow the political discourse and the political football that we sometimes get all get involved in to detract from our understanding that it is when we work together that we make and most progress. Margaret said that the Parliament works best when we all pull together in the interests of Scotland. We would all do well to remember that. John Finnie and Rhoda Grant spoke on the shocking attitudes that there still are towards victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence and the need to continue the work of education, the understanding of consent. Again, that is, as I said earlier, unfinished business in this Parliament that we need to return to because although I think that Lockupchism was able to illustrate in his contribution a lot of work has happened and awful lot has happened since he first brought this up in the House of Commons back in 1993. We still still have a fair way to go in order to make real progress in this place. I would like in most of my speech to pay tribute to four colleagues who retired this week. I thought that it was only three. Three gave their final speeches in this debate and one gave his a couple of weeks ago without telling anyone. He also told me that he was going to be here and he was currently in London involved in the appointment of the new electoral commissioner. He did say that he would be there this afternoon and he is not, but he did not think that that would prevent me from marking his retirement from membership in this Parliament. Although I know that he will not be retiring in any real sense, I will certainly not put me off embarrassing him by putting my thoughts on the record. I will pay tribute to Annabelle Goldie, who has had a very distinguished parliamentary career as for many years leader of her own party. The only thing that I can say to Annabelle is that I may often have disagreed with what you have said, but by heck I have always been very entertained by the way in which you have said it. That was the last of many insightful contributions from Malcolm Tism. Malcolm Tism served as an MP for seven years before coming here and he has been an MSP here for 17 years. He has been a minister in both parliaments, making his mark in the communities and health portfolios. Malcolm has also been an outstandingly prolific speaker for Scottish Labour in this Parliament. I believe that he holds the record on our benches for the numbers of speeches he has delivered. I know that his hard work and thoughtful kindness have gained him popularity across the parties, but more than that, and rare perhaps amongst politicians, he is universally recognised as being a person of principle. I also want to thank my colleague Margaret MacDougall, who also made her last speech today. She has, as she said, served in several, I think, five committees since 2011, and that in itself is no mean feat, because there is an awful lot of homework to do and just get into up to speed when you join a new committee. Margaret has taken up that challenge on several occasions. In the Justice Committee, she has been a tenacious advocate of the rights of victims. Margaret MacDougall also made an impression on the new chief constable. Having raised the concern of police officers about assimilating the volume of information sent to them by a mean such as email, she received a detailed and lengthy and our-your-right response from Mr Gormley, and after about, felt like, ten minutes, he finished his peroration. She just looked at him and said, yes, but what about the emails? Are there fewer of them? I think that she just reduced the rest of the committee to laughter. I can't remember whether it was Christine Grahame or Margaret Mitchell who said, welcome to Scotland, how the Mr Gormley may be pleased that Margaret is not coming back. As I said earlier, Graham Pearson thought that he could get away without mention, but he cannot, even if he isn't here. Graham served in the police in Scotland for 38 years. He started off as a constable, a young constable on the streets of Glasgow, and he finished his service as director general of the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency. I think that, in itself, that trajectory in the force is testament to his abilities. On those benches, we have benefited hugely from his extensive knowledge, and I actually think that the whole Parliament has benefited and has profited from his unique experience. On a personal note, I have very much enjoyed working with Graham. He is indeed someone whom you can have a very robust exchange of views without, in any way, falling out with each other. I have also noticed that his police experience was shown in other ways. It was one time that we had been at a meeting and a division bell rang. Graham set off a bit as if he was in hot pursuit of a film, and it reminded me of the police series in which there is always young, very fit police officer, either male or female, who can jump over fences and run very fast and get to the criminals. There is usually an unfitted overweight counterpart who puffs along behind them. On that particular occasion, I was pecking along behind Graham as he dashed into the chamber. I am indeed very grateful to Graham for everything that I have learned from him during our time working together. I know that there are a lot of people in this Parliament who hope that this is my last speech in the chamber. This is not paranoia. I am only standing in my constituency, and I know that both the Conservatives and the SNP are working hard to take it off me. I do not have much in common with Arnold Schwarzenegger, I think that probably most people would think so. Other than that, I did actually have an intern some years ago who then went on to work for Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was a politician, which was a bit odd, because this guy, Evan, was a Democrat. I am not quite sure how he ended up with Mr Schwarzenegger. However, like the terminator, I would like to think that I will be back. If I am not, and indeed politics is an uncertain business, I do not in any way regret having spent the last 17 years of my life in this place. It has been an absolute blast. Sometimes I have been frustrated, sometimes irritated, sometimes delighted, but it has been great. So thank you very much to the wonderful staff in this place and to colleagues of all parties past and present, but I will be back. I now call on the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate, Mr Matheson, until 5 o'clock. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would not ask how long I have so. Is it your challenge if you choose to accept it? It is clearly a lot of time I have, but it has been a very good stage 3 debate and a number of very, very powerful contributions here this afternoon, particularly from those members who are retiring, some of whom are the class of 99. It does feel as though it is becoming a dwindling band of us who are left from the 99 intake. I know that some members are looking at me thinking that there is no way that young man over there can come in here in 99, but there are a dwindling number of us left, and even some who are choosing to retire may be that the electorate will choose that some of them will be retiring, even though it may not be their choice at this election. I was struck by the remarks that were made at the beginning of this particular debate by Elaine Murray in some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the committees of the Parliament. I have no doubt that there are ways in which your committee system could be improved. Show me a legislature somewhere in the world that has a perfect system. I think that some of the points that were made by Annabel Goldie in relation to some of the ways in which your committees operate have some merit and some weight, and I would add further value to the Parliament. However, I was struck by the point that was made by Elaine Murray in terms of the volume of work that the Justice Committee has had to deal with. As a member from 1999, she will know that that is not an uncommon and infrequent complaint that has been made by Justice Committee members having spent seven years on the Justice Committee. Over two parliamentary sessions from parliamentary session 192, it was a complaint there when we then moved to having two Justice Committees for a period in order to deal with the volume of work that they were dealing with. Alison McInnes made reference to some 17 bills of past to the Justice Committee over the session 4 term. Over the past year and a half since coming in to post my colleague Paul Wheelhouse, we have taken six of them through alongside three members' bills over such a very limited period of time, which I think demonstrates the level of legislation in which the committee is dealing with. However, in the year and a half that I have been engaged with the Justice Committee on a regular basis, I have greatly valued the contribution that has been made by committee members and their shared commitment. Although time's difference of opinions on matters, they have shared commitment to improve our justice system in Scotland in the way in which they believe that it needs to be shaped in modernising it and improving it for victims of crime and in the way in which we deal with individuals within our criminal justice system. I believe that the members of the committee have played a tremendously important part in helping to shape and improve many of the bills that we have brought before the Parliament, which have been improved as a result of their diligence and commitment and the scrutiny that they have subjected those pieces of legislation to. I do not want to fall out with the Presiding Officer on the second last day, but it is not one of the great advantages of having the same committee doing inquiries and legislation is that the people looking at bills actually have expert knowledge of that area of policy. I think that that has manifested in the excellent report on this bill at stage 1. Of course, that is also one of the great strengths of this Parliament that you have all that scrutiny at stage 1, which you certainly did not use to have in the UK Parliament, although I think that they are copying our procedures in this regard to some extent now. I very much agree with Malcolm Chisholm on this particular point. I think that there are real strengths in our committee system and the expertise that can be built up by members in undertaking legislative scrutiny alongside reviewing areas of legislation, a post legislative basis and also in looking at policy matters as well. I think that that is a real strength to our committee structure. I say that I am also very mindful that there is a committee at times that has a mind of its own in exact the way in which a committee should operate on particular matters. I was interested in the comments that was made by its convener, where she said that her idiosyncrasies were a result of her age. What I can say with members that I have known Christine Grahame a long time, is that I have known Christine Grahame since before we were both elected back in 1999 to his Parliament. I can assure you that her idiosyncrasies are nothing to do with her age. Christine Grahame has always gone the route that she thought was the most appropriate in whichever way she would. Even as a delegate at the Cairdhall in Dundee, I can remember one Christine Grahame making her views known from the floor during the course of a debate, even though she had not been called. I would not put it down to age Christine in terms of your idiosyncrasies as such. I am also very conscious that a number of members over an extended period of time in his Parliament now have made important contributions to moving on the whole agenda of tackling domestic abuse and sexual violence within our society. Some of the members are with us here today, and I will turn to them, but also members who are not with us here today in this Parliament, whom I can recall made a substantial and considered contribution to raising this debate within Parliament and improving the way in which your justice system dealt with these issues. One of those was Morrie Macmillan, whom I can recall back in the early stages in this Parliament, who raised the issue in a consistent and constructive way both in the floor of the chamber and in the Justice Committee at that time, including pursuing her own members' bill, one of the first members' bills that went through Parliament in protection orders in order to help to support those individuals who had been subject to domestic abuse. There is absolutely no doubt that over the past 16 years across different Governments that we have made significant progress in changing the way in which we deal with domestic and sexual violence within our society, shining a light on an area that, for too long, I believe, had been largely overlooked. At times, we are often written off as being private matters that we should not get ourselves involved in. We have opened that door, and now I believe that we are in a much better place in the way in which we deal with these issues from our justice system, in the way in which the courts deal with it, through to the way in which the police deal with it, our prosecutors deal with it and clearly the leadership that has been shown by this Parliament and its determination in order to continue to pursue this particular issue. I also want to pay particular tribute to the contribution that Malcolm Chisholm has made to this agenda, because he has made a contribution in this area over several decades. Malcolm Chisholm is one of the politicians that I can well remember prior to being directly involved in politics myself as an elected member when he stood up on a matter of principle when he was a minister in the UK Government on the changes to benefits for single parents. He took a position of principal at that particular point and was the first minister to resign from the then Blair Government on that particular issue at a very early stage. His determination and commitment to domestic violence and improving health and tackling health inequalities and cancer treatment across a whole range of issues has demonstrated his determination to take forward really key issues that he has not just picked up for a short period of time but has been determined in pursuing them over an extended period of time, which have been to the better. I think that the comments he made about collaboration and consensus is one of the things that Malcolm Chisholm has always been prepared to demonstrate, that he will collaborate and he will cooperate and he will help to develop a consensus if we can achieve a better outcome irrespective as to which party badger, which seat you may occupy in the chamber. I sincerely believe that the chamber and this Parliament will be a lesser place for him not being here after the next election. I also wish to, in the short time that I have known Margaret MacDougall, wish her well in her retirement as well. The contribution that she has made in the course of my time before the Justice Committee has always been note worthy in that she has pursued areas that I have at times, I think, could easily have been given an oversight and she has been very diligent in pursuing those matters in great detail. I have greatly appreciated that as well and I think that it has also helped to contribute towards improving the legislation that we have scrutinised. I note the disappointment that she has in not agreeing to her amendments here today but I can give the member an assurance that the Scottish Government and the incoming Scottish Government, whichever party is taking that forward, will be and should be committed to continuing to keep this area under observation to consider where further measures can be taken forward. I also make reference to the final, the valid victory speech from Annabelle Goldie here this afternoon. I, like with Malcolm Chisholm, joined the Parliament in 1999 where we were all rookies and quite literally we were establishing a parliamentary process that was nothing more than something written in the Scotland Act and bringing it into real life and translating it into the reality of day-to-day politics. Throughout that time Annabelle Goldie has always demonstrated a real ability to cut through some of the nonsense that can go on in parliamentary debate at the time. Very often with a razor-sharp wit, which, if you found yourself on the wrong end of it, could leave you looking rather foolish at times as well. She has made a very distinguished contribution to this Parliament. My late mother used to always say that I like Annabelle. Annabelle was good, although, as Annabelle will know, that was followed up with the curse that many Conservative party leaders in Scotland may have felt, and that was, but I wouldn't vote for her. In the previous parliamentary session, Annabelle made a particular contribution on reframing and resetting her drug policy in Scotland in a way that was much more targeted, dealing with the underlying causes that drive drug dependency in our society in the first place. That has led us to take a much more mature and considered approach to her drug policy in Scotland. That enlightened approach is reaping rewards. There is still much more to be done, but her contribution to that has helped to improve the way in which Scotland deals with drug policy in Scotland. I have no doubt that, although she will no longer be in this chamber, she will continue to make a distinguished contribution to Scottish political life from years to come, and I certainly wish her well in her retirement. I think that this particular piece of legislation is fitting that the Parliament should sign off in a point of consensus. I mentioned earlier on that, back in 1999, how we started to look at the issues of domestic conceptual violence in a way that had never had a light shine on it in a way in which it has over the past 16 years. We have a much improved position, but, as John Finnie made the point in his contribution, in 2014-15, Police Scotland dealt with just under 60,000 domestic violence cases. The Scottish Justice Survey suspects that that is a significant underestimate. Police Scotland would tell you that every nine minutes they deal with a call relating to domestic or sexual violence in Scotland. Although we may have modernised our legislation, we may have improved the way in which our justice system deals with domestic and sexual violence. There is still a deep-seated inequality in our society that results in domestic and sexual violence that takes place within our communities far too often. The root cause of sexual and domestic violence in our society is a societal structure. It is one that is created by inequality in our society and the power imbalance within our society. We have clearly made progress but much more to do. I hope that, in the next parliamentary session, there will be an opportunity to take this further forward. I want to finish on another point. In the debate this afternoon, Alison MacKinnon has made reference to the decision not to continue with Her Majesty's prison in Verclyde. We have reformed many parts of our justice system over the past 16 years, from our courts to our police service to the way in which our prosecution services operate. However, I strongly believe that one area in which we as a society and a parliament still have a significant way to go is in our penal policy. Some aspects of our penal policy have not changed in almost 200 years. That is not a good reflection, not in any particular government, but in our society. I hope that, in the next parliamentary session, whoever is in this chair and who is in government will see penal policy as being one of the areas where we need to shine a light and to reform in a way that makes us a much more modern and progressive society and how we deal with those who commit offences in the first place. However, the bill here today is one that I think takes us back that 16-year journey we have been through so far. That is to make sure that, as a society, we are not going to tolerate domestic violence and sexual violence in our society and that we will sign off in our final piece of legislation in this Parliament, collectively sending out a very strong signal that we will continue to do everything that we can to tackle domestic and sexual violence in Scottish society. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on abusive behaviour and sexual harm Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 16029 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a revision to the business programme for tomorrow. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak button now and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 16029. I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 16029 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick would be agreed to. Are we all agreed that the motion is there for agreed to? We now move to decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion number 15996 in the name of Maureen Watt on the Bureau and Commission Scotland Bill would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to and the Bureau and Commission Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is that motion number 15993 in the name of Fergus Ewing on the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to and the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is that motion number 15994 in the name of Michael Matheson on the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill would be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to and the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members will leave the chamber and should do so quickly and quietly.