 The next item of business is a debate on motion 7774 in the name of Annabelle Ewing on the contract third party right Scotland bill at stage 3. Before the debate begins, the Presiding Officer has required understanding orders to decide whether, in his view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. If it does the motion to pass the bill, it will require support from a supermajority of members. That is a two-thirds majority of all members, which is 86. In the case of this bill, the Presiding Officer has decided that no provision of the contract third party right Scotland bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I am sure that we are all relieved. I now call Annabelle Ewing to speak to and move the motion, please. Miss Ewing, seven minutes are thereabouts. I would like at the start to refer members to my entry in the register of interests where they will find the time. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I hold a practicing certificate, but I am not currently practicing. It gives me great pleasure to open this stage 3 debate on the contract third party right Scotland bill and to invite members to agree to pass the bill this afternoon. At the outset, I would like to thank the members of the delegated powers and law reform committee for their hard work and careful scrutiny of what is essentially a narrow and specialist bill. They have been a great credit to the Parliament. I would like to thank MSPs across the chamber for their comments on the bill during its passage through the Parliament and also to thank the organisations and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to the committee. I am also very grateful to the clerks, to the delegated powers and law reform committee for their support. In particular, I would like to pay special thanks to the faculty of advocates who have been generous in giving off their time and expertise as we have developed the legislative proposals in relation to arbitration. I also thank all witnesses who have supported the process and highlighted, as we have gone through, helpful improvements to the bill. Last but not least, I wish to place on record my thanks once again to the Scottish Law Commission. As always, the commission's advice and views have been invaluable. As I indicated during the stage 1 debate, the bill has its origins in the Scottish Law Commission's review of contract law report on third-party rights, which was published in July 2016. This is now the third bill to be considered as part of the SLC bill procedure. I would like to take the opportunity to record my view that the process that is in place to scrutinise those bills continues to work very effectively, and it is clear that we can continue to have confidence in that process as we go forward. I said that the bill was essentially of a specialist nature, and it is, but it became clear through the scrutinate process that its provisions have the potential to impact on any one of us who may find ourselves the third party to a contract. Ensuring that the bill fulfills the policy aims of making the law fairer, clearer and more consistent is therefore very important. As we heard, those are, after all, the first significant developments to the law in this area in nearly 100 years. The contract third-party right Scotland bill has been widely welcomed by the legal profession and other professions such as members of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, recognising as they did the potential usefulness of provisions for construction law. The concept of third-party rights in Scotland's law term used cohesion tertiary, and I know that colleagues have become experts in this phrase as we have gone through the various debates, but this phrase used cohesion tertiary takes back to the 17th century, and that term is still used today. It has the literal meaning of right acquired by a third party. For a third party right to be in existence, the current law requires that the contracting parties intended to benefit the third party and that the right must be constituted irrevocably. However, that common law doctrine is rarely used in Scotland and has been the subject of some criticism on the basis that it is inflexible and does not meet modern standards. The law has also been criticised as being unclear, with Lord Reid of the UK Supreme Court remarking that there is a need for commercial parties to have, and I quote, clear rules in relation to third-party rights under contract. The absence of confidence in the law as it stands among Scottish law practitioners means that English law is sometimes chosen in place of Scottish law to govern transactions that are otherwise Scottish in nature. The current uncertainty over third party rights and lack of flexibility therefore damages the reputation of Scottish law by limiting its use. The law as it stands is simply not working well for most people, if at all, and we are aware that work around such as resorting to English law or the use of collateral warranties have been adopted to compensate for the law not being fit for purpose, but those work-arounds can bring their own difficulties and issues. A clear, positive and readily accessible statement of the law in a short statute will improve the standing and value of Scottish law domestically and internationally given the multi jurisdictional nature of many of the transactions in which contracts are created. The bill therefore abolishes the existing common law rule and establishes a statutory basis for the operation of third-party rights in Scotland. Most importantly, the bill addresses the issue of irrevocability. For a third-party right to be in existence, the current law, as I said, requires that the right must be irrevocable. When the contract is formed, assuming that the criteria for the creation of a use, acquisition, tertiary or met, the contracting parties are unable to withdraw or change the third-party right, but that is at odds with the freedom of the contracting parties themselves to modify, cancel or otherwise amend the terms of the contract. Much of what is contained in the bill is intended to be the default position. It remains open to the contracting parties to define exactly what they intend to happen. Overall, I believe that the bill strikes the right balance by providing an effective legal framework for third-party rights, which does not cut across party autonomy. I am pleased that this is a view that was shared by a number of the witnesses. As the Scottish Law Commission points out in its business regulatory impact assessment, I quote, the bill is general in its application and not confined to any particular sector or group. A wide range of sectors will potentially be able to make use of it. Voting for the contract third-party right Scotland bill today will ensure that an important area of the law is subject to long overdue reform. It is an area that could impact on any one of us at any time should we find ourselves as third parties to a contract. For that reason, it is therefore important that the law meets expectations and is fit for purpose, and I believe that those reforms will achieve that aim. I move, Presiding Officer, that the Parliament agrees that the contract third-party right Scotland bill will be passed. Thank you very much. Before I call Graham Simpson, can I ask all members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call Graham Simpson. Mr Simpson, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Before I start, I want to pay tribute to the work of my colleague John Scott, who was convener of the current DPLR committee from the start of this session and a member of its predecessor committee. He can take a considerable amount of credit for the smooth and constructive yet careful and rigorous way that this bill has been scrutinised. Thank you to John Scott and the committee. I have had a lot of catching up to do on contract law and third-party rights. It was not something that we talked about much in my previous job as a Scottish Sun journalist, nor is it the big talking point on the number 31 bus in East Kilbride, but it is an important bill. As I have said, this has been a constructive process. John Scott said in the stage 1 debate that this is the third Scottish law commission bill to be scrutinised by the Parliament. The Scottish law commission bill process itself is a relatively new one, which was created in order to improve the implementation rate of Scottish law commission reports. Put simply, the process is there to update, simplify and improve the law in Scotland. As parliamentarians, lawmakers and representatives of the people, that is something that we welcome. This bill follows the commission's report on third-party rights, which was published in July 2016, as part of its review of contract law. I wish to thank the Scottish law commission, in particular Professor Hector McQueen, for the constructive and helpful way that they are engaged with the Parliament at all points in the process. The bill proposes changes to the law in Scotland, which allows parties to a contract to create rights for third parties. The main aim of the bill is to make the law clearer and more usable in this area. Now, some may find the bill quite dry, technical and ever-so-slightly dull. I might even have fallen into that trap, but that would be to miss the point. This is a bill that provides clarity in law, not just for politicians, QCs and judges, but for ordinary men and women in everyday situations in all of our constituencies. It means that, for example, if a family holiday goes wrong, family members, who did not book the break themselves but still suffered the holiday from hell, can enforce their rights under statute. It means that under statute, an informal carer can enter a contract to get building work done on behalf of a client who suffers from dementia and lacks the capacity to make that contract. It means that a subcontractor running a small business and struggling to pay their bills now has the statutory right to claim payment from the contractor who signed the original contract. Real people, everyday situations, ensuring fairness and equity. I have already said that it has been a constructive process. The Scottish Law Commission has engaged with the Parliament from the start and will doubtless do so again. I also want to thank the Scottish Government and, in particular, the minister, Annabelle Ewing, for listening to the DPLR committee and responding to the will of the Parliament. The Government's stage 2 amendments responded to concerns of witnesses, such as the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society and others, and the recommendations of the committee's stage 1 report. They cleared up any semblance of doubt over the enforcement of the right in relation to the issue of arbitration, and they removed possible unintended consequences of application of existing third-party rights under the common law of just quiesetum tertio or something like that after the provisions of the bill are commenced. Those amendments ensured that what will emerge following the parliamentary process is even clearer than the bill has introduced. I thank the minister and her officials for that constructive, democratic and thoughtful approach. On 5 September, the First Minister announced that, in this year's programme for government, there would be a prescription bill that the DPLR committee expects to scrutinise. I look forward to scrutinising that bill. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Scottish Law Commission. Indeed, I look forward to holding the Scottish Government to account as we work together to improve Scots law, ensuring that it remains relevant and competitive alongside other legal systems. Perhaps, most importantly, I look forward to hearing and championing the views of those affected by the legislation from advocate to artist, solicitors to student, professor to punter. US Supreme Court judge Louis Brandis once said, if we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. The work of the Scottish Law Commission in seeking to update and improve Scots law to make it relevant and competitive is to be commended. I thank it for its work on this bill. I support the motion in the name of the minister that the contract third party rights Scotland bill be passed. Thank you, Mr Simpson. As you are surrounded by advocates, I do not think that they are finding this the least bit dry. I call Clare Baker, please. Ms Baker, five minutes, please. This afternoon, we finalised the passage of the contract third party rights Scotland bill. For those of us who contributed to the stage 1 debate, I imagine that much of the discussion will be fairly familiar. This is not the most debated, controversial or wide-ranging piece of legislation that we have considered, but that does not diminish its value. I thank the Scottish Law Commission for its work on the bill. It plays a significant role in ensuring that our laws are relevant, accessible and consistent. For over 50 years, it has worked to recommend laws to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland. In the past 20 years, the Scottish Parliament has given greater opportunity for taking forward their work, and there have been some high profile, even contentious, pieces of legislation that are originating from them. That includes the abolition of feudal tenure, which took considerably longer than this piece of legislation to pass, and the protection of the rights and interests of adults who are incapable of managing their own affairs. The bill today, however, has passed with a degree of consensus. Such was the consensus that I note that at stage 2, MSPs were entirely content with the minister's amendments. I thank the committee members for their work on the bill and all the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. The expansion of the role of the Delegated Powers Committee to include law reform is proving to be effective. We owe a debt of gratitude to the many witnesses who gave us their time and expertise to support the legislative process and the work of this Parliament. Indeed, the witnesses to this piece of legislation provided effective reasoning to the committee who highlighted those issues in the stage 1 report. Their input has been invaluable. The discussion at stage 1 persuaded the minister to bring forward a number of amendments at stage 2, including those to provide greater clarity to section 9 and its relationship with section 1, following discussions from the Faculty of Advocates. In moving the amendment, the minister said that a number of points raised by the faculty go beyond the third-party rights into possible wider changes into the laws of arbitration, and that she did not consider the bill to be the right vehicle for addressing all the points that were raised by the faculty of advocates. Could the minister possibly reflect on closing the merits of those points from the faculty and whether the Government intends to pursue a different route to addressing them? The minister also recognised the arguments from the Law Society of Scotland that section 10 is too percolous and introduced amendments to address that, as well as making amendments to sections 12 and 13. Amendments agreed indicate that there was a desire to deliver a bill that is clear, efficient and readily understood. The bill that we are intending to pass today, originating from the important work of the Law Commission, has received considerable scrutiny from the Parliament, as well as valuable insight and improvement suggestions that were made from other interested parties. It will provide a new statutory framework with clearer rules on third-party rights and provide greater clarity within Scotland's law. However, there is the recognition that the act is unlikely to be widely adopted anytime soon and that practitioners will continue to use the established workabouts or continue to use English law. Although there is substantive evidence into supporting the introduction of the bill, it is likely to be limited in its use, with a preference for the familiar and a tendency towards caution to be anticipated. In time, however, if the benefits of the legislation are to be made clear, this might encourage legal practitioners and their clients to use the act, particularly in the pursuit of flexibility and providing an additional tool to be used alongside existing alternatives. In closing, I ask the minister what role the Scottish Government sees for itself and other partners to promote the potential benefits of the legislation. I believe that, by raising awareness of the legislation and the opportunities that it presents, that could increase the application of the law, which would then lead to increased confidence and familiarity. I hope that the Government will consider the merits of taking the matter forward once we conclude the business of this afternoon. I believe that anything that demystifies the legal process so that it is better understood by the layperson and improves access to justice can only be good. That is why I am happy to support stage 3 of the contract third party rights Scotland bill, which replaces the current law, which is causing a great deal of uncertainty and confusion. The lead committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, took evidence from a wide variety of stakeholders who welcomed the reform, which I suppose could come into the category of a common sense improvement. The royal incorporation of architects in Scotland say that it will clear up areas of ambiguity and doubt. The Law Society of Scotland states that the law on this issue is outdated compared to the approach of other modern legal systems. The general aim of the bill is to provide a new statutory framework with clearer, more usable rules on third party rights. The changes proposed are based on the recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission, which found that the existing law is no longer fit for purpose, or to put another way, is long past its sell-by-date. Under the current law, it is not clear whether third parties have a right to claim damages for breach of a third party right. As I understand it, it strengthens the rights of the third party. Examples of where those rights might apply could be insurance contracts, company contracts, construction contracts and pensions, where an employer's pension scheme might allow a third party to be nominated as the beneficiary if the employee dies while still in employment. Time limits for bringing claims under the current law are also very unclear. The general rule is that most claims can no longer be made five years after the day in which loss, injury or damage first occurred. However, the prescription and limitation of Scotland Act 1973 does not even mention third party rights. Under Scots law, third party rights have to be irrevocable, but there is uncertainty as to what that actually means. The Scottish Law Commission believes that the need for irrevocability is one of the main problems with the current law. The bill also includes rules that mean that third party rights to arbitrate could be created. Put simply, the rule of irrevocability is too inflexible and is one of the main problems with the current law, which in itself would be caused for a new statutory framework. In England, Wales and some other countries, the law enables third party disputes under certain circumstances to be dealt with by arbitration. However, Scottish arbitration legislation under the Arbitration of Scotland Act 2010 does not expressly deal with third party rights, and that bill would correct that. In conclusion, let me end with the good news that the bill is not expected to result in any new costs, and there is an argument that it could in fact provide savings to businesses and to the legal profession. I stated at the outset that I applaud anything that brings clarification to legal matters and which enhances access to justice. For that reason, I am happy to recommend the contract third party rights Scotland bill to the chamber today. I call Alison Harris to be followed by Monica Lennon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to see further progress in the passage of this bill and welcome the opportunity to take part in this stage 3 debate this afternoon. I have been involved in the scrutiny of the bill in my role as a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I have enjoyed the process and, over the months, my initial views that this was a measure worthy of support to have never wavered. Since I spoke in the stage 1 debate back in May, further amendments have been made, making the bill even more fit for purpose. Those amendments included the tightening of language use to ensure that the provisions of the bill were readily understood and other measures that were unanimously agreed to by the committee. As a committee, we heard compelling evidence from bodies such as the Scottish Law Commission that the existing law really needed to be updated. That was brought home when, during discussion on the bill, reference was made to case law going back to Wood v Moncure in 1591. Case law in the century since only added to the difficulties of interpretation, flexibility and clarity to such an extent that the Law Society of Scotland have said that many lawyers were not comfortable with giving advice in an area of the law that was so unclear. In modern day commercial activity, the law clearly was not working. Many groups were choosing to enter into contracts under more flexible terms set out under the revised law in England and Wales, a law that since 1999 has been in sharp contrast to the irrevocable nature of the law here in Scotland. The need for irrevocability in the law, as it presently stands, is one of its main problems and has led to significant barriers to the use of third-party rights as it restricts the freedom of the contracting parties. I hope that another of the pleasing effects of this bill will be a return of the parties, happy once more to use the law of Scotland in settling disputes and seeking remedy. Reform will not only remove concerns that limit the usage of the Scots law in commercial transactions, but it will keep Scots law fit for purpose for modern day usage. In the bill that brings much-needed clarity to the law, it will remove many of the barriers and address many of the concerns that the Scots law commission and others have told us about. The bill will not only assist business, it will also be of great benefit to the individual, whether booking a family holiday or a third-party beneficiary of a life insurance policy. Further, it clarifies that a third-party could be entitled to a remedy to which a contracting party would be entitled and removes any doubt as to whether third parties have the right to claim damages. It will bring the law more in line not only with our neighbours in England and Wales, but also friends across the Commonwealth, such as Singapore, New Zealand and several Australian states, who in recent years have moved away from positions similar to what was currently the law here in Scotland. In conclusion, I thank all my colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, the then convener John Scott and Latterley Graham Simpson, ministers, parliamentary staff and all those from outside the Parliament who have assisted us with our roles on the committee. This bill gives us the opportunities that I have mentioned—clarity, flexibility and restoring confidence—that in this area, Scott's law is among the most up-to-date in the world. It will be of great benefit to both business and individuals. I am delighted to continue my support for this bill this afternoon. Monica Lennon, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to follow Alison Harris as another member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As you have heard, we have been the lead committee on this bill over the past several months. It is fair to say that we have become fairly well acquainted with the arguments for why the change in the law is necessary. As I previously set out in my contribution to the stage 1 debate on the bill, the evidence has been very clear among those that we received submissions from, including the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission and the Faculty of Advocates, that the current common law arrangements are not sufficient and that clarification was required. As other colleagues have mentioned, it is welcome that there is so much agreement on the content of the bill. I suppose that the largely uncontroversial nature of it also undoubtedly means that we are all going to be repeating the same points throughout this short debate. When I look back at the official report for stage 1, I was struck by Murdo Fraser's comments, who I do not think is in the chamber with us today. As I suppose to paraphrase Murdo Fraser, he was rhyming off all the challenges that we have as MSPs. I think that he was finding it, despite his own legal background, quite challenging to construct a lengthy speech. I am not sure whether that is because of the dry technical nature or because we all agree so much on the merits of the bill. I would like to associate myself with the sentiment of consensus and thank all of the witnesses who gave us their expert advice over several committee sessions and, of course, the clerks for their support throughout that process. I echo Graham Simpson's remarks and his tribute to John Scott, who we already missed from the committee, but I am sure that Graham Simpson will be a very able replacement already. Learning about our new convener and the fact that he spends time on the number 31 bus in East Kilbride, which might be fun for you to hear as well. Witnesses have told us that codifying and updating the existing law on third-party rights will provide clarity, flexibility and revocable rights, which will promote the use of Scottish law. That was an important point for all of us on the committee. Ross Anderson from the faculty highlighted that the bill might benefit people who do not really have access to expensive legal advice. He said that one of the great advantages of the bill, as it sets out in modern language, is what the law is, an important point. I pay tribute to the Scottish Law Commission for being a leader on the issue and proposing those changes to Parliament. Although the changes on the issue may appear to be largely technical and not on the face of mainstream or pressing issues to many people, the issue of third-party rights is an important one, and that change will make a difference to many, according to the minister who made in her opening remarks. As Rona Mackay set out from insurance contracts, construction contracts and pensions, that is something that could benefit many people. I would like to pick up on one point arising from the committee's sessions on the enforcement of the law in the future. It has been said that the bill will promote the use of Scottish law, but, although there has been widespread support for the bill, witnesses have suggested that they do not expect the bill's provisions to be adopted straight away. I hope that we see the bill enforced and adopted in Scotland and that the Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and others can play their part in raising awareness of the changes among their members to ensure that those who need the provisions of the bill are able to make good use of it. I am no legal expert, but the evidence of committee has heard and has clearly highlighted to me that the codifying of third-party contract rights will be important to improving the use and reputation of Scottish law. I welcome the bill as amended. The last of the open debate contributions is Stuart McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I want to put on record my thanks to the former convener, John Scott, and his chairing of the DPLR committee. In particular, the bill has progressed through the committee. John was a fine convener, and I am sure that Graham Simpson will be likewise in action well in his new role. It can be a challenge taking part in the scrutiny of a bill at the end of its progress, but I think that Graham Simpson's contribution earlier on today was excellent. I thank him for that. As was highlighted today and also in the stage 1 debate, the bill is not contentious, as we can gather by the contributions around the chamber, but it is providing the opportunity to codify modernised common law on third-party rights. It has been stated during the passage of the bill that the current law has caused some concern and confusion, but this bill from the Scottish Law Commission will rectify that and has certainly been welcomed by stakeholders. It is the third such bill from the SLC, and it is the first time in this parliamentary session. I was on the DPLR committee in the last session of Parliament when we scrutinised a similar piece of legislation, which was the legal writings, counterparts and delivery of the Scotland bill. At the time, I thought that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee was a useful avenue for Parliament to possess, to deal with law reform, and I am genuinely delighted that the committee now has the power and the responsibility to look at law reform as it has been able to assist with the wider issue of law reform in Scotland. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has certainly been supportive of the bill as those who have provided evidence have suggested that paragraphs 27 and 40 of our stage 1 report certainly touched upon the speed of law reform and the introduction of the bill, as others have stated before. As the evidence also shows, there was not much concern about that. I want to reiterate one point that I made earlier in the committee, but also during the stage 1 debate. I know that the minister stated that she was going to raise this issue with Lord Pentland when the next met, and that was the issue of bundling, and I am quoting the minister that was from the stage 1 debate. The Scottish—well, the SLC proposals are on a smaller focus legislative improvements. I asked the minister whether she and the Scottish Government, along with the SLC, would consider whether further SLC bills could be incorporated to include more than one bill. I am certainly pleased that the minister provided a commitment to explore the issue in the future. Law reform does not take place regularly or in a vacuum and, as this bill and also the area that covers highlights, if it is possible to improve and update the law by more SLC bills covering multiple areas or being bundled together, we could make even more headway with law reform going forward. However, we are not alone, as the bill highlights, and similar legislation was first muted in Westminster in 1937, with a bill being presented to the UK Parliament in 1999. In the bill that we are discussing today, the codification of the law of third party rights provides certainty for users of Scots law, which I will report in stage 1, which was highlighted in paragraph 51 to 61, on law firms. It will be able to use that certainty in legislation, instead of using expensive collateral warranties or law from other jurisdictions. A model phraser during the stage 1 debate touched on the area of collateral warranties, which was also touched on as we went through the evidence. Collateral warranties can be expensive and there was a hint that some organisations might still prefer to use them because of the revenue that they can generate for those firms. In the bill that is in front of us today will help us to deal with that issue of Scots law. In our case, it will ensure that cases that do not use English law can use Scots law. Witnesses were clear that there will not be a rush to use a new legislation because training will certainly be required once the bill has been enacted. Nonetheless, it will in time be used for a greater number of contracts, and that can only be of economic benefit for Scotland. The bill, although short of 15 sections, was clearly well written as there were only seven amendments proposed to which were passed unanimously at stage 2 in committee. I would like to echo the comments of others by thanking the Scottish Government, everyone in the DPLAR team and witnesses for their efforts to bringing the bill to a successful conclusion tonight at decision time. We now move to the closing speeches and I call Mary Fee. Four minutes please, Ms Fee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing for Scottish Labour today, I want to begin by once again thanking the Scottish Law Commission for undertaking the work that has resulted in the contracts third party rights Scotland bill that we are debating today at stage 3. Ensuring that our legal system is fair, balanced and just, we must listen to those who work daily in their legal fields. That is the approach that Parliament has taken with this piece of legislation. I would also like to thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their informative stage 1 report that gave us a crucial insight into why we need to make this small yet crucial legal change. Speeches across the chamber today have been supportive of both the principle behind the bill and the need to make the change. In the short time that I have to close, it is difficult for me to reflect on all the contributions, but I would like to say that I am grateful for the consensual and constructive way that colleagues have approached this debate, and that has been reflected in the contributions today. As we know, the bill has support from across the legal profession and has been backed by a range of stakeholders. The general principles of the bill allow us to ensure legal certainty, flexibility and fairness in advancing third-party rights. Replacing the existing common law with a statutory version will end the reliance of the ad hoc development of case law. Ensuring that legal certainty should allow those entering into a contract to use Scots law and not laws from other jurisdictions. The policy memorandum informs us that the bill will promote the use of Scots law. However, witnesses speaking to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee raised a note of concern that the bill's provisions may not be adopted by legal professions following the bill's assent to enact. Witnesses indicated that some legal practitioners and clients may continue to use the familiar practices such as collateral warranties and English law. I believe that that is something that we will have to be mindful of in the coming years to ensure that the ambitions of the bill are met. Scrutiny will be of key importance as the legislation moves forward. Third-party rights must become more flexible, adaptable and easier to understand and apply. Another aim of the bill is to make it easier for contracting parties to create and remove third-party rights. The abolition of irrevocability is welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland and by the Faculty of Advocates. The abolition of that rule will also ensure that protections and balances are required for third parties entering into contracts. Scottish Labour will support the bill because we want to see a legal system that guarantees certainty while providing flexibility and fairness for all parties. Where things go wrong, we need the right to proper arbitration. The bill can deliver those outcomes and is an important step forward. We are happy to support the contract third-party rights Scotland bill and the motion in the minister's name at decision time tonight. Thank you. Gordon Lindhurst, around five minutes please. I begin by echoing the comments of my colleague Graham Simpson and his thanks to our colleague John Scott, who was the convener of the DPLR committee when this bill was introduced to Parliament. For his sterling work on this bill and in that committee, he did not shy away from dealing with issues of detail in their occasional horror. No doubt we are all agreed that simplification and clarification of the law is a good thing. As I commented in my previous speech on this bill, the case of Carmichael against Carmichael is a good example to illustrate the human importance of what we do in making law in this place—law that can be for the good or the ill, even if it may appear to deal with mundane and technical issues. I will not repeat for the sake of speaking the areas already mentioned by many others in which the bill will clarify and improve the law of Scotland—the current inflexibility of the irrevocability rule, enforceability of third-party rights in relation to damages and so on. Is this a due to usequizetum tertio, as we lawyers pronounce it? No disrespect to my colleague Graham Simpson. That third-party right is spoken of by Lord Stair in his institutions, and I am referring to the second edition, published in 1693, at 1.10.5, in which he referred to it as quadrating to our customs. I hasten to add, by reference to my register of interests, as a practising advocate that Stair is no longer the daily resort of a Scottish court practitioner. Nor is the case that Lord Stair referred to, against the Laird of Maine, which was decided on 25 November 1609, and recorded in Morrison's dictionary at 12126. Indeed, we would not expect it to be. It related to an action of spoolie of teens and the circumduction of the term, which, for example, was no longer applied in, and I quote, the modern form of procedure, according to the seventh edition of Bell's Dictionary of the Law of Scotland, published in 1890. However, there is a serious point here. Unless an act, even an act of this Parliament, is entirely clear, the courts can be thrown back on historic terms and case law. I made certain comments at the time of the last debate, including on the originally proposed section 10.1, which relates to renunciation or would have related to renunciation by the third party. It is not, however, appeared to have made its way back into the bill. In the policy memorandum to the bill, as originally introduced, it was stated that the principle policy aim of the bill was, and I quote, to replace the current common law. The financial memorandum referred to abolition of the use-quad seetham tertio rule. However, in the explanatory notes, reference was made to the importance of having a clear method of rejecting the third party right if desired, hence the draft section 10.1. In her letter dated 24 May 2017 to the DPLR committee, the cabinet minister said that the Scottish Government had come to the view that section 10.1, as drafted, was superfluous, saying that it is simply a statement of what is already a matter of general principle. Presumably, that is a general principle of the common law, and that raises at least a question mark over the operation of the act. Question marks lead back to Stair, Ochmouti, Bell and the Laird of Maine. Therefore, in closing, I ask a question of the cabinet secretary and this notwithstanding section 12 of the bill. Does the bill that we are passing into law today, in her view, merely modify the use-quad seetham tertio rule, completely abolish the rule, or codify the rule to make it purely statutory within the act to be of this Parliament, in other words, the bill that we are voting on today? If there is no clear answer to this question, it could be goodbye hello to use-quad seetham tertio. It is very difficult for a Presiding Officer who has to know whether words are appropriate. Can I call on the minister to respond to the debate, please? Can you take us up to about half past four, please, Ms Yeung? Thank you, Presiding Officer. What would I say? I think that we are verging on this side of the chamber to the view that it is goodbye use-quad seetham tertio going forward, but I would be happy to write in detail to the detail point raised by the member. I thank all members who have spoken in the debate today for their contributions and, indeed, their interest in this piece of legislation. It has demonstrated, I think, the importance of the bill on modernising our law and third party rights, because, as we have seen, we have been wending our way from jurisprudence dating back to the 16th century through various centuries in between to bring us up to speed to the 21st century, and, in itself, demonstrates the need for a fresh look at that. Graham Simpson, who I also would like to welcome to his new role as convener of the DPLRC, recognised that, although perhaps not the most exciting of bills that this Parliament has had the opportunity to scrutinise, nonetheless the bill was important, as it does set forth important rights for our constituents. That is where we should always come back to when we are debating matters in this chamber. I welcome the support that has been expressed for the reforms from the outset. I am grateful for the time that members have taken to engage with what is quite a discreet and specialist area of contract law and, indeed, for the constructive way in which they have approached the scrutiny of the bill. I very much welcome the careful consideration that has been given. The bill has undoubtedly benefited from a willingness among stakeholders to participate fully in the development of the legislation. There has been little, if indeed any, disagreement about the need for the reforms, and the process has been more about ensuring that the provisions meet the aims of the reforms. I would like to take the opportunity to again thank the committee for its supportive and helpful stage 1 report, which enabled us to focus clearly on a few issues that might have benefitted from further consideration. We took the views of the committee on board, we spoke further with key stakeholders and, at stage 2, we were therefore able to bring forward a few amendments that have ensured that the bill is clear and usable and that a small gap in its application was indeed plugged. We are confident that the amendments that we made to the bill at stage 2 have further improved the bill and that, indeed, therefore was a very useful process and again all credit to the hardworking and diligent members of Mr Simpson's new committee. I am, Presiding Officer, of the firm view that any opportunity to enter into an informed discussion with stakeholders about various issues enhances policy considerations. I would say, in response to the specific question that Claire Baker raised, that we did address some of the issues raised by the Faculty of Advocates, particularly with regard to arbitration. I would also like to say, of course, that my door is always open to the faculty should they wish to pursue any of those particular issues further. The ability to create third-party rights is indeed important. There are many reasons for third-party rights to be created, and they apply, as we have heard, to individuals as much as to business. They provide vital entitlements and protections for individuals and businesses. Contracting parties to a contract and those who are provided with third-party rights in a contract should all benefit from the law being clearer, up-to-date and, indeed, more flexible. For we all deserve a legal framework, which is fit for purpose, and this bill will deliver that. I would like to turn in the few minutes that I have left, Presiding Officer, to deal with a couple of themes that have been recurring during the legislative passage of the bill. Indeed, they were referred to this afternoon. A key issue, of course, is that we have now, hopefully, about to pass the legislation. What happens next? How do we encourage recourse to the legislation? What I would say is that reform of this kind often turns out to have a momentum of its own. I know that Professor McQueen has spoken personally at various contract law conferences about the bill, and that method of spreading the word will, I am sure, continue. Both Jonathan Gaskell and Craig Connell, during the legislative passage of the bill, spoke about the role that the profession and practitioners have in raising the profile of the legislation. I am confident that there are strong advocates for the bill out there amongst the profession. There have already been numerous positive articles written and published about the legislation, and all of that will continue as well. David Wedderburn of the Royal Incorporation of Architects spoke about getting in at the ground level and, indeed, indicated that the Royal Incorporation of Architects would be issuing practice notes to members alerting them to when the bill becomes an act. All of those actions will help to ensure that the relevant people are aware of the change in the law and, indeed, what it could mean for them. Once people start to use the provisions in the bill, that too should instill confidence that the law is now fit for purpose. Of course, the Scottish Government stands ready to do what we can to help the process along. I am optimistic that, given the clear benefits of the bill in terms of the saving of time and money and the fact that no longer people will need to look to work around such as applying the law of England, which is more costly for contracts here in Scotland, or, indeed, using collateral warranties, that those work-arounds will no longer be necessary so that we can save time and money. I am optimistic, therefore, that that will be a great incentive to the legal profession in terms of properly advising their clients. Analogy with the legal writings, counterparts and delivery of Scotland Act 2015, perhaps is aposite here. Prior to that legislation—again, a DPLRC bill—prior to that legislation being passed by this Parliament, the inability of documents to be executed in counterpart actually meant that Scotland was less attractive in the commercial world. However, we have received some qualitative anecdotal feedback that supports the view that the 2015 act has had a positive impact on that regard. It has generated efficiencies and, for some, has made the decision to use Scotland's law easier. We have seen no reason why the third party rights bill would not perhaps have a similar effect in terms of improving and encouraging the use of Scotland's law to create third-party rights. In responding to a point that my colleague Stuart McMillan raised, and I know that he raised it in committee, about having discussions with Lord Pentland, about how they approach looking at their reform process. I am to meet with Lord Pentland, I believe, in the next few weeks, and I will, of course, be happy to raise that point directly with Lord Pentland. In conclusion, I believe that the bill is a worthy one for this Parliament's consideration tonight. It will bring much-needed reform, it will help individuals and businesses, and it will make the law of Scotland modern and bring us from where we have been earlier today, which was the 16th century, right up to the 21st century. I thank members across the chamber for their stated support during the stage 3 debate, and I invite them to pass the bill tonight at stage 3. Thank you very much. Minister, that concludes our stage 3 debate on the contract third party rights Scotland bill. So we come to decision time, and there are two questions today. The first question is that motion 7584, in the name of Tom Arthur, on the Edinburgh Bakers Widows Fund, will be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. Our next question is a stage 3, so we will hold a division, even if it is unanimous. The final question is that motion 7774, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on the contract third party rights Scotland bill at stage 3, be agreed. If members would cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 7774, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, is yes 109, there were no zero, there were no abstentions, the motion is therefore agreed, and the contract third party rights Scotland bill is passed. That concludes decision time.