 I apologise to the four members that have been unable to call for this statement. We need to move on to next site of business, which is a debate on motion number 14297. In the name of Margaret Mitchell, on the Apologies Scotland bill, members who wish to take part in the debate should press the request speak button now, and I call on Margaret Mitchell to speak to move the motion. Ms Mitchell, no more than 10 minutes. I am pleased to be opening today's debate on my apology Scotland bill, and by again by expressing my thanks to the Justice Committee, the Finance Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee, the Law and Reform Committee for their considered scrutiny of the bill. In particular, I thank the Justice Committee for supporting the general principles of the bill and recognising that this legislation could have a role to play in changing the cultural attitudes towards apologising. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs Paul Wheelhouse and his officials for the constructive discussion in relation to my bill. I am encouraged that the minister supports the aims of the bill and I look forward to working with him in the future in the event that my bill is supported today. My initial interest in seeking to introduce apology's legislation stems from my work as convener of the cross-party group and adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and it was approximately five years ago that Professor Miller, the Scottish Human Rights Commissioner, came to speak to the CPG and told the members that some parliaments had passed legislation to ensure that an apology could be given without fear of it being used as a basis for establishing legal liability. Professor Miller spoke about the benefits that can flow from giving an apology and explained that apologies are more readily given where there is protection from an apology being used in future legal proceedings. It was with the adult and historic survivors of childhood sexual abuse in mind that I then undertook further research on apology's legislation, for there is absolutely no doubt that those incredibly brave individuals deserve to have every effect of remedy possible to help them aim access to justice. The aims of the bill are twofold, to encourage the use of apologies by providing legal certainty that an apology cannot be used prejudicially against a person giving their apology and to encourage a change in attitudes towards apologising and a cultural and social change to the giving of an apology. It is important to stress at this point that the aim of the bill is not, as the personal injury lawyers mistakenly seem to think, about tackling any perceived increase in litigation. It seeks instead to address the very real problem of the reluctance and failure to offer an apology for fear of litigation. Every member in this chamber will have had at some point experience of a constituent coming to them about a problem or something that has gone wrong, where all that person wants is quite simply an apology. Having established the aims of the bill, it became evident that its application should not be restricted to survivors of childhood abuse but would have a wider application. In his annual report 2013-14, the Scottish public sector ombasman encouraged public officials to resolve things early at the front line, including ensuring that apologies are given freely and action taken when things go wrong. The bill supports the same, and its wider application is exemplified in the same report where the SPSO reveals that, in 2014, the total numbers of complaints received were 4,456. 1,750 of those were in respect to the local authority sector, and 1,379 in respect of the health sector combined those two sectors made up 70 per cent of the total number of complaints received. There is therefore a reasonable expectation that the bill, by providing legal certainty about the legal consequences of offering an apology, will help to prevent complaints being made in the first place. However, it is important to emphasise and understand that the protection offered by the proposed bill would not prevent the recipient of an apology from going on to pursue legal redress. Essentially, the bill applies to all sectors in civil proceedings, but not to criminal proceedings. It provides legal protection to an expression of apology so that it cannot be used as evidence in certain civil proceedings. The draft bill before us applies to all types of apology, including those with an admission of fault, statements of fact and or, and undertaking to look at the circumstances to prevent a recurrence. As currently drafted, any or all of those elements would be deemed to be part of the apology itself. Here I thank the Justice Committee for its scrutiny and careful consideration of the views both formed against a bill. Those were gleaned from written submissions and oral evidence. I also welcome the minister's support for the bill and principle. Although I am a member of the committee, I was not part of the committee's deliberations. However, when I gave evidence to the committee and subsequently in discussion with the minister, I indicated that I was happy for this bill to be developed further, where there is a reasonable case for doing so. I have listened closely to the arguments put forward by witnesses, including the minister, about whether the effect of certain provisions in the definition could be to possibly prevent an individual from securing compensation. In particular, if a statement of fact within an apology was the only evidence available, statements of facts were included to try to encourage the fullest possible apology, but I am aware that their inclusion in the definition goes further than any other apology legislation. Having reflected on witnesses' concerns, I confirm that I am persuaded that the definition in the bill should be revised to exclude statements of fact. In terms of the inclusion of the protection of an admission of fault in the definition, it is important to recognise and understand that an admission of fault is not the same as an admission of liability. Despite that, there has been a lot of confused thinking on the issue, but given the concerns that have been raised and, as has already been indicated, I am happy to look at the issue again at stage 2. In terms of the legislative context of the apology bill within the UK at present, Scotland does not have a statutory framework that deals specifically with the effect of apologies on civil or criminal liability. In England and Wales, section 2 of the 2006 compensation act offers a degree of apology coverage. That states that an apology, an offer of treatment or other redress shall not in itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty. The health and sport committee is currently scrutinising the health, tobacco nicotine etc. care Scotland bill. Under the proposed duty of candor procedure for health and social care professionals contained in this bill, an apology does not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty. However, the apology could subsequently be taken into account in court proceedings. In effect, the wording in the health bill reflects that used in the compensation act. The justice committee found it difficult to see how my bill and the duty of candor provisions of the health bill could coexist without some form of exemption in health matters. While reluctant for such an exemption to be made, I accept the committee's reasoning. There was a range of other exemptions raised by witnesses and in written evidence, which I do not have time to expand on in any detail just now. Suffice to say, I accept the committee's view that there are strong arguments for other exceptions to be made. Those include children's hearings, public enquiries and arbitration tribunals and pre-action protocol proceedings. However, as the committee noted, if the definition of an apology is amended during the passage of the bill, it may well be that some of the suggested exemptions would not be required. The Justice Committee's report was published. I have had further useful meetings with the minister at which he emphasised concern that the bill might inadvertently disadvantage pursuers. The minister suggested that the solution might be to omit the provision that would prevent an apology being admissible in evidence, thus bringing the bill closer to the compensation model. Following the meeting, I saw further views from Professor Alan Miller and I was encouraged that he remains decidedly of the opinion that making an apology inadmissible as evidence is central to making the apology legislation effectively. I have now written to the minister attaching a copy of Professor Miller's bill letter to me and I hope that other members of the chamber have had a chance to see that today. In conclusion, I look forward to working with the minister to further refine my bill as it progresses. With goodwill on all sides, I am confident that we can deliver an apology legislation that is workable and that will make a real difference while also addressing some of the concerns raised during the stage 1 report. I am pleased to move the motion S4M14297 that Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Apologies Scotland Bill. I now call Christine Grahame to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee no more than seven minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, I will apologise, no pun intended for the state of my voice. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee to the report, though I will reflect on the promised or abedments that may come the way at stage 2. At the outset, I would like to thank all those who took time to provide evidence to the committee that shaped our thinking on the bill. Apologies and how they are used in law is not an area that has crossed our deaths before, so we are very much valued hearing the views of legal, human rights and mediation experts, local authorities, insurance lawyers and health professionals about how the proposed legislation would affect individuals and other groups. The committee has spent so much of its time dealing with criminal law that it was refreshing for a change. I am looking at the cabinet secretary and the minister for communities to cover some civil law for a change. It is good that it was one of our committee members who was quite fun reprimanding Margaret Mitchell when she started to give evidence instead of asking questions of witnesses. It is good to have some power over Margaret Mitchell for a change. In our stage 1 report, the committee broadly supported the general principles of the bill in encouraging the use of apologies in circumstances where something goes wrong. We did acknowledge that there seems to be a lack of empirical evidence on the successor otherwise of apologies legislation in various other jurisdictions, but, on balance, we concluded that legislation may have a role to play in changing the culture and attitudes towards apologies, alongside other measures such as guidance and training. However, we considered that further work was required at stage 2 to ensure that the measures in the bill can work effectively with both professional medical standards, which is reserved, and with the Government's proposed duty of candour, which is in a separate piece of legislation. More importantly, the committee wanted to reassure the individuals wishing to pursue fair claims are not going to be disadvantaged by the measures in the bill, so we made a number of recommendations at stage 1 aiming to improve those. As we have heard, the bill's policy objectives are to encourage the use of apologies for providing that an apology is inadmissible in certain civil proceedings as evidence of liability and cannot be used to prejudice the person making the apology. It also has the broader purpose of encouraging a cultural and social change in attitudes towards apologising. Although there was general support among witnesses for encouraging the use of apologies, there was a range of views on whether the legislation was the best way to facilitate the cultural and social change in attitudes envisioned. While we received little evidence to convince us that there is a serious compensation or blame culture in Scotland that needs to be addressed, it appeared from the evidence that we received that there is a fear of litigation in certain sectors that may hinder the use of apologies. There was also little evidence on the success of comparable legislation and other jurisdictions that made it challenging for us as a committee to assess the potential impact of the bill. I know that the members already addressed that, but I will take it from my report and then I will comment. I think that it is fair to say that the definition of the apology in the bill attracted some concern. Most witnesses felt the definition in covering one, express or implied admission of fault, two, statements of fact, which the member has addressed, and three, an undertaking to look at the circumstances with a view to preventing it happening again was too wide and might have unintended consequences. Some witnesses said that they would have preferred the wording used in the compensation act 2006, which simply provides that quotes, an apology, an offer of treatment or other redress shall not of itself amount to the admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty, close quotes. There was also concern about the inconsistency between the definition in this bill and the duty of candor, I think that I referred to earlier, in the Scottish Government's current health bill, which adopts the approach in the 2006 act. To give an example of unintended consequences, I think that there is very colourful evidence, as there might be, from David Stevenson QC, with respect to if you apologise and include a fact in it and something else. You could prohibit evidence. That was his example. Why include a statement of fact? A husband writes a letter to his wife, Dear Senga, I'm sorry I broke your nose last night and beat the kids on the way out. Gengis. Does anybody seriously think that because that letter starts with the word I'm sorry, it should be inadmissible in legal proceedings relating to the matrimonial situation, the care and welfare of the children, and the protections of women and her husband? I think that that was a very, very trusty QC to give an example. I actually told you the problems that the way it was drafted and I note that the member has reflected on that and we'll see what comes forward. In terms of legal proceedings covered in the bill, we were content that fatal accident inquiries and definition proceedings should be excluded from the scope of the bill, but we did hear evidence that a number of other proceedings should also be exempted, which again is a matter that the member is addressing. He may be, however, that if the definition of apology is amended, in the way suggested by some witnesses, some of the exemptions suggested again, which the member referred to, would no longer be required. Finally, we heard from a number of health professionals who questioned how the bill would interact with their UK-wide professional standards in practice. The BMA in particular suggested that there was a real risk that regardless of the status of an apology in Scots law, the general medical council could consider the apology as an admission of fault or evidence of poor performance when pursuing individual cases. We also hope that that could be addressed at stage 2 should the bill pass at stage 1 tonight. To conclude, the committee broadly supports the general principles of this bill. We do have concerns about how it might work in practice, some of which I have highlighted here today and some of which the member is already addressing. I am sure that other committee members would wish to pick up some of the other areas of stage 1 report that I have not had time to cover. I look forward to hearing other contributions of this debate. I thank Margaret Mitchell for her opening statement and for the work that she has put into bringing the bill forward. I commend the member for her dedication to the topic and I share her wish to enable a cultural change to encourage the giving of apologies, as I understand this can be a great psychological benefit to those who feel they have been harmed. We should therefore not underestimate the positive impact of receiving an apology when a person has been wrong. The apology can be a way of showing acknowledgement, respect and empathy for other person and, while in of itself, it cannot undo past harms. It does, if done sincerely and effectively, it could provide some form of redress. The Scottish Government supports the aim of promoting and encouraging the giving of apologies by individuals and private and public bodies in order to achieve better outcomes for victims. However, I believe that the bill may have a role to play in changing the culture in terms of the prevailing attitudes to apologising more generally. I would also like to take the opportunity to highlight the important work undertaken by the Scottish Human Rights Commission in this area that Margaret Mitchell referred to. It is clear from their work with survivors of historic abuse and from the action plan, action point in the SHRC action plan that full consideration should be given to the merits of an apology law. With that in mind, I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament is now giving the Apology Scotland Bill such full consideration. I met Professor Allen Miller last week to discuss the reasons behind his support for the legislation as currently drafted and to explore areas of concern raised in the Justice Committee report. I welcomed the opportunity to hear the commission's views directly. The Justice Committee has taken evidence, as we just heard, from a range of experts and key stakeholders and has concluded that they broadly support the general principles of the bill. I share the committee's view and can also confirm my support for the general principles of the bill. However, having said that, a fine balance needs to be struck between promoting the general use of apologies in the public interest and protecting individuals' access to justice. Therefore, I also share the committee's concerns that the bill as currently drafted does not strike the correct balance. I welcome the comments that Margaret Mitchell has made about willingness to work with me and I very much look forward to working with her on her bill. However, I also note the committee's recommendations that are aimed at improving the bill at stage 2, and, indeed, Margaret Mitchell has indicated that she has taken those on board. The most important consideration is ensuring that individuals wishing to pursue justice are not disadvantaged by measures in the bill. Therefore, I echo the Justice Committee's concern that making apologies inadmissible in civil court proceedings could disadvantage pursuers who would be unable to draw on potentially important evidence to support their case as a consequence of the drafting of the bill. As the committee's report indicated, it is particularly relevant to survivors of historic child abuse who often face very difficult, evidential challenges. As members in this chamber will be aware, the Scottish Government has set out its intention to remove the three-year limitation period, which is commonly known as the time bar, for cases of historical child abuse that took place after 26 September 1964. Should the legislation be passed by the Scottish Parliament, that will remove a significant barrier to accessing justice for a number of survivors. However, I recognise that that only removes one barrier and survivors will still face significant evidential hurdles. In removing the ability to potentially use the evidence provided in an apology by rendering such an apology inadmissible, that may deprive a pursuer of an effective evidential remedy. Legal certainty about the status of apologies is a highly admirable aim, but it should not be done at the cost of restricting the access to justice for potential pursuers in action for damages. The key question in my mind is therefore, how do we promote a climate of open, full and frank apologies, which I very much share the intent that Margaret Mitchell wishes to achieve, that does not, though, disadvantage individuals wishing to pursue a fair claim? I can certainly see the merit in the alternative approach that I discussed in my evidence to the committee, and this approach would put the common law in Scotland on a statutory footing along the lines of section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006, that Christine Grahame and Indeed Margaret Mitchell have referred to in England and Wales. Section 2, I will not repeat it, makes it clear that an apology might not need to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty, but an apology in itself will not amount to an admission of liability, but it may be admissible in court proceedings and can be, importantly, considered by the court alongside other evidence. Importantly, that enables the court to take into account all evidence when determining liability but does not place undue weight on any apology given. Moreover, I propose that, in addition to section 2 of the 2006 act, thereby going further than the 2006 act, a definition of an apology is retained within the bill, as is proposed by Margaret Mitchell. Putting the common law on a statutory footing will provide greater clarity as to the law on apologies in Scotland. That would raise awareness that an apology cannot, in and of itself, be used to prove liability, which may in turn encourage more apologies to be made. I also share the justice committee's concerns as to how the bill would work effectively with the provisions of duty of candor in the health, tobacco, nicotine, et cetera, and Care Scotland bill, which is currently being considered by the Parliament. The duty of candor provisions of that bill creates a statutory requirement on health and social care organisations to have effective arrangements in place to demonstrate their commitment to disclose instances of physical or psychological harm. The approach that is taken to apologies in the health bill also mirrors section 2 of the compensation act 2006 in England and Wales. While the apologies bill in its current form risks substantially undermining the proposed duty of candor provisions, as the justice committee notes, apologies made within the context of duty of candor would therefore most likely have to be excluded from the scope of the apologies bill. The point about what we would have to exclude from the bill is a very important one. The bill is currently drafted to exclude fatal accident inquiries, as Christine Grahame referred, and defamation actions from its scope. However, as was highlighted during the evidence sessions, the list would most likely have to extend to include court proceedings under children's hearings, public inquiries, arbitration and tribunals, in addition to apologies made within the context of duty of candor, which I just mentioned. Such a long list of exceptions would, in my view, muddy the waters in understanding the application of the bill and would not provide the clarity and legal certainty that the bill aims to achieve. On the other hand, the alternative approach of putting the common law in Scotland on a statutory footing would not require exceptions from its scope to be made and, in my view, would make the legislation more easy to understand. Having noted those important concerns, I want to reiterate that the Scottish Government is supportive of the general principles of the bill. I recognise the value of apologies and I would warmly welcome a change in culture that Margaret Mitchell seeks that would promote the effect of giving of apologies. However, my support in that, the Scottish Government is conditional on satisfactory amendments being made at stage 2 and I very much welcome again Margaret Mitchell's comments in that regard. I hope that we can address the concerns that I have outlined. I have to be clear that, if the bill is not amended in a satisfactory way, the Scottish Government would have to reconsider its position on the bill in due course. I am therefore keen to work with Margaret Mitchell to ensure that I can continue to support the bill. I am very hopeful, given what has been said today, that we will be able to find a suitable compromise. No more than five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. On behalf of Scottish Labour members, I thank the clerks and the witnesses for their evidence to the bill. I also congratulate Margaret Mitchell on bringing her bill to this stage and, in particular, on her recognition of the importance to survivors of historic child abuse of a meaningful apology that recognises the harm that is done to them. Her bill is supported by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which considers that an apology can provide significant psychological and emotional benefit to victims who do not necessarily wish to pursue an action through the civil courts, but do wish to have the wrong way of suffering acknowledged. The bill provides that an apology is not admissible as evidence of civil proceedings other than fatal accident inquiries and definition actions and cannot be used prejudically in those proceedings against a person making the apology. Its intention, as we have heard, is to change a cultural and social attitude towards making an apology, and in the longer term it seeks to reduce litigation as many pursuers already seek recognition of the damage that is done to them, and it is a sincere apology for it. No witnesses questioned the value of an apology in such cases and many expressed their support of the general principles. There were, however, several areas of disagreement, both with aspects of the bill and between witnesses. As we have heard, Ms Mitchell has expressed her willingness to consider amendments at stage 2. Some witnesses did not feel that there is a particularly litigious culture in Scotland. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Forum for Insurance Lawyers argued that, in fact, there is a declining level of litigation in the civil courts in Scotland. In the view of the law society, the bill does not necessarily add anything further to what already exists, and the society argued that there was a lack of clarity about how the bill would achieve its aims. The definition of an apology, which includes in section 3b a statement of fact, was problematic for a number of witnesses, as we have already heard. It is possible that the provision could remove the rights of pursuers to be able to rely on admissions of fault or fact in court, and even that making an apology, which includes a statement of fact or fault, could be used deliberately in order to prevent that evidence being able to be used in court. Even the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which was generally very supportive of the bill, in evidence of the committee, expressed some concern that there might be unintended consequences of the definition as it currently stands. Part 2 of the health, tobacco, nicotine, et cetera and care, Scotland Bill, under stage 1 consideration by the Health and Sport Committee, contains a duty of candor in health and social care situations, which is based, as we have heard, on section 2 of the compensation act 2006, which currently applies only in England and Wales. The act has a narrower definition of an apology, which does not include admissions of fault and does not prevent apologies from being admitted as evidence. The word difference is in opinion regarding the merits of the broader definition, which is supported by the Scottish Human Rights Commission, but is considered by the faculty of advocates to undermine the duty of candor in the health bill. The British Medical Association and the Medical and Dental Defence Union Scotland also raised concerns about how the bill would interact with the UK-wide professional standards. An apology might not be admissible in court, but if it included a statement of fact, the general medical council might still consider the evidence to be an admission of fault or pro-performance. The general medical council confirmed that it would not consider an admission of fault to be inadmissible in fitness to practice and tribunal proceedings. If a fault is not refused or removed from the definition, other exemptions in addition to the fatal accident inquiries and definition proceedings could be considered. Preaction protocols and personal injury cases are to become compulsory and will apply to all its sheriff courts as well as the personal injury courts. The bill, as it stands, could therefore provide a loophole for defenders. If admissions of fault remain in the bill, it should be amended so that it does not apply to pre-licitation protocols where they provide for binding admissions of fault. The committee also heard evidence supporting the exclusion of children's hearings as the reporter could be inhibited from establishing grounds for a referral or admission of an offence against a child might be inadmissible. Public inquiries could be exempted for the same reasons as fatal accident inquiries and arbitration proceedings generally take a case-by-case approach to what evidence can be admitted. Tribunals could also be excluded as they are designed to focus on points of fact rather than points of law and require consideration of all relevant facts. How, as the committee report records and others have already said in this debate, those exemptions would not be necessary if clause 3b is removed from the bill. The bill's policy memorandum suggests that the Scottish Government might issue guidance on how to use and respond to the legislation. The committee received little evidence on this during our evidence-taking, and the committee therefore suggested that the member in charge discuss the possibility of issue guidance with the Scottish Government. Scottish Labour members are supportive of the policy intentions of the bill in seeking to make it easier for victims of civil offences to receive an apology for actions that have caused them harm. However, like the committee and the Scottish Government, it is our view that the bill requires amendment at stage 2, and we will support the bill this evening in order that the amendments can be further considered later. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by congratulating Margaret Mitchell on bringing this bill forward and pursuing it so effectively for a couple of years. I know that the consultation took place in 2012, but clearly there was a fair degree of heavy lifting both before and after that. I acknowledge, too, as a substitute member of the Justice Committee, the excellent written and verbal evidence that was given to the committee, and indeed the members of the committee, whom I think genuinely tested the clauses of the legislation pretty effectively. The what of the bill was fairly straightforward. It is a short bill that runs to a mere page and a half, and it has a pretty straightforward aim, hoping that we get more apologies. Such an expression of apology would not amount to an admission of liability and would be inadmissible as evidence for the purposes of certain legal proceedings. There are hopes, Presiding Officer, that that would lead to an acknowledgement that something has gone wrong, secondly, an undertaking to address what has gone wrong, and thirdly, at least in some cases, closure to the recipient. It is worth noting that apology's legislation can be found in a number of jurisdictions, a number of United States, Canada, Australia, England and Wales, but it is also important to note that the legislation varies in scope across those jurisdictions, and there does not appear to be a magic formula for the perfect apology's legislation. It is worth reflecting on the committee report. The first thing that I would say, and perhaps the minister can address this in his closing remarks, would be useful, I think, for all members, to see the Government's official written response to that committee report. Clearly, the minister has given an outline of some of his thoughts, which was, I have to say, quite helpful. However, in the seven minutes that he had, and probably shorter than that, he gets in his closing, it is impossible to do justice to, I think, a pretty comprehensive 27-page report. It would be, I think, helpful to see the written response to that report, so that we can see—of course. Thank you. It is simply a procedural matter. I would have thought that, because the member is acting like the minister being a member's bill, that it is the member who should have provided a written response, but perhaps I have got it wrong. I think that, in terms of the procedure, she may be right, but what I said was that it would be helpful, I think, as a member of this Parliament, to know the Government's view in response to that bill. Ultimately, it is the Government's view on that bill, which will determine whether or not that bill becomes law. It would be useful, I think, just to know where exactly are the points of issue. He outlined a couple of them, two of them, I think, quite clearly, but does that mean that everywhere else in terms of the bill is now accepted by the Government or other areas where there are still some issues of disagreement between the Government and the member promoting the bill? In terms of the committee report, I agree entirely that legislation is not any kind of magic formula, but I think that it does have a role to play here. It might not have an over might effect, it might not have a dramatic effect, but I am certainly persuaded from the evidence that I have read that it will have an effect and a positive impact. It is worth reflecting that, yes, the empirical evidence, I have to say, said very little in either direction. Given the amount of legislation and the fact that some of it has been in place for over a decade, it is slightly surprising that there simply is not, as far as I can see, much empirical evidence out there in either direction. So it is difficult to say just how much it will improve matters or if it will turn out to be problematic. It sounds as if all members agree with the principles of the bill, but what is clear is that stage 1 is probably the easier part and stages 2 and 3 will probably be the more complex parts in terms of taking the bill forward. The definition is a fairly wide one and it has changed slightly, potentially, as a result of comments made by Margaret Mitchell just a few minutes ago. However, there are still a couple of outstanding issues that need to be resolved, and I have to say that there are not simple resolutions to them. How you treat health clearly is a difficult issue. If you remove it in its entirety, that is a huge slice of apologies removed, but it is clear that there could be complications in terms of the interplay with the health bill and the fact that health professionals are regulated at a UK level. A number of members have put the point quite importantly that a balance has to be struck. We do not want to end up with a bill that ends up being a bit meaningless and simply a bill for the sake of it, but we also need to ensure that access to justice is not denied and we do not get complications that nobody, including the member promoting the bill, intended. Presiding Officer, time is drawing to close my opening speech, but what I would say is that regardless of which exceptions are put forward, regardless of which clauses are agreed, it is pretty clear to me that a lot of training and guidance is going to be required going forward, but I think that the guidance probably can be put together. I certainly support the principles of the bill and hope that it passes decision time today. Thank you. Many thanks. I now turn to the short open debate. I believe that members may have been advised that it was speeches of four minutes, but less would be appreciated if possible. I call Roderick Campbell to be fought by Margaret McGregor. Can I refer to my register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates? I certainly belong to the school that believes that whatever the member's good intentions, the bill is now drafted, may create more problems than it's own. As David Stevenson of the Faculty of Advocates posed in evidence, if enacting the bill would disadvantage certain people, where is the balancing advantage and how confident can we be that they would be benefit from depriving people of rights that they currently have? I think that that remains the dilemma. There are, of course, lots of individuals who suffer some calamity, a minor infringement to their life, or a minor injury for whom saying sorry is all they are looking for and for many a failure to acknowledge that can be a source of endless frustration. As Ronnie Conway of APIL, a pursuers organisation, suggested in evidence, however, a proposal seeking to build on the common law position in statute and following the general line of section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 in England would have attractions, a view supported contrastingly by the defenders organisation, the Forum of Insurance Lawyers. Graham Watson of that organisation suggested straightforward legislation that made it clear that an act of apology itself did not amount to the mission of liability would have great merit. However, we have, of course, moved on. The member has already conceded the position in relation to statements of facts, and the member also now seems lukewarm on the question of excluding fault from the definition, with good reason, I suggest, because it cannot be right to remove the rights from those who want to rely on admissions as they can do at the current time, particularly when the empirical evidence on the point is limited. In addition, in the light of the health bill, is it sensible to embark on two approaches to this problem? As the minister said in evidence, the duty of Canada provisions sit more easily with legislation that follows section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006. What of the insurance industry is responsible to this legislation? From my experience of professional indemnity insurance policies, there is never a problem with an insured suggesting that I am sorry that there is an issue here, but there would be a problem if an insured said sorry that I did not behave as a competent accountant might have done or I fell below the standard. That is a completely different issue, but saying sorry per say itself is not an issue at the present time in relation to insurance. Paragraph 94 of the committee's report says it all. If fault and fact are taken out, the ABI will be perfectly happy with what remains, which it seems will be in essence section 2. If an apology is inadmissible in evidence, it will undermine the pre-action protocol for personal injury, which Elaine Murray has already referred to. I turn in the time available just to a couple of other matters. Would the bill as currently drafted improve matters for victims of sexual abuse? Survivor of historic sex abuse might decide to seek damages in court for the harm that was a subject of an apology. As a result of this bill, it would not be able to rely on that apology and would have to find other evidence. That, as the minister suggested, might be extremely difficult, especially with the passage of time. In response to that, Bruce Adamson of the Scottish Human Rights Commission implied that this might be a rare situation. He said, "...I'm not sure that the bill would take away evidence that would otherwise have been available to found a civil case on because I am not sure that people would voluntarily disclose that evidence but for the protection that provided." He may be right, but equally I'm not sure that an alternative scenario posed by the bill would assist victims and would change the position to the victims' advantage either. Although I have great respect for the views of Professor Miller, I think that the evidence that was presented to the committee on this point was rather limited. In relation to the position of medical complaints, I think that we will be wise to reflect on the evidence of those who point out that the regulation of medical professions remain a reserved matter. We should have, particularly, regard to the views of the GMC and others and their joint guidance present at the present time with the nursing and midwifery council, which makes it clear that apologising to a patient does not mean that you are omitting legal liability. They suggest that, in their supplementary written submission, the bill is drafted and may have unintended consequences. I'm afraid that you must come to a close. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I welcome the general principle of the bill. It needs substantial amendment. Many thanks. I call Margaret McDigle and I will call Alison McKinnon. I'm afraid that I would only have three minutes. Sometimes saying sorry is the hardest word to say, more so if you have the threat of litigation hanging over your head. With that in mind, I am supportive of the Apologies Scotland Bill, which has been introduced by Margaret Mitchell MSP today. That said, while I support the general aims, as did 86 per cent of the respondents to the consultation, I see some issues with the bill in its current form and I will discuss them in my speech today. First, I note from the policy memorandum that one of the reasons for introducing the bill and I quote is that there appears to be an entrenched culture in Scotland and elsewhere that offering an apology when something has gone wrong is perceived as a sign of weakness and there is also a fear that an acknowledgement of fault can, in some circumstances, lead to litigation. I agree that in the public sector and other organisations there is definitely fear of litigation and I'm not sure that the bill will provide the required cultural change. The medical and dental defence union of Scotland argued at the committee at stage that an apology carries little weight in civil litigation proceedings, while the faculty of advocates wondered whether such a simple change in law would achieve such a dramatic effect. I have the same doubts, however. My view is that if you have to start somewhere and, while the bill is relatively small change, it would make a mistake to judge its outcomes before we can measure the practical effects of the bill in law and, while that alone might not lead to the desired change, it can play its part. The fear of litigation is a much greater concern. The committee heard evidence that, at the survey of 500 medical protection society members, 67 per cent said that there was a culture of fear in the healthcare. Many would not apologise due to fear of reprisal. In the public service ombudsman, it also found that many front-line staff feared apologising due to the risk of litigation or that they had been advised against it by senior staff. Clearly, that is a situation that cannot continue and, while it may not be widespread in other sectors, that legislation could help to give the staff peace of mind if it is developed and introduced. That said, I have some concerns that, in making an apology inadmissible, it may affect an individual's rights. That is particularly noticeable in cases of historic child abuse, and, as it stands, the bill may have unintended consequences. I agree with the committee's recommendation that there needs to be a better balance within the bill to ensure that there are no unintended consequences for victims while ensuring that the bill is still relevant. To conclude, while I am happy to support the general principles of the bill at stage 1, I question whether it would stimulate the cultural changes that are outlined in the policy memorandum. Although I agree that we need to tackle fear of litigation and reprisal in certain sectors, the bill has the potential for a host of potentially negative unintended consequences, and, hopefully, those will be addressed during stage 2. However, if the bill can achieve its stated aim, while avoiding making the system more unjust, I will be happy to support it. However, my continued support depends on what happens during the stage 2 proceedings. I start by acknowledging the work that Margaret Mitchell has done so far. I supported the proposal for draft legislation back in 2012. At the time, I believe that apologies have an important role to play in the reparation and the healing process, and I still believe that today. However, I recognise that the bill has introduced a broader application than the initial proposal, and I have some concerns with it, which I will touch on shortly. We have all come across constituents who say that all that I want is an apology, all that I want is for them to admit a mistake that was made and tell me what they have done to prevent this from happening to others. I just want to move on. I therefore understand what the member is trying to achieve with the bill, and I support it in principle. However, it is important that we strike the right balance between making it easier for people and organisations to say sorry and protecting the rights of those who have been wronged. As currently drafted, I do not think that the bill has achieved that balance just yet. The effect of apologies in relation to legal proceedings and the regulation of health professionals are two areas where significant questions arise. Pre-action protocols, currently in place to expedite and simplify proceedings, could be affected, as others have said. That could lead to individual injustices, as the Faculty of Advocates has argued. They argued, therefore, that the bill should provide specifically that it does not apply to pre-litigation protocols, where those protocols provide for the making of binding admissions of fault. As Ms Mitchell said this afternoon, things have moved on a little on that area. In relation to the regulation of health professionals, the nursing and midwifery council and the GMC both argue that the bill would have serious unintended consequences. There is a legitimate fear that it would be used to encourage admission of liability as a way of preventing the information being used in subsequent proceedings or to close down the option for a patient who has suffered harm to pursue a civil claim for compensation. The warnings that we have heard from them must be heeded. The regulation of our health professionals is an important safeguard, and we should do nothing that impacts on the regulator's ability to bring a fitness to practice case. The bill currently provides for a number of exceptions, including FEIs, and we heard evidence that the list of exceptions should be extended to include court proceedings under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011. SCRA argued that the bill is currently drafted would inhibit the children's reporter from being able to establish grounds for referral to bring a child to a hearing. If fault remains part of the definition of the apology, as the bill proceeds, we must address that, but I have to say again that I welcome Miss Mitchell's commitment made this afternoon to look again at the inclusion of fault and statements of fact in the definition. The Scottish Government has argued that by making apologies, including ones that admit fault, inadmissible in civil proceedings, the difficulties facing survivors of historical child abuse as they seek justice would be compounded. On the other hand, the Scottish Human Rights Commission has said that that would actually help the survivors. Open secret is supportive of the bill. The organisation told me that many survivors of abuse do not wish to pursue legal redress, but closure is important to them to ensure on-going recovery. We understand that survivors feel letdown by those who should have offered them care and are deeply affected by their experiences. An apology does not put right what happened, but it does acknowledge the pain and distress cost and gives some comfort. I am happy to be guided on this point by those organisations and the SHRC that are dealing directly with survivors. Margaret Mitchell's intentions in bringing forward this bill are commendable. The Liberal Democrats will support the bill in principle this evening. However, there is much work to be done at stage 2 to ensure that the good intentions are not drowned out by damaging unintended consequences. We go into the closing speeches a bit behind time, so could I ask closing speakers to take a little bit less of their time? I think that this has been a short but particularly useful debate where all parties in this chamber have taken a responsible and reasonable approach. Clearly, the minister and other members are in listening mode, and I think that the stage 1 debate has been helpful in that regard. I think that everybody supports the general principles of the bill, many with a degree of caution over certain areas. I have to say that there are plausible arguments put forward for removing health from the bill. There are plausible arguments put forward for the removal of personal injury from the bill. There are plausible arguments for other exceptions to the bill. There are plausible arguments for reverting to a compensation act-type definition. However, if we do all those things, I would be slightly concerned that we would be ultimately passing a bill that may not have the impact and the effect that all of us want. I urge both the member to press the bill, the Government and other members in this chamber to do all that we can up to stage 2 during stages 2 and 3 to get the best possible bill so that we do ultimately strike the balance that I think all of us want to strike. If we take everything out of the bill that has been proposed with perfectly decent arguments, there is a risk that we will be left with a bill that comes nowhere near to achieving what all of us want to see happen. If I take exceptions just as one of the examples, obviously it does not apply to criminal cases and as drafter it applies to civil proceedings except fatal accident inquiries, sudden death inquiries and defamation. During evidence, although I was not personally present, I read all the evidence and there were some pretty good arguments for excluding children's hearings. There are pretty good arguments for excluding public inquiries, tribunals and arbitrations and indeed pre-action protocols. However, there is a risk again with the longer the list of exceptions, the greater the confusion that is likely to be caused. As Professor Miller pointed out, if you have all those exceptions and some others that have been suggested, ultimately it could damage and go against the spirit of the bill. I do not think that any of us wants to see a situation where you need a law degree to figure out whether or not it is safe to apologise. I just want to draw attention to another point in Professor Miller's letter. He wrote to Margaret Mitchell on 22 October that I know that members and ministers have seen that letter, but I thought that it was a particularly powerful and well-crafted letter. He made the point that, yes, there may be good arguments for moving to the compensation act definition. It is certainly what many would describe as a safe harbour position. It is completely risk-free, I guess, in moving to that definition. However, he made the point in that letter that moving to the compensation act, in his view, would not meet the expectations of survivors of historic child abuse. Given all that Margaret Mitchell said and her opening in today's debate, the fact that the genesis, if you like, of the legislation came from a meeting of that cross-party group back in 2010, and that a lot of the heavy lifting and, indeed, the work that was driving the legislation came from that. I just make a plea to the Scottish Government and to other members to see what we can do and what we can contribute to try to find a way through some of those difficult issues, so that, ultimately, Professor Miller's view and others, when the eventual act comes to the fore, is that he does take the view—indeed, others take the view—that it meets the expectations of those who drove the bill. It is not an easy problem to solve, but, if all of us put our minds to it, it is something that can be done and we have an act that all of us can be proud of. Many thanks, in our call on Elaine Murray. Maximum four minutes, less would be better, if possible. Interesting if short debate, many important points have been made in some cases, have been repeated. I hope that the fact that we are actually having a debate around the bill may help in some way to contribute to the cultural change that is required to enable apologies to be made, which recognise the harm done to persons who have experienced actions damaging to them. The West Margaret MacDougall said that it is not actually that simple, because there is a considerable fear of litigation, particularly in the public sector. In conclusion, I will just summarise some of the more recent representations that have come in this week in advance of this debate. As Gavin Brown referred to Professor Alan Miller, the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, does not consider amending the bill along the lines of the compensation act 2006, would meet the expectations of survivors. He also felt that a long list of exceptions would be confusing and unhelpful and would discourage full apologies. The commission did not agree that the admissibility in a civil court would prejudice a complainant's case, so that is quite an interesting position because it is very different to everybody else's than they argue that, if an apology was admissible in court, it just simply would not be made. The British Medical Association, on the other hand, agreed that removing the threat of civil action would improve communication between doctors and patients, but they were all very unclear about how the bill would work in practice in interacting with the general medical council standards and its investigative and judiciary processes. The loss of society supports the policy intent and objectives of the bill, but it considers that it is unclear how the provisions will achieve those aims, although it could help to change cultural and social attitudes towards apologising. The society is concerned about the definition and how it would impact on the duty of candor and the definition of an apology in the health bill, and that the two definitions could lead to unintended consequences to the two pieces of legislation with different definitions. It also agreed with the BMA that there would be a risk that an apology containing a statement of fact could be used in an investigation or disciplinary hearing if professional standards may have been breached. The association of personal injury lawyers, I think probably were the most critical representatives, stated that it would be illogical and unjust if no consequences were attached to an apology that contained a degree of liability. April argued that admissions after an event are important in Scots law, as they are very likely to be true, in their opinion. Their briefing contrasts with the definition of an apology in the bill with section 2 of the compensation act, which encourages appropriate expressions of regret but retains the capability of using an apology as evidence in court, where there is a clear acceptance of legal responsibility. April also expressed concern about the consequences for pre-action. Protocols, a few of us have mentioned that in personal injury cases and stated that the bill risked to making the civil justice system the second rate if compared to the criminal justice system in Scotland. In conclusion, the majority of recent respondents, like the majority of witnesses during the stage 1 process, supported amendment of the bill. I would reiterate that we will support the bill at tonight, but we would support amendment when it comes to stage 2. I have listened with great interest to the member's taking part in the debate, and I am encouraged by the cross-party support for the promotion of apologies. I am sure that it is of great encouragement to Margaret Mitchell. I noted in my opening statement that the Scottish Government shares Margaret Mitchell's aim of promoting cultural change in respect of the giving of apologies, and I support the general principles of the bill at this stage in the parliamentary process. However, as I outlined earlier, there are some important concerns. We have heard them repeated by colleagues across the chamber that we have and others have regarding the bill as currently drafted, which needs to be addressed. Most importantly, we need to ensure that the bill does not restrict access to justice by limiting what can be used as evidence. From listening carefully to colleagues in the chamber and in response to Gavin Brown's points, it is clear that the key question here is how we can strike the best balance between promoting the use of apologies and avoiding the unintended consequences of restricting access to justice, and also making it overly complex. I take the point that Gavin Brown said. I am aware of the arguments that the unintended consequences may only apply to a small number of cases and only very rarely disadvantaged individuals. On reflecting on that, I was struck by my colleague Nigel Donne's recent comments in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee during an evidence session on the Succession Scotland Bill. Mr Donne said, "...I observe on behalf of the committee that the fact that something is not very common does not mean that we do not need to get the law right." He goes on to say that it does not matter if there is only one case, even if we are not sure that the issue will arise, we still need to make sure that the law says what we think it should say. I think that that is an important thing that we should keep in mind. I do agree with Mr Donne on this important point. We cannot ignore the rights of claimants or pursuers who may need to draw upon an apology within the evidence base simply because they are likely to be few in number. Surely protecting the rights of minorities is at the heart of good lawmaking as well. The aim of achieving legal certainty, another point that has been addressed in discussion, is a sound one. For that reason, I am concerned that the potential long list of exceptions that Gavin Brown referred to to the scope of the bill and the remaining questions regarding its interaction with the insurance industry would work against achieving that certainty, as I have noted before, on an approach based on putting the common law in Scotland on a statutory footing along the lines of the compensation act. We would, we feel, avoid a lot of those issues. I can acknowledge arguments that have been made by Margaret Mitchell and others indeed that putting the common law on a statutory footing does not necessarily go far enough. However, as I previously pointed out, that is about striking the right balance. A bill along the lines of the compensation act with an added definition of apology would provide clarity as to the law on apologies in Scotland. That would raise awareness that an apology cannot, in and of itself, be used to prove liability, which might in turn encourage more apologies to be made. I think that it would send a very strong signal. I believe that the strikes are a more appropriate balance between encouraging apologies at a form of address for victims and the need to ensure justice is served appropriately through the court process. Elaine Murray referred to it, but just to reiterate the point, the Law Society of Scotland, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the General Medical Council submissions are consistent with the Scottish Government's position and our proposal that there should be an approach based on common law in Scotland, putting that on a statutory footing along the lines of the compensation act with an added definition of an apology as per the duty of candour provisions within the health bill. That would address the Nursing and Midwifery Council concerns and be consistent with what they and the General Medical Council say in respect of apologies and their joint guidance on candour. As colleagues in the chamber, we are aware that the Scottish Government is very committed to promoting the rights of survivors of historical child abuse, which we have demonstrated with our decision to hold the public inquiry and our intention to remove the three-year limitation or time bar period for cases of abuse. We are also keen to promote a climate where survivors achieve the acknowledgement and redress they deserve through receiving apologies. However, that cannot and I reiterate the point that comes at the price of restricting potentially valuable pieces of evidence that survivors may themselves require to prove their case. In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate our support for Margaret Mitchell's bill in terms of general principles. As previously noted, that support is conditional. If those concerns are able to be addressed, I would be very happy to support the bill at later stages, but the Scottish Government will obviously have to reconsider its position if we are unable to reach common ground. However, I am hopeful that, given the positive comments that Margaret Mitchell has given today and the apparent consensus around the chamber, we can hopefully get that consensus, Presiding Officer. I thank all the members who have contributed to what has been a short but very good debate in which a number of points have been raised, which I will try to address in my closing comments. Before doing so, I think that it would be helpful to outline how the whole concept of apologies legislation came about and to try and convey the positive effect that an apology can have on recipients. The first recognised apology legislation was enacted in the United States of Massachusetts in 1986. It emerged from a tragic series of events in 1974 when a young girl named Claire Salt and Stoll was hit and killed by a car while riding her bicycle near her family home. The driver, who struck her, never ever apologised. Her father, William L. Salt and Stoll, a state cemetery, was angry that the driver had not expressed contrition. He was told that the driver dared not risk apologising because it could have constituted an admission in the litigation surrounding the girl's death. On his retirement, the senator and his successor presented the legislature with a bill designed to create a safe harbour for would-be apologisers. That was the first tentative step that has since resulted in more than 35 US states and many nations around the world, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, quietly and successfully implementing innovative and effective apologies legislation. For his legislators and the judiciary have come to appreciate in many legal proceedings an apology is frequently more to an applicant than money. On the positive effect that an apology can have for survivors of historic and childhood abuse, it is neatly covered by the comments of one of the survivor organisation members of the cross-party group and adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse to the effect that many of those survivors don't want to pursue a court case. They do want to have closure and to be able to move on. In an apology, although it does not put right what happened, it acknowledges the pain and distress and gives some comfort that lessons will be learned for the future. The effect of an apology is also underlined in the following quote from the British Columbia ombudsman, who, in 2006, had then been in office more than six years when he commented, I have heard repeatedly from individuals who need to hear a public agency apologise so they can stop being angry about what happened, forgive and move towards healing. This is a view endorsed by the Scottish ombudsman when, in the Justice Committee's evidence session, Paul McFadden ahead of the complaint standard said, people say that I want recognition that I was right and something went wrong and an insurance that will not happen to someone else. They might want various other things but, by and large, they do not say that they want compensation. It is very much about repairing a relationship, often with an organisation that they have an on-going relationship with. They are not consumers in the broader sense and they cannot choose to go to another local authority or another health board, so repairing the relationship is at the very heart of it. However, in complaints that come to us, we still see a reticence from public bodies to say sorry. From a very early point in the journey, many of the complaints that we see, it is clear that, if a simple, timely and human or empathetic apology had been given, the complaint would not have escalated. The failure to make that apology results in a breakdown of the relationship between the individual system and the public body, which then escalates, builds, exacerbates the situation and grows arms and legs. Turning now to some of the issues that were raised during the debate, beginning with the view that section 2 of the compensation act would be as effective as a protected apology. There are various reasons why that is not the case, starting with, for example, the view of Professor Miller, the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, when he says that adopting a similar model to the compensation act 2006 would not achieve the aims of the bill and would not meet the expectations of survivors of historic childhood sexual abuse in Scotland. The main reason that the commission holds that view is that an apology could still be admissible. In effect, the compensation act wording would preserve the status quo, and individuals or organisations would still continue to be unwilling to apologise for fear of litigation. Interestingly, in response to an inquiry from me about the impact of section 2 of the compensation act, the UK Minister for Justice Lord Fowkes, who confirmed that no details are searched or analysis of that has been undertaken partly due to the fact that it did not change the law. There has been some concern expressed that making apology inadmissible in civil proceedings by doing this, there is the potential for prejudicing a pursuer's future case. However, as the Massachusetts experience makes plain, and as various witnesses have also confirmed, this places too much emphasis on the assumption that the majority of individuals automatically wish to pursue a claim in court. It also downplays the potential life-of-altering benefits of an apology, nor has the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Society of Scotland, and Provines's academic expert on apology's state from their experience, are pursuer's prejudice because, in most cases, there would be no apology forthcoming if it was admissible in civil proceedings. I hope that those observations will help to lay the concerns that any member may have about the case. However, in terms of the bill's definition and any exemptions, I realise that that will involve compromises and taking on-board concerns, and that those are issues that will be fully discussed in the bill if it progresses to stage 2. In conclusion, the chamber may be interested to learn that the progress of the bill is being closely followed in other common law jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia, where apology's laws have operated effectively for some time. In fact, in Hong Kong, a draft apology bill has taken a detailed account of the work done on the Apologies Scotland bill. I hope that this evening, the chamber will vote to approve the general principles of the legislation, which has the potential to help to give closure to so many people, including survivors of sexual abuse. That concludes the debate on the Apologies Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is the debate on motion number 14595, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the Harbour Scotland bill. I invite all members who wish to take part in this debate to please press the request to speak, but it is now or as soon as possible. I call on the minister, Derek Mackay, to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have eight minutes, so please. It gives me great pleasure to open the stage 3 debate on the Harbour Scotland bill and to invite members to agree to pass the bill. I thank members of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for their careful scrutiny of the bill. The bill aims to resolve a technical issue, i.e. to stop borrowings of affected ports, scoring upon the budgets of Scottish Government when we have no control over what is a private financial transaction. There was extensive consultation with the key stakeholders, including the British Ports Association, the United Kingdom Major Ports Group and the UK Chamber of Shipping prior to the introduction of the bill. The principles of the bill were strongly supported, and throughout the parliamentary process, this support has continued. No issues have been raised and no amendments tabled. The bill is primarily to repeal section 10 to 12 of the Ports Act 1991, as it extends to Scotland, which will remove Scottish ministers' powers to require certain transports—that is those with a minimal annual turnover of around £9 million—to prepare privatisation proposals. A power not used since devolution and a power that we would not envisage any Government exercising. A power which the Office for National Statistics, ons, however, has interpreted as a key trigger for its classification as a public corporation, those trust ports that have reached the relevant turnover threshold as it gives a degree of public control. What does classification mean? It means, as I said in my opening, that following classification as a public corporation, any borrowings made by affected trusts ports will count against Scottish Government budgets and be deemed as our borrowing. That is despite the Scottish Government having no borrowing controls over trust ports and what is essentially a private financial transaction for trust ports themselves. It is a technical matter of bureaucracy and clarification. It makes no sense that those money should score against Scottish Government budgets and could subsequently impact from Government's ability to borrow and spend. To date, only one trust port in Scotland is classified as a public corporation. Aberdeen Harbour. To other Scottish trust ports, Lerwick and Peterhead port, authorities currently meet the £9 million threshold, however, ons postponed classification pending the progress of the bill and they remain to date unclassified. Aberdeen, despite being classified since 2000, has been able to fund any infrastructure developments from their own reserves and there has been no impact therefore on Scottish Government budgets. However, they are taking forward exciting proposals for a port extension in Ngig Bay, a project designated as a national development and NPF free, which will need an investment of around £400 million. That could mean a significant amount of borrowing, which under Aberdeen's current classification as a public corporation would impact on Scottish Government's accounts and potentially our borrowing. Our view remains that the removal of section 10 will mean that trust ports would not fall within the classification as public corporations. Indeed, the wording of the ONS review in 2013 highlights that the remaining powers that ministers have to block voluntary privatisations were not sufficient in themselves to warrant classification as public corporations and at that point referring to status of the smaller trust ports. ONS gave a decision in principle that, as the power to privatise was a key trigger, further classification as a public corporation by removing that power should address that issue. However, it would not make a firm decision until the bill had started to make its passage through Parliament. Following stage 1, being passed, we wrote to ONS outlining our case and requesting that a definitive decision on whether the bill will achieve that aim will be made. We had hoped that that would be concluded in advance of stage 3, but despite further requests to ONS, they have not yet given us an answer. They have, however, advised that this is very much on their agenda to review, and we have stressed that that will take place as soon as possible. Ultimately, it is in the hands of ONS and potentially the Treasury. We are, of course, looking to a positive decision from ONS on this issue. However, more fundamentally, and what should not be overlooked, is the importance of what the bill will mean in terms of the removal of uncertainty for the transport sector and the reaffirmation of our support for the transport model as part of the diverse range of ports ownership structures operating in Scotland in any event. Trust ports are independent statutory bodies governed by their own legislation and run by independent boards and operate in a commercial environment with no direct public funding. It makes no sense that Scottish ministers have the power to privatise. The bill will also remove the requirement for six copies of a draft harbour revision or empowerment order submitted along with the application of the order, a necessary tidying up of a necessary bureaucracy. It is a very clear issue that we wanted to address. Primary legislation is required so to do, and that is the route that we have chosen to address it. There was wide support for the bill from the industry and this remains to be the case as no amendments have been tabled. I therefore move that Parliament agrees that the harbour Scotland bill be passed. I now call on David Stewart, a generous six minutes, Mr Stewart. Thank you so much, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, during this stage one debate, I described the harbour's bill proposals as non-controversial, simple and sensible. There is nothing in the minister's opening comments or in the current deterioration of the bill to change my original comments, although members will be pleased to know that I tried very hard to find if there were any things that I could raise in the matter of conflict. As a member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, we were the lead committee charged with reporting to Parliament on the general principles of the bill. The policy memorandum states that the primary purpose of the bill, and I quote, Presiding Officer, is to provide an improved, less isolated framework for trusts, ports across Scotland and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing procedures and processes for stakeholders. The report from the ICI committee makes it clear that the transport model is one of the three main port ownership models in Scotland. The minister has touched on this. The others, of course, are private and local authority models. Can the minister in his wind-up or, if he wishes, to intervene just to make sure that he gets some work to do? If the proposed legislation will have any impact on private ports, I do not think that it does, but perhaps he can confirm that. My colleague Jenny Marra earlier today asked an interesting point about private ports. Is there a mechanism to change the status of private ports if indeed the private ports wish to do that? Is there a mechanism for private port and for private port to trust, and to then come under the remit of the legislation? To assist the member, I know that it would not have an impact, as I understand it, on private ports, because that specifically refers to the trust port model. What we are repealing and removing is specifically for that purpose, so it would not have any unintended consequences. The second part, which the minister may have gathered, is there a mechanism for private ports to change their status to trust ports? If there is, presumably, they would come under the responsibility of the legislation. I am being volunteered to intervene by the member sitting down. I am happy to accept that. I have not given that consideration as part of the bill, but it is a matter that I am happy to explore. If there are private sector ports that we might want to transfer status, that might be helpful for further development or ownership issues. It is an issue that is certainly worth exploring, but this stage in a stage 3 parliamentary process is not something that I can address right now, but I am happy to look into it. Do you have another four minutes, Mr Stewart? I appreciate the comments. Of course, I am not setting a precedent for allowing the minister to constantly intervene, but on this basis it does seem very reasonable to do so. The key issue is that trust ports have no owners in a simplistic terms and that all surplus or funds are reinvested back to the port of the local community or, perhaps more technically, the local stakeholders. In my own Highlands and Islands region, I visited several of the trust ports such as Cromty Firth, Inverness, Malyg, Scrabster, Stornoway and Wickharbour. Scrabster, for example, is perfectly situated to benefit from oil and gas and renewables work. The chief executive and the board have, in my view, a very imaginative business plan of expansion and development, which will boost economic development across their region, their aspect of the region, and that includes fisheries as well. I know that my home city, Harbour Inverness, very well, has visited several times. Last year, I did a joint visit with the late Charles Kennedy and a man of great stature who will be sadly missed across the Highlands, Islands and beyond. I am sure that all members in Parliament today would join with me in the remarks of remembering the fine work that Charles Kennedy carried out in our national Parliament in Scotland and in the UK as well. Inverness has developed a very successful marina from reclaimed land and handles freight from all over the world. An aviation fuel is delivered to the harbour and is pumped to Arriae Filosimouth through a secure pipeline. I hope that I am not breaching any aspects of official secrets by revealing that to Parliament today. That is, on a serious point, a very good example of how transport policy can dovetail into climate change because heavy aviation fuel is shipped to the harbour and then pumped directly to a location. That reduces the amount of emissions that would normally carry out if that was being delivered in heavy lorries up and down the A9. I am sure that the minister will note that good example of the two coming together. Why is the example significant? The minister clearly has covered the main thrust of that. It is to change the assessment that we have heard from the minister by decision or recommendation by the Office of National Statistics to reclassify certain transports as public corporations. The ports in the firing line that we have heard are those with annual turnover of £9 million. Although the minister did not touch on that, I assume that ports below that turnover would reach the magic figure of £9 million. They would come under the remit of that as well. A few of the ports are bubbling around a figure just below that. Currently, they are Aberdeen, Lerwick, Port Authority and Peterhead Port Authority. As the minister said, the bill will repeal section 10 of the ports act, removing the Scottish ministers' powers to require larger trust supports to prepare privatisation plans. As I said, the cut-off point for that is £9 million a year. In the brief few seconds that I have left, I can flag up just before I close to say that it is important to look at best practice around the world. The minister will have picked up from the stage 1 debate about the excellent visit that we did to Rotterdam harbour, which is the largest harbour in Europe and was the largest harbour in the world. That harbour showed the way forward by investing £4 billion to construct a new freight-only railway line to Germany. That is the way forward. I am not suggesting that every port in Scotland or the UK develops that. I merely make the point that, if you develop services to allow freight to go off the road and on to rail, it is successful for transport and it is successful for climate change. In conclusion, this is a bill that I would urge all members to support. It resolves a technical anomaly but frees up both our large reports from financial conflicts with the Scottish Government and improves the legislative framework for all transports across Scotland. I rise to the challenge that has been set before us to find a way to spend the pre-allocated time to discuss the fine piece of legislation. The Harbour Scotland Bill is a simple piece of legislation. Paragraph 2 relates to the number of copies of orders that have to be issued. However, the key element contained in paragraph 1 is the repeal of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the 1991 Ports Act. Of course, I have not got the advantage that the minister had in that he was able to read out the explanatory notes and give us full details of what the function of this piece of legislation is. David Stewart, on the other hand, was faced with the dilemma if he would take the same approach or a different one and he was able to repeat much of what the minister said. However, I feel unable to take that similar approach and read it out for a third time, so I will cover the issues that are contained within it, probably more briefly, but hopefully making that four minutes that the Deputy Presiding Officer has allocated to me. Indeed. The member from the stage 1 intervention he gave to me and said that perhaps the member could amplify a bit more about the vital role that Rotterdam Harvard plays in the world economy. Luke Dunstan. Rotterdam does indeed play a vital part in the world economy, but I am afraid that it is a subject on which the member himself knows rather more than I do, since I believe that he was on the visit to Rotterdam and I was not. Consequently, I am at a disadvantage on the subject of Rotterdam. However, returning to the legislation before us, it might appear counterintuitive to some that the Conservatives will today vote for a piece of legislation, the main effect of which is to remove a requirement for port authorities to bring forward proposals for privatisation when their turnover reaches £9 million. The privatisation of ports is something that I have no difficulty with. However, that is not really the issue that we are dealing with in this case. The Office of National Statistics has caused a number of problems to various sections of government over recent months and years by the redefinition of certain expenditures or borrowing as public rather than private. We are dealing with one particular aspect of that today. The position that this has put some of our trust ports in is that when they borrow money, as explained by the minister, that borrowing will show against the Scottish Government's borrowing. If that was a small-scale operation, perhaps the Scottish Government could find a way around that. However, the problem is that we have in Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen, a very large trust port that is about to become involved in an extremely large project that will require significant levels of borrowing. The Aberdeen Harbour Trust is in a position to deal with that borrowing. It requires no assistance from the Government over and above that that is already committed. It can handle that level of borrowing. However, the Scottish Government may find themselves in a position to have to account for borrowing that is not theirs, and that is unreasonable. The easiest way to deal with it is the one that was eventually decided upon by the minister. That was to take forward a small piece of legislation designed to repeal sections 10, 11 and 12 and take that requirement out. Of course, if I ever get the opportunity to be in his position and I want to encourage Scottish trust ports to become private, section 9 is still there and, if they want to apply, I would be most accommodating. With that said, the Conservatives will support this legislation at decision time tonight. We now move to the open debate. I have a call on Christian Alard to be followed by Claudia Beamish in four minutes. Thereby, please, Mr Alard. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. A fine piece of legislation said Alex Johnson, and I can only agree with what he said, particularly about Aberdeen Harbour Trust. The Aberdeen Harbour Trust today is about this Governmentation and this Parliament opportunity to give our support for the trust port model. It will ensure our members have a secure future and our industry is linked to our ports to grow and continue to build a strong economy for Scotland. A base industry that I created to this country and our world renowned, when I first came to Scotland over 30 years ago, I was already aware of the thriving fishing industry at many of the North-Feast harbours and my time working in the fishing and haulage industry. Presiding Officer, I reinforce my views of how important the North-Feast ports are for the fishing and haulage industry. The home that the ports also provide for the old gas and renewable energy sectors are vital for us all. This bill lets this industry flourish with a national security in the organisation structure, in the development and in the funding. In fact, Presiding Officer, the growing industries at Aberdeen Harbour, like we heard already from the Minister and from David Stewart and Alex Johnson, the growing industry at Aberdeen Harbour have been a driving force behind this bill due to their current redevelopment plans. Aberdeen status as the energy capital of Europe is a strong asset to itself and Scotland. It welcomes the improvements and expansion at Nick Bay and in this type of enterprise attitude is what Aberdeen can secure its position as a principal port for the energy sector. With the asset of this bill and with the co-operation of the Office for National Statistics and like the Minister, I will hope that the ONS will respond positively after tonight. Aberdeen Harbour will not be deemed as a public corporation and the ambitious proposal should succeed in passing with no financial effect to the Government's budget. I would like to add a response, Presiding Officer, that I wish Aberdeen Harbour trust all the best in the future in their developments and I will urge you then to consider as well the committees nearby, particularly the committee of Tory with the fantastic committee and the people of Tory should benefit first about we always sometimes forget about the people but the people should very much have the benefit of his development. Presiding Officer, this bill has a great impact in Scotland and more accurately, as I said in my own region, the port of Montrose for example as well come this bill repeal of section 10 and 12 of the port act 1991 and we've got many of a trust port of course in the region and a lot of them a smaller smaller port like Norfolk, Fresable, White Hills, Gardinston, Pen and and Rosaharty south of Peterhead and north of Aberdeen. We've got Cudinbury and Coalistan and of course, Presiding Officer, we have Peterhead. Peterhead is one of the most successful harbour and particularly the largest white fish and pelagic port. He's also top of league in European terms and regarding the international benchmark for the handling of food produce and he had received, for example, the British Retail Consortium Global Standard for Storage accreditation in 2011. That is very important, Presiding Officer, that they are looking at a lot of development and various developments, strong hands when we think about in the hands of a trust and I would like to thank the Scottish Government and the Minister for all the support they give to Peterhead Harbour Trust regarding the future development. I would like to thank the Minister as well and the Scottish Government for the help they give to Fresable. I think Fresable had benefited greatly with a recent multimillion pound deepening project upgrade of the harbour and that's a very welcome for the communities across. So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, we've no amendment been submitted and raised by the committee and all the Chamber seems to agree about this fine piece of legislation. I would like many people working in the industry linked to our harbours. I would like to congratulate the Scottish Government to bring that bill to Parliament and it'll get all my support for the transport model and I will welcome the passing of the harbour bill. Many thanks. I know Colin, Claudia Beamish, after which I moved to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to speak on this bill today. Scotland is blessed with a long and indented coastline, offering exhilarating views that are never too far away, a port that are enriched in history whilst being an outward looking and modern link to the rest of the world. In the assembly of the national marine plan, issues of sustainable growth, although I prefer the phrase sustainable development, connecting remote communities, climate change and sea level projections were highlighted, issues that should remain in the forefront of our minds today as we look to the future for our ports and harbours. They have a varied mix ownership as we've already heard and I welcome the efforts to improve the efficacy of port trusts. Ports can be the cornerstone of a community and the proposed modifications to the 1991 Ports Act will bring relief from uncertainty over unnecessary privatisation powers. It is also encouraging to see some governmental housekeeping in the simplification of the application processes. Ports are indeed a national asset and it is vital that we allow them to flourish without the threat of privatisation attached to any considerable financial success of onerous paperwork or of unproductive dispute resolution. The transport model is a significant section of Scotland's harbours and I celebrate its improvement with the passing of this bill today. More widely, very often ports and harbours are the beating heart of coastal communities. I am passionate about providing support for local groups and communities who wish to take on their own action to make the best of their local resources. The Crown Estate offers increasingly valuable support by the way of long-term guidance to ensure communities can harness the coastline potential and that these benefits are tethered to the local economy. The Marine Stewardship Fund helps communities to raise the value of their port in financial, environmental and social terms through sustainable development. Commitment to environmental responsibilities, investment in accessibility, good management and the means that ports improve and enhance sustainability. Harbours are more than just instrumental in connecting external ports, they are key to the internal community connectivity too. In my own region, Port Patrick Harbour is an inspiring example of community ownership as a model for ports. Only 20 miles across from the IRC, Port Patrick Harbour is a safe haven for thousands of marinas every year. In the summer of this year, the community rallied together to save the harbour from repossession. With support from Community Shares Scotland, the community formed the first Scottish Community Benefit Society, which was able to sell more than enough shares to buy the whole harbour. In the spirit of connectivity, support came from around the world. It is fantastic that this community society model now stands ready for others to utilise. Today, Port Patrick Harbour underpins much of the local community and economy, and the Community Benefit Society has further innovative plans to build new facilities and expand on to new land. Today it remains an unspelt and productive asset to Scotland and beyond. I hope that the minister might be able to, in his closing remarks, although it does not relate to the build today, highlight how the Scottish Government might be able to further support those sort of models in the future. Finally, I would support the bill and feel positive about the simplifications that it brings. I wish all those who work on our seas and in our ports good luck for the future. I now move the closing speeches. I call on Alex Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. That surprised me. I did not think that it was going to come round quite so soon. It is interesting, however, that this has been probably a great deal more diverse debate and wide-ranging than I either expected or perhaps it even needed to be. It is fair to say that this piece of legislation is extremely limited in what it sets out to achieve. It does not do any more than is required in the repeal of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the ports act 1991 to ensure that the risk of having investment redefined as public rather than private investment will be avoided. For that reason, it has a key role to play in ensuring that our trust ports can go forward and invest with confidence, take out the opportunities that are presented to them by the market and borrow money to expand their facilities and services whenever it is required. It is inappropriate that the Government should be put in a position where it would have to take responsibility within the broader accounting schemes for that money when, in fact, it has nothing to do with the decisions that surround it. For that reason, this piece of legislation, although it is very limited, will serve a very clear function for Scotland's trust ports. It will offer them the opportunity to expand in the future and, in the very near term, it gives the opportunity for Aberdeen to take forward its ambitious expansion project and to do so without any position from Government. However, the key element of whether the national office for statistics will change its definition once this piece of legislation is through. I believe that the minister set out during his opening remarks that he expected that confirmation to come in some form prior to the completion of stage 3, and he has not had that confirmation. The Office of National Statistics works in strange ways, I am sure, but I hope that once we have passed this legislation tonight that we will get quick action from the National Office of Statistics to make sure that there is a clear understanding that the objective that we have set out to achieve by bringing this piece of legislation through the Scottish Parliament has indeed been achieved and that we are delivered from the difficulties that were in place previously. For that reason, we go forward tonight and we vote on the bill, I am sure that it will be passed unanimously, and we will do so in the expectation that that will come. I only hope that we do not find ourselves in the difficult position of having legislated as was suggested and still not having the comfort that we sought to achieve. So, when we pass this tonight, I think that we will have a little more excitement on the agenda until we see that in black and white. However, with that said, let us get on past this legislation and hope that those in other places go on and do their bit. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thinking about winding up tonight reminds me of one of my favourite films, which was James Stewart and Mr Smith Goes to Washington, where James Stewart had to speak for 24 hours in a very, very important piece of legislation and resorted to quoting the Bible and the telephone book. I can reassure the Presiding Officer that I have neither the Bible nor a telephone book in front of me, because I am sure that he would rule me out of order. However, this has been perhaps one of the most straightforward and consensual debates that has certainly been my pleasure, and I use the term loosely to contribute, too. The minister, I think, made a very valid point in the opening remarks that there has been absolutely no adverse feedback in the consultation, that there is a very strong point to be made that why should the Scottish Government of any political complexion be responsible for the financial operation of another independent organisation? That is what the key of this is. So irrespective of who is going to be running the Scottish Government for its death and pure future political parties, I think that the point is well made that we need to get this right and get this right for both the Scottish Government and indeed for the port. So the key, as we have heard, is that the ONS believes that the power to privatise triggers the right to become a public corporation, which causes all sorts of problems, so I believe that it is vitally important to get this right. As Alex Johnstone has quite rightly pointed out, the ONS may be a fairly strange operation. It is responsible and I understand to the treasury. I am very hopeful that we can get this issue resolved, because if it is not resolved, I am not sure whether his further legislation from here can sort this out. However, let us be positive and let us hope that we can get this matter sorted out, because it is a very sensible bill. I was amused by Alex Johnstone's comments that it is a great night for him because he is voting against privatisation, and I will ensure that that is in his next election leaflet in Aberdeenshire, of wherever he is. He did not fall into my very obvious trap of discussing Rotterdam, but nevertheless he did discuss Aberdeen for where we did visit. I must put on record my thanks to the chief executive of Aberdeen, Port Harbour, who not only showed great gratitude. Duncan McNeill. I appreciate the members giving me time to take my intervention. I do so in respect to a private port. I appreciate the earlier questions. The private port that I am interested in is Greenock's Ocean terminal, which he will know is strategically important for the Scottish export industry and is increasingly important for its tourism industry through the cruise liner traffic. The minister made an offer to your question earlier. How will you ensure that the minister follows through his offer to discuss the wider aspects of how we can support the development of private ports, such as Greenock's Ocean terminal? I am very grateful for the member, and I am sure that the minister has picked up the comments that has been made by my friend. I can certainly support the comments that he has made. It is a vitally important terminal that is fantastic for the development of Scotland, and I fully support all the work that the member has done in that particular area. I think that Christian Allan has made some excellent points about the importance of ports for our oil and gas industry. I also flagged up the vitally important project at Ngig. I was going to say on the visit that we had to Aberdeen that the chief executive took us to the proposed site at Ngig, and I was extremely impressed with the work. On memory, it was £300 million, which is a tremendous investment. Of course, that is a perfect natural harbour, and I am sure that the work that has been carried out in Aberdeen, which on one level is almost full, I think, in terms of the great volume of work that is going on from across the world there, I would fully support the new development at Ngig. Claudia Beamish took out a very different and very refreshing tack on the bill, talking about sustainable growth and quoting some recent movies about back to the future or is it for port trusts. I do believe that she is right about the simplification being the key and avoiding threats from privatisation, but I have not followed the actual detail about the marine stewardship fund. I think that that is some excellent example that she gave there. I was not aware of the harbour repossession problem at Port Patrick. I have visited the harbour in my youth, an excellent facility, and I am really pleased to hear that that is in community ownership. I do not think that there are many examples of harbours that have gone down that route, but I am sure that Members would correct me if that is not the case. For Alex Johnstone again, he always does what is written in the bottle. This is a straightforward bill and it makes a lot of sense to get this through. All of us in Parliament today have put our strength and our faith in transports. I think that it is a good example, Presiding Officer, on the horrible jargon of double devolution, which means that we go from Scottish Government down to local authorities, down to ports and local community trusts. That is what double devolution means for me, having strong local active community groups, which was the theme of a recent debate, a recent excellent concert venue in Buley, which I will leave Members to gather for where it was, but it was a very useful debate and emphasised the importance of Aberdeen. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I would recommend to all Members to support this straightforward and very useful piece of potential legislation. Many thanks. I now call on Minister Derek Mackay to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government Ministry. You have up to seven minutes or thereby, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I agree that this has been a constructive and consensual debate. I think that setting some new precedents potentially for the Scottish Parliament. First of all, Claudia Beamish, speaking from a sedentary position, of course, because of the medical condition that was explained earlier, and David Stewart inviting the minister to speak indeed, compelling me to speak by sitting down, which is something to learn to grill future Scottish Government ministers. Also, once again, David Stewart has invited me to go to Rotterdam. Even with my transport brief, I am Scottish-bound and based, and the furthest that I normally get is our islands. I have not been to Rotterdam, never mind Rotterdam. However, I am happy to look at the experience that you have had there, because I know that you are profoundly impressed with how the ports and harbours and water freight have been deployed there. Of course, I am very mindful of the infrastructure committee's work on freight and waterborne freight. Claudia Beamish made a very important point on ports and harbours and their ownership and how communities can take advantage of their costs and the potential that they have. I absolutely would support community ownership and new development of ports and harbours. The member specifically asked what support is there. There is the community empowerment act, which can transfer ownership. However, there is also the potential of the crown estate coming to Scotland as well, and that could be used positively for local communities. I am very excited by the potential to have greater local benefit through the crown estate, as I have proposed through the island's prospectus, exactly how that would be delivered. As a matter for consultation, I have established the principle that local communities should benefit from the crown estate in a way that has not been the case before. Christian Alard reiterated that Alex Johnstone's point about that being necessary and a fine piece of legislation, hopefully servicing its purpose. Alex Johnstone is right to remind us that the legislation in itself might not satisfy ONS. I hope that it does. It should, because we are meeting their expectations and addressing the concerns that they had conveyed to us, but that said that they might not give us the classification outcome that we want. However, I still believe that that is legislation worth passing, even if it does not address the classification issue. Although I hope that it will, because it is good to do and however limited it is necessary. It will give the trust ports in Scotland that certainty and confidence that they would appreciate from all sides of the Scottish Parliament, not least from the privatising tendency that is Alex Johnstone, considering that that is absolutely the right thing to do. I think that that is a fair point, which takes us to the wider importance of ports and harbours. Of course, identified in the national planning framework is critical to the infrastructure of Scotland as we have developed terrestrial planning, that spatial planning on land with marine planning is well increasingly looked to the coast for further sustainable economic growth that Claudia Beamish had described. At one of the reasons, we ensured that Aberdeen particularly remained in MPF 3, which has been covered by another number of members. Right now, the Scottish Government has responsibility for terrestrial planning, that spatial land planning, marine planning. The only planning that we are not responsible for now that is still reserved to Westminster is extra terrestrial planning space. However, we look forward to the Scotland Bill amendments to even have captured that particular issue. Of course, we may just, but there is still the on-going issue of wanting to locate the spaceport in Scotland, and another number of members here have an interest in that. I see that we have developed some new precedents now. We have animal noises in the Scottish Parliament as well, which we may have inherited from Westminster, but I am sure that that is just a temporary phase that we are going through to get through this very necessary debate. I would want to say in terms of the models that we have. The infrastructure committee pointed out that there is the issue of mixed ownership. Ports and harbours in terms of their overall composition is maybe not how you would design it if you were starting with a blank page, but supporting trust, ports is absolutely necessary. To specifically touch on Duncan McNeill's point around Greenock and Port Glasgow, I think that it is an example of where the private sector has aspirations but could do so much more. It is very popular, of course, with tourism cruising, but also wider shipping and great potential for Inverclyde. I know that the member has warmly welcomed the award of course of the ferry contracts to Ferguson Marine Limited in Port Glasgow, which has ensured the jobs there. It is an example of how that may also expand as part of our strengthening our ferry fleet. In terms of the overall thrust of the bill, it has reached all-party support. If I can just say a word or two about why we have not taken forward the engagement around mediation, which we toyed with earlier on. In the legislative process, it was the view of government that if there is a requirement for mediation, we could produce non-statutory guidance on mediation rather than having it in the legislation to keep the bill absolutely focused on the issue of classification and not compelling thrust ports to go down the road of privatisation for the reasons that we have given. The marine sector is so important in Scotland. We do not want to inhibit growth in the maritime sector. With a publication of an Oxford economics study, it may show that it contributed £1.8 billion to the Scottish economy in 2013 alone, accounting for an estimated 1.7 per cent of the country's total benefit, and generated more than £630 million, in addition with approximately one in four people employed in the maritime sector in the UK-based in Scotland. We have described the three types of ports that we have within Scotland and, of course, thrust ports operating in a commercial environment, as has been described. We are addressing the bureaucratic issue, we are addressing the privatisation issue, and we are also giving confidence to the trust port model. I am sure that the sector will warmly appreciate the very positive comments about the role that the ports and harbours have within Scotland. David Stewart revealed to help fill the time. One of his favourite films from James Stewart was about someone who was filibustering to fill time. I can reveal my favourite James Stewart film is It's a Wonderful Life, and this is indeed a wonderful bill. I hope that Parliament endorses it unanimously today. Thank you Minister. That concludes the debate on the Harbour Scotland Bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of free motions in the name of Stuart Stevenson. On behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on various changes to standing orders, I call on Stuart Stevenson to move motion number 14554 on the Scottish rate of income tax, number 14555 on consolidation bills, and number 14556 on printed and published. We have until 515. Thank you Presiding Officer. The Standing Order rule changes proposed today come from three separate reports by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I shall deal with each in turn. The first set of proposals for change arises from a request from the finance committee for the SPPA committee to consider how the provisions in the Scotland Act 2012 on the Scottish rate of income tax should be translated into standing orders. We are now proposing some changes to standing orders to update the remit of the finance committee to delete the reference to consideration of tax-varying resolutions and insert a new reference to the Scottish rate of income tax. We also delete references to motions for tax-varying resolutions in standing orders and insert new references to Scottish rate resolutions. We are proposing a revision to rule 9.16.7 that currently states that if a budget bill is dependent on a tax-varying resolution and the Parliament rejects the motion for the resolution, the bill fails. The new rule 9.16.7 provides that stage 3 of a budget bill may not start until any associated Scottish rate resolution has been made by the Parliament. We have taken this approach because there is a considerable interdependence between the Scottish rate resolution and the budget bill. If the Parliament rejected the motion for a rate resolution, there would be a chance for the part of the Government to propose a fresh motion and amend the budget bill accordingly. Finally, under this heading, we are proposing a procedure for the cancellation of a Scottish rate resolution should that ever be required. Accordingly, I move motion S4M14554. The second set of changes relates to how we handle consolidation bills. Those bills exist to take existing pieces of legislation and consolidates them into a single bill that does not change the substance of the law. The Minister for Parliamentary Business asked the SPPA committee to look at changing the rules so that delegated powers and law reform committee could consider consolidation bills instead of a specifically established consolidation committee. We have considered whether to recommend this change. One advantage is that considering consolidation bills would link to the law reform element of the DPLR committee's work. The DPLR committee is used to considering legislation purely from a technical perspective rather than considering the policy behind the law. Another potential advantage is that a separate committee would no longer need to be established. We have therefore concluded that there should be a new option to refer a consolidation bill to the DPLR committee but that the option of referral to a consolidation committee should also be retained. The proposed standing orders allow the bureau to decide which option for referral would be most appropriate on a case by case basis. For example, if the bureau decided that a consolidation bill should be scrutinised by a committee that shares a member with the relevant subject committee, it might be appropriate to refer the bill to a consolidation committee rather than the DPLR committee. Accordingly, I move motion S4M14.5. Finally, we looked at the current requirements with standing orders to print, publish or print and publish various parliamentary documents. Some of those are used inconsistently. For example, there are requirements to print motions in the business bulletin but only a requirement to publish the business bulletin itself. One moment, Mr Stevenson. There is far too much noise from people who are coming into chamber. Please do, Mr Stevenson, the courtesy of listening to him for one minute and 45 seconds. The important point about those references is that publish could be by electronic means but printed requires the production of a hard copy. In the course of addressing those inconsistencies, the committee also became aware of a number of instances in which there is no requirement to publish marshaled lists and groupings at all, while officer determinations in most cases only require to be notified to the committee. The committee decided to take the opportunity to address those anomalies, too. As an additional tidying up exercise, we propose that the multiple references to notified in chapter 9A, which refers to private bill procedures, are replaced with a single duty to notify and publish all the determinations under that chapter. I should make it clear that those rule changes are designed purely to bring consistency and clarity to the rules and do not dictate or encourage any changes to the current practice of publishing a range of documents in hard copy since the term publish applies to either format. I've moved motion S4M-14556. Thank you, Mr Stevenson. The questions on these motions will put decision time to which we've now come. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 14297, in the name of Margaret Mitchell. On the Apologies Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14595, in the name of Derek Mackay. On the Harbour Scotland Bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to, and the Harbour Scotland Bill is passed. I propose to ask a single question on motions number 14554 to 14556 on various changes to standing orders. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. Order. No member has objected to a single question being put there, so I now put the question to the chamber. The question is at motions number 14554 to 14556, in the name of Stuart Stevenson, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are there for agreed to. That concludes decision time. We are now moving to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.