Those high-speed connections雅-an- accomplish- for the infrastructure's investment plan. That concludes topical questions. That brings us through the next item of business which is stage 3 proceeding on the Apologies Scotland bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the Bill is amended at stage 2. That is SP Bill 60A, the mar seule d-list, that is SP Bill 60AML and the groupings, SP Bill 60AG. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. I would be grateful if members could now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, power to modify legal proceedings covered, and I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendment 2, and I ask the minister to move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group, please, minister. Presiding Officer, I'll speak briefly about amendments 1 and 2. The Scottish ministers under section 2, subsection 3 of the bill, have the power to modify the exceptions in sections 2, subsection 1 and 1A by way of regulations. The two proposed amendments are technical in nature and are intended to provide clarity and certainty as to the Scottish ministers' power to make regulations. As the proposed amendments relate to the power to make subordinate legislation, we have written to the DPLRC to explain both amendments. Amendment 1 simply clarifies the power that the Scottish ministers have to modify the exceptions to legal proceedings covered by the bill in section 2 by way of regulations. The amendment makes it absolutely clear for the avoidance of doubt that the Scottish ministers' regulation making power includes adding to removing or amending the exceptions in section 2, subsection 1 and 1A. It does not extend the power of the Scottish ministers under section 2, subsection 3. It merely clarifies the scope of the power that is agreed between me and Ms Mitchell. The effect of amendment 2 is that the Scottish ministers, when making exceptions under section 2, subsection 3, make transitional, transit-rate and saving provision to cover situations where proceedings have begun before an exception is created by regulations. Or if an existing exemption is removed by regulations to allow proceedings to begun before the exception is removed to continue to apply the law which was enforced at the time they began. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to provide legal certainty and flexibility. Amendment 1 clarifies the purpose of the exception. Obviously, as legislation is passed in future parliaments, the list of exceptions may need to be added or removed. In terms of amendment 2, which we would also support, I just wondered if we could have a little more clarification from the ministers to do the difference between a transitional and a transitory provision. Perhaps he can give some examples to when a provision may be transitional as opposed to being transitory. I would like again to take this opportunity to thank the minister and his officials for working constructively with me to reach a stage in which I believe that we will have an amended bill that would meet both our broad aims. The minister has already spoken to both amendments and I have little to add. The two amendments are technical in nature and aim to provide greater clarity and certainty about subordinate legislation powers set out in section 2. Amendment 1 relates to the power to modify the exceptions and clarifies that the term modify covers adding to removing or amending the exceptions in section 2 1. I am happy to support the amendment. The second amendment extends the scope of section 2-3 regulation making powers to allow any such regulations to include transitional, transitory and saving provisions. I think that there is an issue there about before the legislation and after which the minister will clarify. Under the bill, as it stands, the only power to make transitional, transitory and saving provision is as part of the commencement order under section 5.4. That is fine if a change to the list of exceptions is made before the act as a whole comes into force, but there may also be a need for transitional, transitory or saving provisions if the exceptions are modified later after the act is fully enforced. The power to make commencement orders is no longer available. Amendment 2 therefore covers an important gap. I have always considered it important to ensure that this legislation can be developed over the longer term, including, I would hope, at some point of time in the future, perhaps reducing the number of exemptions as the legislation beds in and proves its worth. It is therefore important that ministers have sufficient flexibility and power to modify the exceptions whenever the need for those changes arises. I have had two slightly late bids, so before I call the minister I will call the members and the bill goes already. This is the minimis. It is just a point of clarification. In amendment 2, can I ask the minister to confirm that, in the fourth line from the end where the word proceeding occurs, I presume that that should be in the plural and be proceedings? The other bid no longer wishes to speak, so I call the minister to wind up, please. In regard to the issue of transitional, transitory and savings provisions, an act of the Scottish Parliament amends a law. In most cases it also requires to make provision for the transition from the pre-existing law to the new law when it is fully enforced, for example, to deal with cases that are under way when the new law is commenced. The purpose of such a transitional provision is to facilitate the change from one statutory regime to another. The purpose of a savings provision is to narrow and exclude the application of the new law so as to preserve the effect of a pre-existing legal rule, certain cases or circumstances. I hope that it makes clear at least what the transitional arrangement is for. In relation to the point about proceeding that Annabra Goldie raises, I believe that she is correct, but I will check that with officials and respond in due course. The question then is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. In which case I call amendment 2 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 1, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Formally moved. Thank you. Question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. That ends consideration of amendments. That then brings us to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15144 in the name of Margaret Mitchell on the Apologies Scotland Bill. Could I now invite those members who wish to contribute to this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please? I call on Margaret Mitchell to speak to and move the motion. Ten minutes, please, Ms Mitchell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is with great pleasure that I open today's stage 3 debate on the Apologies Scotland Bill. The bill was introduced almost a year ago on 3 March 2015. However, the idea for the bill came as far back as April 2010, when Professor Miller came to speak to the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse and told them about Apologies legislation, which ensured that an apology could be given without fear of it being used as a basis for establishing legal liability. After some research looking at the legislation from other countries, I remember meeting with the Bill's team in 2012 and waving the one-page British Columbia Bill, saying that this should be pretty straightforward. Four years later, here we are finally at, hopefully, the finishing line. Stage 1 consideration was completed on 27 October 2015 during a positive debate, an agreement on the Bill's general principles, but with caveats from the Minister, the Justice Committee and other contributors about the necessity for amendments at stage 2. Here I would like to express my sincere thanks to both the minister and his officials for their willingness to work with me in order to find common ground and a positive and constructive way to proceed. As a result, when the Justice Committee considered the Bill at stage 2 on 8 December, a number of amendments were tabled and agreed, either by myself or by the minister and supported by the committee. I also want to thank the Justice Committee for its considered scrutiny of the Bill and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its consideration of the subordinate legislative powers. There are others who have worked to support me in making my case for the Bill to whom I will refer and thank in my closing remarks at the end of the debate. The stage 2 amendments were critical to the passage of the Bill. Before I focus on some of the key changes arising from stage 2, it would be useful to recap on its objectives. First, to encourage the use of apologies by providing legal certainty that an apology in certain civil proceedings cannot be used prejudicially against a person who gives it. Secondly, to encourage a change in attitudes towards apologising and a cultural and social change in relation to giving apologies in an effort to give complainers closure. Section 1 covers the effect of an apology in legal proceedings and provides the apology will be inadmissible in certain legal proceedings that are set out in section 2. I wanted to keep the Bill as simple and straightforward as possible and for that reason section 2 of the Bill originally set out in the broadest terms possible that the Bill would apply to all civil legal proceedings with two exceptions, namely defamation proceedings and fatal accident inquiries. During stage 1 however it became apparent that there were further types of procedure which witnesses and respondents considered should be included as exceptions. The first additional exception was in relation to inquiries held under the inquiries act 2005. Here the argument is similar to that which applies to fatal accident inquiries in that as the inquiries purpose is to establish the full facts and apology should be admissible as evidence. I also sought and received the minister's assurances the new exception would not affect the historic child abuse inquiry which has no power to determine liability. Instead it is a fact-finding exercise which seeks to establish a comprehensive picture of the events to address public concern and to help restore public confidence in systems or services by making recommendations to prevent recurrence. As such in this context it is in the public interest for this evidence to be heard. The minister lodged a further amendment to allow apologies and proceedings under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 to be relied upon as evidence and proceedings before children's hearings panel and the court. Having had discussions with representatives from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration I recognised that these hearings are complex in nature and may in some instances cover quasi-criminal issues and decide issues relating to appropriate measures of supervision and protection. I was therefore persuaded that court proceedings under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 should be added to the exceptions to the bill's application. Turning now to the discussions surrounding the duty of candour procedure to be enacted via the health tobacco and nicotine etc and care Scotland bill and the provisions in the apology bills. An apology made under the duty of candour procedure in the health bill would not in itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty but would be admissible and could be founded on in legal proceedings. It is as the Justice Committee noted in its stage 1 report difficult to see how my bill and the duty of candour provisions could co-exist without the form of exception which the minister subsequently lodged. I remain unconvinced about the effectiveness of the duty of candour. I do recognise the Government's intention to proceed with this provision and I was therefore content with this amendment. However, I am moving now on to section 3 which set out the definition of an apology and originally contained statements of fact and admissions of fault which were included to encourage the fullest possible apology. However, I fully understood, recognised and accepted the concerns expressed by witnesses including the minister that the inclusion of statements of fact could potentially prevent the individual from securing compensation where a statement of fact within an apology was the only evidence available. An admission of fault is not the same as an admission of liability. However, I ultimately recognised that this is a technical legal argument and at this stage in the introduction of apology legislation it was regarded as a step too far. I was therefore content with the Scottish Government's tabled amendments removing statements of fact and fault at stage 2 in an effort to allay concerns that the bill as originally drafted could result in unintended consequences potentially resulting in an injustice to some pursuers. The bill as finally amended now provides that in certain civil proceedings an apology which expresses sorrow or regret about an act, admission or outcome and which may contain an undertaking to look into the circumstances leading to the act, admission or outcome will be inadmissible. The commitment by the apologiser to carry out a lessons learned exercise is, I believe, crucial to give closure. Section 5 of the original bill set out that the act would come into force at a fixed period of six months after a royal assent. The minister's stage 2 amendment changed the commencement of the act from a fixed period to a commencement by way of regulations. I sought and received a commitment from him that this additional flexibility was not intended to and would not result in a significant delay in commencement. It is important to stress, Presiding Officer, that the bill does not prevent anyone from pursuing legal address, but it should help to avoid those for whom an apology in itself is the desired outcome, having to take legal action or make a formal complaint in order to get this apology. By clarifying the legal status of an apology as defined in the bill, it aims to encourage their use at an earlier stage. As legislation alone will not break down the barriers to making apologies, it can help to change the culture of reluctance to give an apology for fear of litigation and to encourage timely, appropriate, meaningful and sincere apologies. In conclusion, I very much hope that the Scottish Government will take on board both the need for guidance on implementation of the legislation and the importance of training for, in particular, front-line staff in both public and private organisations, and that this can be taken forward as part of its preparation for commencement of the legislation. Presiding Officer, I thank all those involved in the scrutiny of the bill and move motion S4M-15144 that the Parliament agrees that the Apologies Scotland bill be passed. I thank Margaret Mitchell for introducing the bill and for all the hard work that she has put into it and for the dedication that she has shown throughout. I know that taking forward a member's bill can seem a daunting task, and I hope that, ultimately, Ms Mitchell and her team take satisfaction from her having achieved a positive outcome today. Although we have at times viewed the issues from different perspectives, we have always agreed about the value of giving and receiving of apologies and the importance of promoting a social and cultural change in attitudes to apologising, particularly within the context of public service provision. I am pleased to be at a point today where I can confirm that the Scottish Government has continued support for the bill. I would also like to, from my own part, thank members of the Justice Committee for their hard work and careful scrutiny of the bill. I would also like to thank the organisations and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to the committee, as well as those who provided briefings for parliamentary colleagues or engaged in the bill process in other ways. In particular, as Margaret Mitchell did, I would like to sincerely thank the survivors of historic child abuse, who shared their thoughts on the bill. I would also like to thank the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Professor Alan Miller, whom I know that Ms Mitchell has been working very closely with during the process. As it has been made very clear during the bill's passage through the parliamentary process, apologies have the great value of acknowledging that something has gone wrong and demonstrating that lessons have been learnt. We all know mistakes happen. That is a sad fact of life and these mistakes can often have tragic and long-lasting consequences, but it is how we deal with these mistakes that makes the difference. Apology can be a way of showing acknowledgement, respect and empathy for the other person. While it cannot undo past actions, if done sincerely and effectively, it could provide some form of redress and perhaps give closure to those affected. It is clear that legislation alone cannot remove social barriers to apologising, but I believe that the bill is an important step in changing attitudes in relation to apologies. Survivors of historic child abuse have been at the heart of the development of this piece of legislation. We have heard from many survivors about the importance to them of hearing an apology. The Scottish Human Rights Commission recognised that in its action plan on justice for victims of historic abuse of children in care, and full consideration of the merits of an apology law was one of the commitments that came out of that action plan. It is important to note that, as the Scottish Human Rights Commission has pointed out, the present bill is only one of a number of measures to support survivors of historic child abuse in Scotland. The Scottish Government has demonstrated its commitment in this area by establishing the historic child abuse inquiry that Margaret Mitchell referred to and by making clear our intention to remove the three-year limitation period for cases of historic child abuse that took place after 26 September 1964, with earlier cases being affected by the law of prescription. At stage 1 of the parliamentary process, there were particular concerns regarding the definition of an apology in the bill, as Margaret Mitchell alluded to when it was introduced. It became clear the wide definition, which included statements of facts and admissions of fault, could end up disadvantaging pursuers who would be unable to draw on potentially important evidence. Concerns were also raised regarding certain civil proceedings, were the apologies bill would not work effectively, and Margaret Mitchell has covered many of those. Because of those serious concerns, I initially saw benefit in an alternative approach, which would put the common law in Scotland on a statutory footing along the lines of section 2 of the compensation act 2006 in England and Wales. Having discussed further with the member and reflected on the evidence at stage 1, my officials and I undertook additional work into the impact of the bill, in particular to try to ascertain whether, by removing fact and fault from the definition, this would alleviate concerns about any potential injustice to pursuers. I listened carefully to stakeholders and was persuaded that, if the definition was amended to remove fact and fault, the access to justice concerns could be addressed. At stage 2, I therefore put forward an amendment to remove fault from the definition alongside Ms Mitchell's own amendment to remove fact. Those amendments, as well as some amendments for further exceptions and some technical amendments, were agreed in the justice committee at stage 2 on 8 December. The two amendments put forward and agreed at stage 3 today, as we just heard, will clarify the Scottish ministers' powers to make regulations under section 2, subsection 3 and provide flexibility as to the application of the exceptions by means of transitional, transitory and saving provision. I mentioned earlier about concerns that were raised at stage 1 regarding the effect of the bill on health professional regulators such as the General Medical Council or GMC and the Nursing and Morhery Council or NMC. The committee heard from those regulators about the potential unintended consequences of preventing apologies being used as evidence in their fitness to practice proceedings, which may impact on their ability to assess the risk that a doctor or nurse may pose to the public in future. My officials have been working closely with the NMC and the GMC to find a solution to their concerns. It is clear from those discussions that an exception for civil proceedings undertaken by health professional regulatory bodies is needed. However, more work is still required to establish exactly what forms such an exception should take. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to state my intention to use the power of Scottish ministers outlined in section 2, subsection 3 of the bill to add an exception for proceedings held by health professional regulators once this additional work has been concluded. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my sincere thanks to Margaret Mitchell for proposing the bill, for working very constructively with the Government and my team in doing so. I am pleased to be at a point today where I believe that we have a bill that can make a difference to attitudes to apologising in Scotland and to deliver the culture change that the member seeks. I commend this bill to Parliament. There is probably not a great deal more that can be said about the short bill at this stage. That has not already been said, so I apologise for any repetition. Margaret Mitchell is to be congratulated in bringing her member's bill to this final stage. Shortly, I am sure to become law. This is an achievement for any member who undertakes all the additional work a member's bill requires. Margaret Mitchell is also to be congratulated for being prepared to listen to and take on board concerns and suggestions made during the stage 1 process. She and the Scottish ministers have worked together to overcome those issues and produce a final bill that I think has cross-party support. Margaret Mitchell has described to us what motivated her to introduce the legislation as a convener of the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. The process that she has described in turning matters that are discussed by a CPG into legislation, which is likely to be passed today, testifies to the importance of procedures in this Parliament, which enabled the concerns of citizens of Scotland to result in legislation. We do hear a lot of criticism about the committees and so on of this Parliament, but it is worth noting when our procedures work well and produce good legislation. I am sure that we have all had experience of constituents who have suffered some form of misfortune at the hands of public or private sector organisations and have felt aggrieved that they have not received so much as an apology for the distressed cause to them. Sometimes an apology is all they agree requires. On other occasions they need to know that action will be taken to prevent the mistake occurring again and that others will not have to go through the circumstances that they have gone through. A meaningful apology for harm done can be of great psychological and emotional benefit and may sometimes be more helpful than any other action taken. Despite that being a short bill and its intention being widely welcomed, the bill, as drafted at stage 1, did raise a number of concerns. There were general consensus that removing the fear of civil action would be very valuable, but many witnesses were concerned at the wide scope of its definitions and the way in which it would work, and we had mentioned the way in which it interacted with the general medical council standards and the duty of candor in the health bill. Concerns were also expressed that the bill could have had unintended consequences of disallowing information relevant to subsequent civil action and thereby depriving victims of compensation. A fairly small number of amendments were unanimously agreed at stage 2, which removed the concerns that are involved in narrowing the definition of an apology. That may have been disappointing to the member in charge because I know that she did want to have the fullest possible definition of an apology. However, an apology is now defined as a statement indicating that a person's story about or regrets an emission or an outcome and undertakes to look at the circumstances that had given round to the matter for which the apology is being given with the intention of preventing reoccurrence. A rising from stage 1 evidence, certain legal procedures were removed from the scope of the bill. Fatal accident inquiries are now exempted, as they are not concerned with liability but with understanding what has happened with the sheriff making recommendations about how the death could have been prevented. An apology may be an important piece of information in understanding the cause of death and therefore it should be admissible as evidence to an FAI. A similar argument applies to public inquiries set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which also held to establish a fact and to restore public confidence. Proceedings under the Children's Hearing Act 2011 are also exempted from the definition whether those proceedings are held before a court or a children's hearing. That was strongly advised by the Scottish Children's Reported Administration in written evidence. The SCRA felt that there could be serious implications for child protection and youth justice, if apologies given in respect to these matters, which were not able to be included in the children's hearing. For example, if an apology for a harm done to a child might well be relevant to the actions that needed to be taken to protect that child, so it's important that those are not exempted. The minister introduced two further minor amendments today, which enable Scottish ministers to vary or remove exceptions, as well as to add to them and to clarify that they can regulate transitional, transitory or saving provisions. The minister explained to me what a transitional provision was. He didn't actually tell me what a transitory provision was, so I still remain consumed with curiosity as to a transitory provision. I was tempted to say that we wouldn't support those at stage 3 so that we could actually buy ourselves another five minutes of time, but I think that that would have been a little silly, and I'm sure that the Presiding Officer would not have agreed to that. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Forum of Insurance Lawyers gave evidence at stage 1 advising that we didn't have a particularly litigious culture. I think that that's a good thing, but Margaret Mitchell did observe an apology that could reduce the number of complaints made to organisations such as the Scottish Public Sector of Ombudsman. That would actually be of benefit not just to the SPSO in terms of effort and time, but to the organisations being complained about and indeed to the complainers themselves. I would like to conclude by thanking the clerks, spice and the witnesses who gave evidence and to congratulate again Margaret Mitchell on piloting the bill through Parliament and also to the Scottish Government for their assistance in the modifications of the bill, and I wish the bill well when it is enacted. Many thanks and to now call on Gavin Brown. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I too want to begin my speech by congratulating Margaret Mitchell on bringing the bill forward and thanking to the Minister of the Justice Committee and all those who gave evidence to get us to where we are today. I have to say that there was a time a couple of months ago where I wasn't quite convinced that we would end up with the bill that we've ended up with today. When the driven passion of Margaret Mitchell met the caution of the Minister, I had a minor fear, albeit a minor one, but a minor fear that we could end up with a bill that was utterly toothless and not worth the name, or we could end up in a situation where both parties walked away and we ended up literally with nothing after all of that work. However, I think that the actions of both the member promoting the bill and the Scottish Government have to be praised in the highest order because they have met regularly, they have talked through issues, they have explained very carefully the positions they have taken and why they have taken them, and I think that both sides have been pretty consensual in trying to make sure that we genuinely ended up with something that the Parliament could be proud of. We had a useful debate, I think, at stage 1. We had some helpful amendments at stage 2, and that consensual approach was typified all the way through the debate, all the way through those stages, to an extent that at stage 3 we end up with a mere two amendments required, neither of which prompted any genuine debate and neither of which were opposed at all. I suspect and obviously hope that that will be the case decision time today. Just on a personal, I noted also the minister's approach. He did listen carefully too because at stage 2 there was an amendment that he was proposing to lodge that, in my view, it may have diluted the clarity slightly, but he listened to arguments from a number of committee members and took the decision not to move that amendment, which to me I think typified the approach of all parties towards his bill. It is not usually different, I guess, from stage 2, but it is, I think, different from stage 1 in terms of the bill that we have ended up with. What has changed? Firstly, we have some more exceptions to the act that has been gone through. The inquiries under the inquiries act have been excluded, children's hearings have been excluded, and apologies under the duty of Canada procedure have been excluded too. I think that there are good and sensible reasons behind each of them, particularly in the last one where it was pretty obvious that they couldn't both have coexisted. The interaction had to be looked at carefully and we had to be absolutely clear that there were no unintended consequences, and I think that we probably comfortably are at that stage now. I noted the Law Society's response to members in advance of today's debate where they seemed to accept the general princes of the bill and didn't raise any additional issues on a very short report, which was pleasing, I think, to see. I think that we have promoted the balance between promoting apologies and minimising those unintended consequences. The other major changes that I think we have probably heard already are just a slight narrowing of the definition of apology. I know that Margaret Mitchell initially wanted it to be as wide as was feasible, but she again listened pretty carefully and we have ended up, I think, rightly at a position where we have removed statements of fact from the definition and we have also removed admissions of fault from the definition too. The Justice Committee looked at it over a period of months and did state pretty clearly in the conclusion that the definition of apologies must be reconsidered. The member, I think, promoting the bill made it clear that she was perfectly prepared to reconsider. She made it clear as early as stage 1 that she was going to do so. Had we stuck with the original definition, I think that we probably would have ended up much further than comparable apologies legislation and so again, I think that we probably ended up at the right place today. We didn't want to disadvantage or prejudice any potential pursuers. When we come to the end of today, we will mark the end, I suppose, of the legislative process, but it is even more important what happens after that. It is all well and good passing legislation, but if that legislation does not achieve the cultural change that we all want to see, then its value is greatly diminished. We will have to, as a number of members have touched on, make sure that we get the right training so that those who are involved at the front line can do their jobs correctly. We need the right amount of guidance to be published so that we make it easy for those on the front line to be aware of the legislation and to know how they ought to act. When we look back in a couple of years' time, we can all say that we passed the right piece of legislation. It made a difference on the ground and we achieved what we wanted to achieve right from the beginning. Charles I is reported to have said, never make a defence or an apology until you are accused. Of course, he had an unfortunate fate. Perhaps he made his apology a little too late, but perhaps in turn we should follow the lead of the cyclist, Greg LeMont, who also in difficult circumstances is reported to have said, more people should apologise and more people should accept apologies when sincerely made. Whatever the merits of an apology, I think we should recognise that the bill, following in the footsteps of other jurisdictions, is a step forward. As many have said and indeed said earlier today, it's not about changing the law, it's about changing the perception that you cannot say sorry. As we know from many individuals who suffer some calamity in their life, often particularly in what could be described as issues of minor injury or distress, often they are only looking for an apology and the failure to provide one often simply inflames matters. Changing the culture is therefore to be commended. Presiding Officer, the member in my view is to be congratulated for listening to the views of others, not least the views of the Scottish Government itself on ways on which this bill can be improved, on the need to remove the reference to statements of fact, on excluding fault and importantly on unrecognising the need to provide an exclusion for the duty of candor provision proposed under the health, tobacco, nicotine, et cetera and care Scotland bill. We had a lot of evidence at stage 1 of this bill, some of it quite memorable. For example, on the inclusion of a statement of fact in the original bill, Mr Stevenson, the Faculty of Advocates, it may be called, said, why include a statement of fact? A husband writes a letter to his wife, quote, Dear Senga, I'm sorry I broke your nose last night and beat the kids on the way out, Genghis. As Mr Stevenson suggested, no one could seriously argue that that comment should be inadmissible in legal proceedings relating to the matrimonial situation, the care of the children and the protection of that woman from her husband. Issues in relation to the interaction with pre-action protocols and the insurance industry were raised. I'm pleased that we've got to the point where these issues will no longer cause potential difficulties. It's clear that the committee recognised that there are proceedings such as defamation and fatal accident proceedings where it would be wholly inappropriate to seek to exclude an apology. Of course, it would also be fair to recognise that there were some in particular, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, who favoured a broad definition of apology rather like the original definition in the bill, not the rather more limited version we have in the bill now. As Bruce Adamson, as the Scottish Human Rights Commission said in evidence, quote, Although we can have discussions about whether to have a limited or more robust definition of apology, what matters in the end is whether the individual victim can have an effective remedy. He also said, Apology is very much one tool among many. I agree. But there are issues in relation to sexual abuse where I accept that this bill may not provide all the answers that are being sought. But we should be mindful that the O'Brien inquiry will hopefully provide for at least some answers and public recognition of that abuse, which they have been looking for for a very long time. What impact will this bill have? Well, we should just have to wait and see. It seems most unlikely that it will be any form of magic wand. We know, of course, it was the view of Professor Robin Carroll, an Australian academic, that the little data that exists as the shifting behaviour from the field of medical practice tells us that such legislation has been relatively ineffective. Nor can it really be said that Scotland has a compensation culture comparable to other jurisdictions. But let's not prejudge the matter. Let's approach the passing of the bill with a positive spirit. Wish it well and thank the member for her passion for her efforts in steering the bill through its passage and for dealing with the caution of the minister. Many thanks and I now call Margaret McDougall to be followed by Alison McInnes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I too congratulate Margaret Mitchell on bringing this bill forward. When I spoke previously in the stage 1 debate on the Apologies Scotland Bill, I highlighted a number of concerns that I had with the bill. However, during the stage 2 discussions, the bill was amended. Those amendments dealt directly with the concerns that I had, so I'm happy to support the bill before us today. The stage 2 amendments primarily focused on tackling the unintended consequences of the Apologies Bill. In doing so, they have made sure that inquiries under the Inquiries Act are no longer covered by the bill. The reason for that is that inquiries are primarily fact-finding exercises, and we find that apologies are in the public interest, which is for the inquiry to decide. If they were not exempt, it would bring in to question the independence of that inquiry, so this is a welcome improvement. I also welcome that the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 has been exempted from this bill. Concerns were raised that had the act been included, cases of child abuse might never see the light of day, or children may not get properly referred as there wouldn't be enough evidence to establish grounds for this. This amendment was required in my view. Had it not been accepted, I couldn't have supported the bill. The stage 2 proceedings also offered much-needed clarity on the definition of apology in the bill. Amendments 1 and 10 were in response to the committee's evidence that the definition of an apology needs to be reconsidered. This set of amendments removed the references to admissions of fault and statements of fact. Therefore, that helps to alleviate concerns that were raised about the access to justice being blocked if those could not be used in court to determine liability in action for damages. While my concerns regarding unintended consequences have been tackled, I am still unsure that the bill will deal with the issue highlighted in the policy memorandum. The policy memorandum states 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 weakness. I am aware of such coincidences and circumstances but I am unsure that this piece of legislation will be strong enough to bring about the required cultural change that it has been designed to do. That said, the bill is a step in the right direction and if it does promote a shift in this, it would be welcomed. Obviously, it is difficult to predict what the social effect of the bill will be until we see the consequences of it in practice. I argue during the stage 1 debate 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. In my view, the changes that were made at stage 2 have addressed the concerns that I had about the bill. As such, the bill has now struck a much better balance between promoting a cultural shift while also protecting not excluding those seeking justice. I once again congratulate Margaret Mitchell for bringing the bill forward. Since stage 1, the bill has seen some changes which, in my view, improve it, the bill now offers a slightly different definition of apology. The new definition still includes the important aspects of an apology, the expression of regret and a promise to look into the matter with a view to prevent something similar from happening again. The removal of admissions of fault and factual statements ensure that we avoid the risk of causing unintended consequences. As others have said, the bill now also exempts proceedings under the Children's Hearing Scotland Act 2011 from its scope, something that caused me a serious concern during stage 1 proceedings. The bill as introduced could have meant that children's panels would not have been able to do their job effectively. That was because currently apologies outwith proceedings may sometimes have been used to establish grounds for referral to the hearing system. That could have had the potential to leave some children and young people behind. I welcome that change to the bill as it went through the parliamentary process. In relation to protecting children and young people, let me turn to one area that has not been discussed quite as much. During stage 1 proceedings, the Government argued that the bill would add further barriers for the survivors of historic child abuse in gaining justice. At the same time, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Margaret Mitchell said that the bill had the potential to help survivors. I took the time to contact a number of survivor groups to gain a better understanding of where they stood on the issue. The response that I received was that, in general, survivors are supportive of the bill. One representative stated that many survivors of abuse do not wish to pursue legal redress, but closure is important to them to ensure an ongoing recovery. Survivors felt let down by those who should have offered them care and were deeply affected by their experiences. Apology does not put right what happened, but it acknowledges the pain and distress caused and gives some comfort that lessons will be learned for the future. For many of the survivors, the issue is the time bar rather than the ability to use an apology in legal proceedings. The response above clearly shows an example of where an apology could have had an important role to play in the healing process. It shows how an apology can enable people to move on with their lives. During stage 1, I also raised my concerns over the potential clash of the bill with the duty of Canada provision, included in the health, tobacco, nicotine etc. and care Scotland bill. I am pleased that the clash has now been resolved. I note the recent briefing from the nursing and midwifery council stating that the bill, as it stands, would still prevent its fitness to practice panel relying on evidence that is currently admitted. I am grateful for the assurances on this from the minister this afternoon that it is his intention that he will use the powers on the bill to add a further exemption. I think that that is welcome clarification. Finally, although I am still not entirely convinced that this bill will create the much needed cultural change to make apologies more acceptable, which in large was the purpose of the bill, I do hope that it will be a good first step. Cultural and attitudinal shifts take time to happen. It is important that, along with the legislation, there is appropriate education, training and guidance that would further encourage that shift. We need organisations to encourage not discourage admissions of fault and apologies. We need to work together with the insurance industry to dissuade them from barring their customers from making apologies for fear of having their policies invalidated. The Scottish Liberal Democrats intend to support the bill at decision time. Let me close by commending the member-in-charge, Margaret Mitchell, for her determination to pursue this, but also for her willingness to negotiate with the Government to ensure that the bill could progress to this stage. I thank her for doing that and I do hope that it brings about the cultural change that she hopes for. Many thanks and I now call Gil Paterson. First of all, I thank Margaret Mitchell for her determination and the way that she sat chaperoned her bill through the Parliament. She has been a very good listener, she has made the changes and that is all these things are to her credit. The aim of the bill is to provide an expression of apologies admissible as evidence for the purposes of civil legal proceedings, excluding defamation proceedings and fatal accident inquiries. The bill, as drafted, makes provisions for expression of sympathy or regret, any statements of fact, and any admission of fault or undertakings does not amount to an admission of liability. Apologies have the great value of acknowledging that something has gone wrong and demonstrating that lessons have been learned. In every day of life in the not too distant past, it was calmly the purpose of people to make a full apology. It was considered as basic good manners and it happened everywhere. It happened in the workplace, it happened at play, it was in school, playground or in an older time in your life. It happened in the home, it's a frequent thing. Even in those days though that fallouts could happen, just for simple straight forward reason that an apology wasn't made or maybe big headedness in the part of people, you could lose your friends for life and that could be even a few days. Just because somebody didn't say sorry. But matters in the past, having said that, were much easier. I fear for the Americanisation of our culture now. It's changed matters for the worse. We've got almost an industry of ambulance chasing and no wins, no fees. Then you have things that have happened in general with companies and officialdom. They're less likely to say sorry, they worry about claims. We need to go back to where we were and this bill I think will help that. It could be a more polite and non-confrontational society because of this bill. I know it won't be easy because I do think that it's a cultural change that we're looking for. Margaret's to be congratulated and listening to the witnesses. But I did forget to mention that the Government, I think the Government have also played their part to make these changes happen. I think it gets the balance right and it will help the social change in the attitudes that we're clearly seeking. The bill will surely help that happen in my view. Scotland isn't the first due restriction to have legislation in this regard. It's enforced in the USA, Canada and Australia, although they're not identical, but they all seek the same outcome. Apology doesn't mean that litigation does not happen, but saying sorry does not mean that it will. A simple apology under this legislation just means that a simple sorry in itself is without fear of an admission or guilt. It gives space for a sorry to take place without the fear of litigation. Many people in everyday life, a simple apology for most things, still happens. But even in very serious circumstances, for instance in historic child abuse, then victims crave that an apology happens. That's not in any way to say that victims of historic abuse sexual or otherwise would not want their case to be pursued in the courts. But an apology for many people is an enormous step for them in moving forward in the life and possibly moving forward for the very first time. So the simple apology in itself can make a difference. In general terms, as explained, attitudes have hardened. To find a way to overcome that with a simple apology is something that we can maybe help society to change. I want to say that Margaret Bell can change things for the better. I'm very grateful that she's been diligent in what she's tried to achieve. Thanks for doing that, Margaret. Thank you very much. Now Colin Gavin Brown, up to five minutes please. Thank you. It's been, I think, a very short but useful debate where we've had everything from references to Charles I to the idea that still amuses me slightly of Margaret Mitchell saying back in 2012 that this should be pretty straightforward. Presiding Officer, for me being an example of how legislation ought to work, the original bill is drafted pretty well and the broad principles are in the right ballpark. Over the course of committee discussions and debates, the risks are removed one by one and other sections are strengthened so that we end up at stage three with a good bill with which it's difficult to disagree. It is one of the first debates I've been in nine years in this Parliament where there's not been a single intervention on any of the speakers outside of members' business perhaps. Some useful contributions during the course of the debate. I was very interested to hear Alison McInnes' point that she has personally contacted groups and individuals representing survivors of historic abuse. It was comforting to hear that they still are strongly in favour of the bill. That ties in exactly with comments that Margaret Mitchell had made to me over the last couple of weeks as well. That's vital. Just given the genesis of how this bill came about, where it came from, it was absolutely vital that those groups were still 100 per cent behind it. I'm very comforted to hear indeed that that is the case. As I always do, I enjoyed Gil Paterson's contribution. He commented briefly that, back in the day, apologies for whatever reason just tended to happen much more regularly than they do today. He hopes, like many of us, that this bill will be a vital first step in ensuring that we go back to where we were before. It has been touched on by a number of members and, no doubt, the Government will touch on it too in closing. However, that is just the first step, and the training, as we know, will be required to make sure that those on the front line are able to get things right. In particular, they will need to be given careful training on exactly what is included in the scope of the bill, given that we have a number of exceptions down there now, just so that those people can be absolutely crystal clear on what they are able to do and not do. We've heard that guidance will be required, and I'm sure that the case will be that the Government will want to involve people like Margaret Mitchell and those on the Justice Committee in making sure that the guidance is as good as it can be so that, again, it has the ultimate impact that we all want it to have. Ultimately, the legislative change will only be of great value if it leads to cultural change, and that is the big question. That is what we all want to see. We want to end this perception that it is somehow seen as a sign of weakness, and we want to try to calm the fears of litigation. Rodd Campbell is right that we are not as prolific in terms of litigation as some other jurisdictions, but there could be no doubt from listening to some of the witnesses that there is a genuine fear held by some, and that is a genuine reason given by many for not actually giving an apology. We don't know for sure exactly what impact it will have, but I was particularly taken by a clause in the committee report that said that legislation is not the magic formula, but it has a role to play, even if it does not have a dramatic effect. As long as it has some form of effect, I think that it has a role to play. Given the guidance and training that we all want to see and push for, I am pretty hopeful that it can have more than at least a minor effect. Alison McKinnis put it pretty well, and she did say—again, she was not sure exactly what effect it would have going forward, but she described it as a vital first step. She is absolutely right that this is a vital first step that we all hope will have the impact that we desire. What we can say for certain is that if we did not take this vital first step, we could almost guarantee the fact that we would not see the cultural change that we all want to see. I am very hopeful that it will have the impact that we want to see, and I look forward to voting in favour of it at decision time today. Many thanks, and I now call in Graham Pearson up to five minutes, please, Mr Pearson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many members round the chamber quite properly acknowledged Margaret Mitchell's hard work and her persistence in falling through the introduction of this bill and shepherding it through committee and its negotiations with the Government. I think, too, it was touched on that her compromise at key moments were common sense responses and not in any way a betrayal of her original intentions in providing the bill, and that we have come to a position where we should also acknowledge Paul Wheelhouse's sensible responses on behalf of the Government in bringing us to where we are today, the birth of a new piece of legislation subject to the vote at the end of this debate. Members also acknowledged that Justice Committee and the Civil Servants who service act committee have provided a great deal of background work in taking us to a position where although not perfect and reflected by a number of members that this is a first stage, declares an intention on behalf of Parliament that there should be a different culture, a different approach as we go forward. It is right that the Human Rights Commission in supporting the approach that Margaret Mitchell developed within her own working, cross-party working group helped in providing the kernel that now forms part of not only the policy memorandum, but hopefully the act that we come to visit at the end. The policy memorandum indicates that obstacles do exist to apologising in Scotland. It did argue, and I quote, an entrenched culture in Scotland and elsewhere that offering an apology when something has gone wrong is perceived as a sign of weakness, and it also said a fear that an acknowledgement of fault can lead to litigation. I would add a third subsection that is also an individual fear in a professional sense that offering an apology offers a threat to future opportunities for advancement in career terms, and that in some way sometimes silences people in saying the right thing at the right time. Members, Margaret MacDougall, Gavin Brown and others, indicated that there was not a compensation culture in Scotland, but as an example compensation payments made by the NHS in Scotland through clinical negligence and other risk indemnity schemes, payments have risen from £1.6 million in the year 2000 to 2001 to £58.24 million in 2010 and 11. I do not think that I will be alone in this chamber in having dealt with constituents who began a journey of complaint merely wanting an apology, an explanation and a confidence that circumstances would not be repeated. That not only pertains to health service complaints but a whole range of complaints that we receive across the board. The policy memorandum argued that in many cases people only are complaining about a particular situation simply to achieve an apology, a sincere apology and an assurance that the situation will improve for the future. To that extent I think that changing culture that is flagged up by this proposed act is to be welcomed. It is an open door to those who act on our behalf in public services to take the opportunity to offer an apology in the right circumstances, to leave a complainer in no doubt at an early stage that what they have said has been heard, has been understood, is believed, the evidence supports the fact that an apology is due and that it is offered sincerely with a view to repairing the situation for the future. In all those circumstances I think that the bill proposed by Margaret Mitchell and now agreed between her and the Government goes a long way towards providing the kinds of circumstances that make life better for the general public in the future. The bill applies to all civil proceedings apart from the ones that many of the members have mentioned in the chamber today and is not retrospective in effect. Members have expressed a view that they are unsure if it achieves what it set out to achieve in the first instance. I think that without a step into the unknown in the way that we will do this afternoon, no change in culture can be achieved. I welcome the bill and we will be supporting the Government when it comes to the vote. I would genuinely like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I am sure that Margaret Mitchell will do so herself for their interest in the promotion of a culture change in the giving of apologies. It is clear that the bill touches upon an issue that is very close to the hearts of many people. I certainly agree with Graham Pearson and others who say that we have all met individuals who started their journey. They probably only wanted an apology and a recognition that they were right in their concern about what had happened and to be able to move on. It is sometimes snowballs from there into something that is more significant. I am very grateful for the widespread support that Margaret Mitchell has had for her bill today, because I think that it has made the process easier for both the Government and the member to have such broad support. I am struck, as I was at stage 1, by the member's recognition of the importance of the legislation and the origins of that. I think that it is a particularly poignant one for the member to be able to secure this today. I would like to thank members again for their engagement with the bill throughout the parliamentary post and engagement with my team indeed. Gavin Brown pointed out very appropriately that this is a very good testament to the procedures of the Parliament and how it has worked from stage 1, a very constructive debate. Stage 2 is working again constructively across all sides and on to stage 3, where I believe that we have achieved a bill that has addressed the primary concerns that Margaret Mitchell set out from the start. I hope that it has comforted individuals, not least the Government, but individuals across the chamber about any concerns that arose. I would like to reiterate my thanks again to the convener, Christine Grahame, of the committee and all the members of the Justice Committee for their detailed and careful consideration of the bill and for helping to shape the bill that we have today. My thanks to individuals and organisations again who engage with the bill process. I would like to spend a bit of time just talking about some of the other points that were raised in answer to Elaine Murray's point. I thank her for not making an issue of it at the amendments. My understanding of transacy procedures are where there is perhaps a fixed date, but it is very similar in nature to transitional procedures, but it is perhaps to cover the gap between the new legislation coming into force and old provisions being dropped by Parliament. There is usually a fixed date associated with it, but I am happy to get chapter and verse to Elaine Murray and her course. A number of members, I was struck by what Gil Paterson said. As Gavin Brown referred to the fact that we have, unfortunately, it is a regret that society has changed to that degree, where perhaps it is a matter of good manners. People did give apologies in the past, but I hope that Margaret Mitchell's bill will move us a little way down to that end so that we will have a return to good manners and the giving of apologies where they are warranted. Margaret McDougall is very helpful for her own interests, but also for Parliament as well to set out how procedures work, how stage 2 concerns were addressed. I think that it is very helpful for us Parliamentarians to explain to the public how the procedures work. I think that she set out very eloquently how her own concerns about children's hearings, Scotland Act and other areas had been addressed in passage. I think that that again proves the merits of the process. Rod Campbell made a specific point in reference to the insurance industry, and it would be important just to point out that the bill does make provisions for the effect of an apology in certain legal proceedings. The bill will change the law, of course, in relation to the insurance industry that is reserved. There is no requirement for an individual to make an apology, but by voting for the Apologies Scotland bill today at stage 3, the Parliament will send an important message about the value of apologies and the need to encourage a culture where apologies are more freely offered. I hope that the insurance industry will take note of that message. However, individuals may wish to consider the terms insurance contracts in this regard in future as well, and it is important to make that point. In relation to the debate that we have had today, I think that a number of members have referred particularly to survivors of historical child abuse and who have taken the time to consider the bill and share their thoughts. I do not want to reiterate my thanks to those who have engaged with me personally, but those who have also engaged with other members throughout Alison MacKinnon referred to them. I think that it would be wrong of us not to have acknowledged today the origins of the legislation coming forward, but also the particular group that may be impacted positively by it. In relation to points that Alison MacKinnon made and others about education, training and guidance, I fully accept that we need to support the process as best we can to educate those in public services particularly, but wider society has the benefits of the legislation. I know many individuals who work in the public sector who have said to me that they wish that they could have given an apology, but they were fearful of litigation. That is not to excuse that, but I think that we can all understand the pressures on them. I hope that, as Liam Pearson alluded, this will be a significant step forward in that respect. I thank the non-government bills unit here in the Scottish Parliament. I know that they have been working closely with Margaret Mitchell and Scottish Government officials throughout the process, and they have supported our constructive discussions. I outlined earlier that my main concern with the original wording of the bill was the potential unintended consequences of restricting access to justice for pursuers wanting to make a fair claim. Based on the discussions that we had involving the non-government bills unit and Margaret Mitchell and further engagement with stakeholders—not least Professor Alan Miller—we concluded that it was possible to find a suitable compromise that would keep the essence of the bill but minimise the unintended consequences. I believe that we have achieved that today if we support that today at decision time. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my thanks to Margaret Mitchell for proposing the bill. I am grateful for the work that she has done and for working with the Government. I hope that the outcome of the bill, as I said earlier, is one that sends an important message about the values of apologies, which has the potential change attitude in Scotland. I am pleased that we are at this point today to support the bill. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to wind up the debate. Eight minutes please, Ms Mitchell. I thank some of the individuals without whom the bill would not have reached this stage. I start with Mary Dinsdale, Andrew Milne and Neil Ross from the non-government bills unit in GBU for short, who have been a tremendous support and source of wise advice throughout this process. Their hard work, research and council have been invaluable, as has their encouragement, when even introducing this bill was less than straightforward. There was a good deal of research carried out initially before the proposition for the bill was even mooted with the NGBU and then as the bill progressed. Here I thank Kate Wayne and Greg Lamont for the huge amount of work that they carried out to get the bill off the ground and presenting a case for its introduction. Before the actual draft bill was produced, further research was required and Douglas Maxwell's research and involvement was a tremendous help. I want to give particular thanks to my parliamentary researcher Felicity Hollins for her continuous support and advice. I also thank Maureen Morrison, who helped to smooth the bill through its passage prior to stage 2. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the Law Society of Scotland's Michael Clancy's sound guidance on the bill's competence when, with analytical precision, he established that the bill was competent as it merely clarified the law of evidence and civil proof. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Professor Prue Vines, who is based in the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales. As well as being a visiting professor at the University of Strathflyde, she is the recognised academic expert on Apologies legislation. Her world-renowned research into apologies and into the effect of New South Wales Apologies legislation significantly informed the bill as introduced. She has given me excellent advice based on her research on what constitutes an effect of apology. In addition to that, she has responded immediately when the bill appeared to be floundering by helping to tease out the problem and give her comments about the proposed way forward. I know that she will derive a huge amount of pleasure if Parliament passes the bill tonight. John Starrick has also provided much appreciated support and suggestions throughout the bill's introduction and passage. I particularly want to thank him for organising an event in the Parliament with Ken Cloak, mediator and internationally acclaimed writer on conflict resolution. Ken's powerful testimonies highlighting the effectiveness of an apology within his own work as a mediator helped to remind me and confirm how important it was to press ahead with this legislation, securing the knowledge that aiding a culture of apologising to flourish in Scotland benefits both those harmed and those responsible for the harm caused. I have already referred to the role played by Professor Allen Miller, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, in making me aware of Apologies legislation in the first place when he visited the cross-party group and adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. His conviction and that to prove vines that a protected apology is essential for Apologies legislation to be truly effective has been crucial to my understanding that the apology has to be inadmissible in civil proceedings. When the suggestion at stage 1 that the bill should follow the wording of the compensation act 2006, which allows an apology to be admissible, was muted, Professor Miller succinctly explained the adverse consequences which would follow when he said, adopting a similar model to that of the compensation act 2006 would not achieve the aims of the bill and would not meet the expectations of the survivors of historic child house abuse in Scotland. His views and the experience of the cross-party group and adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse proved to be pivotal in helping to ensure the inadmissibility provision remained. I pay tribute to the members of the cross-party group for their contributions and consistent and continued support during the scrutiny process. Here it is worth reiterating the representative views from one of the survivor organisations members of the CPG who confirmed that for so many survivors it is not legal action or compensation, which is important, but rather what they want above all else is closure to move on with their lives. That helps the healing process. The acknowledgement of what happened also gives them hope that perhaps they can prevent the same fate before falling on someone else. The first recognised apologies legislation was enacted in the US state of Massachusetts in 1986 after a young girl named Claire Saltonstall was hit and killed by a car by riding her bicycle near her family home. The driver who struck her never did apologise. Her father William El Saltonstall, a state senator, 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 litigation surrounding the girl's death. Upon his retirement, the senator and his successor presented the legislature with a bill designed to create a safe harbour for would-be apologisers. As previously stated at stage 1, this was the first tentative step that has since resulted in over 35 US states and many nations around the world, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, introducing a polities legislation. In the consultation that went out prior to my bill being introduced, I cited a scenario that every member in this chamber will recognise. Namely, a constituent comes to them and outlines an adverse experience, whether involving a local authority, the police or a utility or retail company or a quango. It goes on to say that they do not want to take legal action, but they do want an acknowledgement of the adverse experience and an apology and, above all, to ensure that it does not happen to anyone else. Equally, we all know that fear of litigation more often than not prevents them from receiving that apology. I am hugely gratified. Although the duty of candor will apply to the health service, the Apologies Scotland bill addresses and resolves the fear of litigation problem elsewhere in both the public and private sector, and has also positive and significant early resolution and preventative spend implications and savings. In conclusion, I am immensely proud if the bill is passed this evening that Scotland will be leading the way within the UK on Apologies legislation. That concludes the debate on the Apologies Scotland bill, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15343 in the name of Michael McMahon on a review of the public petitions process. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would like to call on Michael McMahon to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee. Mr McMahon, if you are ready, 10 minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open this debate on the review of the petitions process. This is the fourth debate that we have had on the Parliament's petitions process since 1999 and the second such debate in which I have spoken as convener of the committee. The petitions process has, of course, developed since 1999, and a number of changes have been made over that time. What remains constant, though, is the importance of the petitions process in enabling people to get issues of concern to them on to the agenda of the Parliament. I have a few words of thanks before I go on to talk about the most recent findings about that process. The research that we are discussing today was commissioned prior to me becoming convener. John Pentland was a convener at the time and it is right to recognise his contribution. Indeed, it is right to recognise all members who have served on the petitions committee in the course of the session and also its other convener, David Stewart. The research was carried out for the committee by Gareth James and I am pleased that Gareth is attending the debate today so that I can extend thanks to him on behalf of the committee. His work has provided the committee with evidence and an analysis that increases our knowledge and deepens our understanding of how the process is seen. Finally, and most importantly, I offer the committee's thanks to the petitioners who have contributed to the research, either through responding to a survey or in more detailed interviews. Their willingness to share their experiences is invaluable in allowing the committee to understand the perceptions and expectations that people have of the Parliament's petitions process. Turning now to the research and what it tells us about that process, the purpose of the research was fourfold and was intended to monitor progress against the last review in 2009, benchmark your process against processes in other legislatures, capture some socio-economic data about petitioners and ask petitioners about their expectations and experiences. The research found that the recommendations of the 2009 review have, to some extent, been taken forward. What is interesting to see is how the development of digital technologies has possibly overtaken some of those recommendations. For example, the system of supporting petitions via SMS messaging was implemented but has not been used. That will be worth bearing in mind for future developments of the system. In terms of benchmarking our process, there are a number of similarities in the processes in place in other legislatures. The Scottish process seems to have few restrictions in relation to signatures and support, given that a petition requires only one signature and does not need the support of an elected member. In other ways, it might be said that our process places more of an expectation on petitioners. For example, they are required to tell us what they have previously done to try to resolve the issue of concern to them. The Scottish process also differs in comparison to legislatures where petitions processes include an element of an ombudsman function. The socio-economic data captured in the research appears to tell us two things. The demographic profile of petitioners does not appear to have changed from the profile that was found in work carried out 10 years ago, and that the profile of petitioners does not reflect the diversity of the general population of Scotland. Put simply, the socio-demographic profile skews towards older white men who are relatively affluent and who have been educated to degree level. Having been told that these things by the research, the committee's report sets out its initial responses. It does so under two broad headings, engagement and transparency. The committee's final responses and recommendations will be set out in our legacy paper. Those recommendations will be informed by this debate and by a workshop that we will hold next month. On engagement, the committee considers that undertaking engagement events on a more frequent basis should be a target for the next session. Those events should be a combination of formal committee meetings and more informal workshops or visits. The amount of engagement is, however, only one consideration. Of at least equal importance is the quality of engagement. Attendants at the committee's external meeting in Inverary last September commented that they would have welcomed the opportunity to contribute to and participate in that meeting. The committee recognises that active participation is a key part of engagement and opportunities for that must therefore be considered in the design of future engagement events. The transparency of the petition's process is an area where the committee recognises improvements can be made. As members will be aware, there have been criticisms made about the number of petition proposals that were received that did not go on to be lodged as petitions. I am pleased that more detailed analysis of the numbers has been included in the research. This analysis shows the reasons for proposed petitions not going on to be lodged and that, when broken down, the figures for Scotland are broadly comparable with those for other jurisdictions. However, that type of information, which clearly helps in understanding the process, has not routinely been available. The committee has agreed therefore that a system should be established to record and publish information about proposed petitions that are not eventually lodged. I have already commented on the findings about the demographic profile of petitioners. That type of information is valuable to assist us to know who petitioners are and which groups or communities are underrepresented. However, democratic data is not routinely captured at the moment. We have set out our intention to suggest in our legacy paper ways in which that information could be captured and would welcome any thoughts members may have on that. The final area that I will mention is the consideration that the committee gives to petitions and how clearly our decisions are understood. This is the area of the petitions process that respondents to the survey were least satisfied with. We place a great deal of importance on hearing the views of petitioners throughout our consideration of petitions. Whenever we receive submissions on a petition, the petitioner will be given the opportunity to submit their views and to request further actions that the committee could take. That happens before the committee looks at those submissions. In addition, the committee will also consider requests from petitioners to give additional oral evidence. However, the opportunity to give additional evidence will always need to be balanced against the opportunity for the committee to hear from petitioners on the first occasion that petition is considered. The research tells us that we need to reflect on how we can communicate our decisions more effectively. For trust to be maintained, it is vital that petitioners and others with an interest in the petition system can understand how decisions are reached. In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the contribution from other members today. The research concludes that petitioners are able to feel more engaged in politics as a result of the petitions process. However, there are areas where we can and should improve to deliver a world-leading system. Any ideas that are put forward in this debate will be considered for inclusion in the committee's legacy paper. We hope that that will form the basis of further development of the process into the next session and beyond. I conclude by moving S4M 15343 on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee. It is right and proper that the Parliament regularly reviews its procedures. That allows the Parliament to examine what has worked well and what it can do better with the aim of making this Parliament the best that it can be for the people of Scotland. One of the measures of the Parliament's success is how open and accessible it is to the people it represents. A key element of that is ensuring that the petition system is effective. The petition system permits people from all strands of civil society to put issues of importance to them on the parliamentary agenda and to ask responsible bodies, including the Government of the Day, to act on those. Before we look at how the system might improve, we should take a note of some of the successful petitions that have secured change. In 2000, a petition called for the reinstatement of railway services to the Scottish Borders attracted over 17,000 signatures and provided a significant step in the introduction of the Waverley Railway Scotland Bill to rebuild a section of the line. That has accumulated in the longest section of new railway to be built in the UK for about 100 years and has proved highly popular since it opened last September. In 2014, a petition was lodged to have the tinker's heart of Argyll recognised, restored and listed as a monument of national historic significance. That is the only monument that the Scottish travelling community has. The site did not initially meet the criteria set out by Historic Scotland, but the petition impressed Historic Scotland to such an extent that it led to a fresh evaluation of the circumstances and a public consultation. The site was reassessed and is now recognised as a site of high cultural significance to travellers and to the whole of Scotland. The Parliament should be seeking to build on those successes and I look forward to hearing members' thoughts and suggestions during today's debate. David Stewart, your five minutes are there. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I'm very pleased to be able to speak today as one of the ex-conveners of the Public Petitions Committee. I'm very happy for years that I spent there and I see some familiar faces in the chamber today who were members when I was a convener. Members may know that we've had a long tradition of petitions in Scotland. In fact, members require a little history lesson if you look at the early myths of time. David II in the 14th century actually invented the first petitions system arguably in the world when he gave a right for every subject to petition the king. 700 years later, on the advent of the Scottish Parliament, he provided an ideal opportunity to resurrect his tradition. We shouldn't forget as well that the previous Scottish Parliament, finishing in 1707, also had a petitions system. I asked Spice to give some information to me about that system and found that there was a very interesting test case in 1605, I think it was, when a church of Scotland minister in St Andrew's wished to move his charge from St Andrew's to Edinburgh, petitioned the Scottish Parliament and was awarded a change of charge at £5 a year. It shows that I can predate the business manager's examples of best practice. As well know, the Parliament was founded on four guiding principles that underpin all the areas of Parliament's work, not just the petitions committee. I think that they are very relevant to readdress those. Obviously, power sharing, sometimes we forget about that, between the Parliament and the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland, accessibility, openness and participation, accountability and equal opportunities. I would also like to give some examples and they all happened to come from my time as convener but I would stress that I am not trying to create any particular credit for that. There were four petitions that jumped out to me about how you can make a difference when sometimes the irrespective of who is in power you do require to give the minister a chase and you need to bang some department chief's heads together to get some common sense. I think that a petitions committee can do that. Let me give you a couple examples. I know that Jackson Carlaw was there at the time. The one that really struck me was about pain relief when we had a whole pile of constituents and petitioners who had chronic problems with pain relief and at the time the only pain relief centre in the UK was in Bath. Alex Neil was the cabinet secretary at the time and following representations on that petition he agreed that there would be pain relief centres throughout health boards in Scotland. I think that that was a great success. The one that also struck me was about mesh devices and we had whole seats of women who turned up in wheelchairs and I can say in my nine years now in the Parliament and previous period in another Parliament that was probably the most emotionally charged day I've ever had when women said first hand about the absolute dreadful experience that they experienced with these mesh devices. We had the deputy chief medical officer there who said that yes of course women can now take legal action if there have been faults in the mesh devices and the health problems that has caused but at the time you actually needed to know the reference number of the mesh device. I mean how bureaucratic can you possibly get but I'm glad to see following group work I think also by the Sunday Mail who did a tremendous campaign on this that has achieved a huge success. The one that myself and Chick Brody here today was particularly interested in was a registrar of interests of the judiciary and members will recall we had a real fight about whether we could cite the Lord President before the committee. And again Chick Brody a deputy can be now managed with the committee support to meet the Lord President or the ex-Lord President now and achieve I think a breakthrough perhaps not fully to the mind of the constituents and the petitioners but now it's possible to get a register of those sheriffs and judges who have excused themselves in a court procedure which didn't happen before. And the final one, Presiding Officer, is about democratic and employment rights for young footballers. As a football fan myself and I declare my interest in Nimbreness, Cali Thistle and the need all the sport they can get this week, particularly when they're playing tonight in the Scottish Cup, I was appalled to find the terrible employment conditions that young footballers were having to sign up to and we had the whole of the football hierarchy in front of us and I do believe that achieved some change as well. So these examples make a difference. In a few seconds left Presiding Officer, what I would say is, I think the review was excellent and I would be with every word that my colleague Michael McMahon has said. When I was speaking as convener in various exotic climbs like Johannesburg and Bilgrade and the Welsh Parliament and in Westminster, I often said I was an evangelist for the committee. I'd like to think that I'm still an evangelist for the Petitions Committee but I think where we've got to move is we're excellent at representing accountants in Baresden. We're perhaps not quite as good at representing artisans in Easterhouse. We need to get out and about more, go round, disadvantage the states but it's a tremendous committee. I think it takes pride and all the work that's done for this Parliament and in that point I conclude. I now call on Jackson Carlaw, five minutes Mr Carlaw please. Thank you Presiding Officer, I'm very happy to contribute to this debate this afternoon and I do so as an unreserved fan of the parliamentary petitions process in this Scottish Parliament. I say that as someone who towards the end of my first Parliament in 2011 produced my own report as to why I thought in many other respects the procedures of this Parliament are unnecessarily straightjacketing on the spontaneity which there might otherwise be. The hideous process by which we have to submit parliamentary questions well in advance to notify ministers of our intent, very often meaning that they no longer have any topicality by the time we ask them. The sort of dismal sort of pedestrian nature of many of our debates and which contributions are weighted by parliamentary representation rather than any interest or knowledge of the subject about which we might be having a conversation. I exempt from that the parliamentary petitions process where having gone on to it more or less by accident my colleague Nanette Milne had sat on it and I was on the health committee and it was felt that there was a bill that was going forward that Nanette would be leading on and I offered to swap. I found when I got to parliamentary petitions I had no wish to leave because on this committee members come free of any party whip, usually with a completely objective and open mind as to the subjects that are going to be discussed. I think that with great credit members have pursued, and this is the critical thing, not just how do petitions come to the committee but what does the committee do with the petitions that come to it. What has impressed me is that without fear of favour members of the petitions committee and that they have changed in the time that I have been there have been prepared to pursue the issue at heart without fear of favour and ministers coming to a committee to give evidence, know that they can't just smile at friends and hope that all will be well, they have to come and answer the detail of the petition in hand. I'm very grateful to Jackson Carlaw for doing so. I just can't help reflecting that all I've heard so far I think is suggesting that in this session that has been the case. Can I just confirm that in the previous session when I too sat on that committee exactly the same prevailed and I think that actually makes Mr Carlaw's point? I'm happy to agree with the Golden Age of Nigel Don on petitions equally as much as I am with the Golden Age of petitions with David Stewart. I accept that that's the point that I'm making. I think that it is a committee that has always been prepared to do that and therefore it is an extremely interesting and rewarding committee on which to sit. Before my time there was a petition raised by Mike and Tina Gray about access to new medicines which I think led to a completely transformational way in which end-of-life medicines were made available to the wider Scottish public. As Mr Stewart mentioned, in this Parliament, I think that one of the most extraordinary petitions that we have heard has been the one on vaginal mesh implants which has had ramifications as a result of the interrogation of that issue here in Scotland across the whole world where Scotland was the first to act at a Government level with dramatic intent and to bring about potentially a change in the wellbeing of the lives of those affected. It's not that I'm indifferent to our need to broaden access. Actually what matters to me more is the substance of the petition that comes before us and I would like to see that enhanced. In terms of access, the particular contribution that I make to the recommendations that are in this early report before we consider the evidence of the debate elsewhere is that it is now the custom and practice of all members to issue annual parliamentary reports. It seems to me that if we are going to harness the capability of the Parliament to promote the petition's process to the widest possible body of people, what would be useful would be within those parliamentary reports further to be an advertisement from the Parliament about the parliamentary petition's process and almost an encouragement by the member issuing the leaflet to offer to help facilitate the petitions that some of their constituents might be interested in raising because I think that that then would allow the petitions process to be advertised to this widest possible community and for those who might feel slightly intimidated about the potential process to feel that they had a link beyond the very helpful clerks to seeing that that petition is implemented. I think that it is our extraordinary committee. I think that it stands head and shoulders above many parliamentary petitions committees the world over. One signature on one petition can ensure that an important issue is heard in this Parliament and action can follow. I think that we should be very proud of that. Many thanks. I now move to open debate on this subject and I call on Kenny MacAskill to be followed by Hanzala Mallett. Mr MacAskill you have four minutes. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. I heartily endorse the comments made initially by the current serving convener and I think endorsed throughout the chamber by every speaker that has spoken so far. To some extent the chamber is simply echoing the committee where we tend to operate by consensus and that is a good thing. I have to say that I was not aware of the precise history and I am grateful for David Stewart for his input on that. I always remember when I first came into this Parliament in 1999 that the consultative steering group was taking pride in new aspects being brought to the openness that was going to be created here and part of that was to be both the petitions committee and how it would operate and how we would interact not just through that but in our daily lives with the people that we are privileged to represent. It has always been something that the Parliament has rightly taken pride in and I think that Jackson's car law is right to make those points. Others have learnt from us even here in the city of Edinburgh the council have now mirrored it slightly different but again I think building upon what was here. There have obviously been aspects that the committee has learnt from elsewhere and conveners have travelled far and wide to make sure that not only do we impart what we believe that we can contribute but learn from others and as I say that is a good thing. Until late 2014 I hadn't experienced it other than being occasionally contributing to points on behalf of constituents and supporting them in petitions that they've been making but also just in picking up the vibes from all those who operated there either as parliamentarians or as members of the public. I had always had a memory that reminded me of my days as a lawyer judicial review as an outlet where no other aspect was available and I think to some extent the petitions committee is about that. It's not about over political power, it's not necessarily about moving a direct motion. It is about allowing people to have their say, to have their voice as individuals have said. Sometimes on deeply serious, quite moving issues that are indeed quite stressful for the committee and the strain is written and etched upon the faces of those contributing but also sometimes perhaps more flippant or lightheartedly but they are entitled to be put because the individuals do feel quite passionate about that. There are obviously points that have to be learned. There are aspects that will be passed to the legacy paper to the committee but there are some points that remain universal. The point has already been made about the benefit of external visits. I've participated in them. They were enjoyable. How we can maximise the benefit for the communities that we're going is something that we have to think about. I do believe that they've worked well. That doesn't mean though that they can't work better but again we have to get the balance right between going around a country but also ensuring that we're here for those who wish to petition and there's a significant volume of them. We also, and I think as a committee recently, we've been challenged not simply by the right of people to lodge their petition but we do have to take on board the rights and feelings of others who can be perhaps affected and therefore these things can be challenging because we've had to consider and work through as a committee how we don't seem to perhaps prejudge any aspect but do take on board that there could be interference in the lives and effects upon others. Equally we have to get the balance right between inquiries that have been mentioned that have been remarkably successful and indeed were definitely necessary but also ensuring that we can just allow people their evidence and their say either just by lodging the petition and doing what they wish thereafter or indeed coming and having their voice heard. I do believe that it's about building upon what was established here in 1999. It has been a pleasure to serve upon the committee and I do think that consensus rightly continues. There's things that it can be learnt but equally there's an awful lot that we just have to maintain. Many thanks and I now call on Hans Alamallach to be followed by Agnes McDonald. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to speak on the review of public petitions process in the Scottish Parliament today and the public petition system and the committee that serves a very important element in terms of engaging with the people to try and shape what the Scottish Parliament does for all. The Scottish Parliament does for its people that we serve and in general the system is viewed as very positive. But Presiding Officer, I want to share some of the feelings that I have gathered during my period on the committee. I have seen farmers coming to the petitions committee claiming that the human rights have been violated and I actually agreed with them. I agreed with them in the system that we knew that there was a case to be answered. We also knew that they couldn't afford the legal system to pay for the causes they wish to bring to book yet the government let them down. For the first time ever I felt that as a nation we had actually let our own people down. But it was a good democratic way of actually reaching that consensus and I think it was important that I at least shared my feelings with the petitioners and I think that was an important element to do so because I wanted people to feel that we do care. Also there are many other ways in which we have engaged with people through the process at the committee. Single parents rights for example was another one that touched my heart in the sense of how people face huge challenges and difficulties where parents can be so difficult with each other. They sometimes forget how their children are being affected by the relationship breakdown relationships and also I think sometimes how children lose out because the parents are too busy fighting each other. That is currently still going through the process and I hope that we'll be able to do justice to both sets of parents because end of the day we want to ensure that the children no longer suffer. And these are the type of things that normally don't go through the court system or our system and the public petitions committee is probably the right vehicle. In fact two petitions have almost come together to resolve that issue. So when I sit in that committee it makes me really very proud that we have a system where ordinary people can bring their cases to us which deeply affect people's everyday lives yet it's a place where people can come and speak to people who have perceived powers who can engage with people and actually try and help resolve those issues. But more importantly even look at legislation and giving the government another opportunity to perhaps sometimes look at what legislation is currently in place and how sometimes it can be effective or ineffective but it gives people an opportunity to make that point at a very high level I think and I think that's very important. But I think end of the day the most important aspect to me is for example the report by Spice has suggested that there's not going to be a lot of change in terms of what type of cases come to the public petitions committee and they also suggest that it's a certain element of the community that actually brings these cases forward in terms of their academic background in terms of the ability to have research and in fact writing petitions down. All that is well and good but I think one of the things that is missing from the committee is the engagement with our minority communities very few have had the opportunity to engage with the public petitions committee and I think we need to do some work in that area. This is not meant in any way of anybody's criticism it just means that there's an element that we need to engage with. So presiding officer to conclude I would like to say that I'm really very happy and very proud to be serving on the committee I think it does a wonderful job I think everybody engaged in it trying very hard. I wish all of us that we continue to serve the people in Scotland and make sure that people's hopes and aspirations can be met. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Now Colin Agnes McDonald to be followed by John Wilson up to four minutes please. Thank you presiding officer. I'm pleased to contribute to this debate today especially given the fact that there's been some negative coverage over the public petitions committee in the media in recent months. However it is heartening to know the review of the public petitions process found the people who petitioned the Scottish Parliament find it a positive experience however as the report suggests there's always room for improvement. The committee's report highlights that more can be done to further strengthen the reputation of the petitions process through greater transparency and engagement. So the committee is already planning to increase engagement with the public at a pilot event next month which will try to understand why certain demographics are underrepresented by asking people for their views about the system and whether it represents or is seen to present a barrier to their participation. Now I'm sure we're all keen to ensure that this Parliament remains open and accessible to the people it represents. The public petitions process was intended to be one of the main mechanisms for achieving this and we must continue to ensure that the petition system remains effective. While other legislators have contacted this Parliament to see how we conduct the petitions process here there is of course an opportunity for us to look at how it's done elsewhere. For example both the National Assembly for Wales and the UK Parliament publish information about proposals that are received but do not go on to be lodged as petitions and of course we have seen calls for this information to be made public here in recent months. Our process for progressing petitions remains relatively simple when compared to processes in other parliaments in the UK, Europe and elsewhere. According to the review, the stipulation in other parliaments of petitions must include the names and email addresses of a certain amount of supporters or obtain a set number of signatures before they become admissible such as in Canada or eligible for a Government response or debate such as in the UK Parliament. It raises a barrier to participation that thankfully doesn't exist in Scotland and we should be proud of that fact. However the briefing also shows a much higher percentage of inadmissible petitions in Scotland than in Wales and Ireland so there's a strong argument that would suggest measures should be introduced to increase transparency in the decision making process. That said, of the petitions that have been admissible we've seen some successes and some have already been mentioned this afternoon. The one that sticks in my mind as the most helpful was the petition and our subsequent inquiry into tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland which resulted in the Scottish Government announcing a strategic national action plan. We also had a petition calling for stronger NHS support for chronic pain sufferers which led to the Scottish Government's announcement of a new centre for chronic pain last year which the former convener Dave Stewart mentioned earlier and as the minister referred to earlier the successful petition to have the tinker's heart in Argyll recognised restored and listed as a monument of national historic significance despite significant resistance at the beginning from the landowner and historic Scotland. There was also a petition by school pupils to have Wi-Fi on all CalMac ferries however that one has only been partially successful because any CalMac ferries that I have travelled on in the last few months didn't have Wi-Fi although I believe that the petitioners used between Oban and Barad does. Those school students must have a feeling of empowerment having secured Wi-Fi for at least the ferry users from their local community. Other petitions have resulted in successes such as bringing about better access to cancer drugs, lifting the cap on discretionary housing benefits for people affected by the bedroom tax and even the Scots pine being designated as Scotland's national tree. While the committee has had a number of successes, the report makes it clear that more can be done to further strengthen the reputation of the petition's process through greater transparency and engagement, which I along with other members of the committee will ensure is set out in the committee's legacy paper. We have a petitions process that we can be proud of. Let's ensure that it stays that way. I have also taken great pleasure in speaking in this debate. I think that I am the longest serving member in the petitions committee with almost eight and a half years membership. Some would say that that was a punishment but I have said that it has been a pleasure to serve on the committee. I have also served on the committee under five conveners now, Frank Macavity in 2007, Rhoda Brancan, Tocovar, David Stewart and John Pentland, in this session of Parliament. It has been interesting serving on the committee to see the petitions that come forward on the issues that were faced with almost on a fortnightly basis. The report follows on the previous reports that have been presented to the committee and to this Parliament, the one in 2006 by Christopher Kalman followed up by the 2009 report, which made a number of recommendations to the committee about how we should take forward their work. I think that the report that is being produced by Gareth James today also helps in that deliberation in terms of where this committee is moving forward. Other members have made reference to the petitions that were offered and the petitions that we have dealt with. Some of them are successful, some of them are less successful and I can think of the drugs policy petitions that we have had before us. Members have mentioned the mesh implant petition, which has been successful in highlighting the issues for many women in Scotland. The register of interests for the members of the Scottish judiciary, which still rumbles on and we hope to conclude fairly soon. Interestingly, the other petitions, such as the St Margaret's of Scotland petition, came forward about hospice funding. Those petitions have been supported by local members and other MSPs who have come along to the committee to speak on behalf of the petitioners. One of the values of the committee is that members feel confident enough to come along and contribute. They are welcomed in their contributions to the debates that are before us in the committee because it helps us to understand not only the local issues but also the issues that sometimes the petitioners cannot always express. In terms of the Tinker's heart petition that members have made reference to, I am sure that Michael Russell, MSP, would like to take some of the credit for his support in terms of Jess Sterling's petition but also the work that he has done behind the scenes on that petition. The majority of the petitions that we have heard as a committee, the petitioners have said that they have been satisfied with the petitions process. The difficulty is, Presiding Officer, the petitions that are not heard in this session of Parliament. We heard in terms of the report and it came up last summer when an investigative journalist, former member of the Public Petitions Committee and this Parliament identified through an FOI that almost two thirds of the submissions to go forward for petitions were not heard by the petitions committee. I thank John Wilson for taking intervention. It really is just to clarify. It did not require an FOI request to get that information. It was a simple request by someone who had an interest in the subject. I think that it is wrong to try and create the impression that someone had to dig in to what the petitions committee did via an FOI to get something that the clerks made readily available simply on a request. The discussion was not a member of the committee at the time that was raised. The issue was raised at the committee because there was a surprise among the majority of members, the number of petitions or the number of submissions that did not go forward formally to be heard by the committee. Given the time that I have left, Presiding Officer, I would like to say that it will be important when we go forward that we look at the socio-economic demographics of those who are making submissions, not those petitions that are successfully heard by the committee but by those who come forward with a submission that they would like to see placed before the committee. We can determine what level of support and assistance is required by people who want to make that important petition submission to the Parliament so that we can identify and address some of the support needs that have been provided in the past, but I do not seem to be available to petitioners to go forward. I hope that the Public Petitions Committee has every success in the future and that future parliaments see the role and value of the petitions committee and continue to support it in every way that they can. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me start by congratulating the minister on his brevity. That allows much more time for the backbenchers to express their view on a committee that essentially is a creature of the backbenchers. It is not attached to a particular minister. It represents the people that we represent here in a way that no other committee does to the same extent. I have been here since 2001. From the very outset, I have found myself engaged with the Public Petitions Committee sitting alongside many of my constituents. I cannot think that a single one of them who has come here has been other than delighted with the opportunity to put their case to Parliament, if not always equally delighted with the outcome. Of course, when the Public Petitions Committee gets a case, the odds are that it is a hard case. Everything else has been tried. They have come to Parliament as a last resort. That is not universally true, but it is certainly true of many of the cases that will be before us. Jackson Carlaw talked about debates in this Parliament being pedestrian. A quick look at the dictionary showed that there are 41 alternative similar descriptions. One could apply. We beat ourselves up an awful lot, but in the Petitions Committee there is very lively debate and discussion, often initiated by the people who bring their concerns to that committee. We should look at that as a model of what we can do. It is one way, but not the only way, in which our constituents can engage with it. We, of course, are not typical of the people of Scotland. We are captured and held hostage in Edinburgh for three days a week, 36 weeks a year or about a third of the year, so we are to some extent disconnected with the day-to-day concerns that constituents and others will bring to the Public Petitions Committee. To us, in our surgeries, our correspondence, our websites, our Twitter feeds and so on and so forth. Today's debate has focused on the people who bring petitions. That is good, because there is always a danger when we are looking at some of our processes that we focus on our internal view of how they are successful in a parliamentary context. The reality is that we have to look at this from an external view and say, how does this serve the people of Scotland? The number of petitions in relation to the population of our country is absolutely infinitesimal. It is 3 per cent of 1 per cent of the population, just a tiny, tiny, tiny wee fraction. Most of my constituents, when I have exhausted all other options, say, why do we not think about a petition to the Parliament? I was doing that only on Friday at a surgery. They have never heard of the petition system. I think that that will be true of the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland. I think that we are going to have to be more cute about how we open the doors and make people realise that the doors of the Parliament are open. The role of the weekly newspaper, the role of the national daily press is much diminished from what it used to be. Perhaps there should be a weekly slot on one of the television programmes, even if it is on the local TV stations, which are now popping up all over Scotland. We should bid to get some space on there and bring forward what goes on. There is so much that you could say about the committee, but I want to just end, Presiding Officer, with saying one particular thing about which there has been some reference. That is the role of the clerks. We cannot underestimate the value that the clerks' activities in helping people who approach the committee with an idea for a petition turn their idea into something that they can come before the committee and speak to with confidence, knowing that it is properly constructed and proposes something that the Parliament can do. I think that it is entirely appropriate that we thank the clerks on behalf of the people of Scotland for the superb work that they do. This is the most valuable committee in Parliament, a bullish Parliament, if you wish, but keep this committee. I now call on Jackson Carlaw to wind up. I would like to develop the point that I made during my earlier contribution about the way in which we might more effectively advertise the parliamentary petitions process to the wider community through members' newsletters. What I find interesting is that the members of Parliament who are most enthusiastic about the parliamentary petitions committee and process are invariably those members who have sat on the parliamentary petitions committee at some point. I have had first-hand experience of the work that it can do. Members queue up to have business debates in this Parliament on the three occasions each week that they can. Without, I think, fully appreciating and realising the opportunity that is open to them through the parliamentary petitions process to represent an equally important issue in conjunction with a constituent, but in a way that potentially allows that petition or issue to be developed in more detail through the evidence session that takes place and the potential opportunities that are open to the committee thereafter to pursue the issue with ministers and other external bodies on their behalf. I think that there is a huge benefit that is not yet really been realised by members in associating themselves far more directly with the opportunity to them as they represent their constituents that the parliamentary petitions process represents. We have had some external meetings in the time that I have been there and with mixed success. We had a very successful session in Inverary on a lovely sunny afternoon and lots of people came. I remember a very wet day in Dumfries where it was perhaps slightly less rewarding in terms of the public engagement. I went to a workshop in Oben at which I totaled up on the train and it took most of the day and 15 people were scheduled to turn up and six I think actually did. I know that speaks volumes of my draw on the ballot in terms of the public communication of it. It is very easy to say that the committee and the Parliament should do more to promote the process. What is interesting to me is that, as and when we have, that is not the same thing as seeing the engagement that we might have desired coming from it. Finally, I just like to talk about the definition of success. The definition of success in a petition is not necessarily that everything that the petitioner looked for happened because in many cases the issue itself is then picked up by ministers or by other agencies and the petitioner continues to be engaged in the process of that issue being taken forward long after the petition has been closed. It is true that Joe FitzPatrick mentioned Tinker's heart petition, Dave Stewart's chronic pain petition, Hanzala Malik's Mrs Mundell and the farming petition and Angus MacDonald's child sex exploitation one. Of course, several members referred to Lord Gill, but I must say to Dave Stewart that I do not know whether he is aware of the fact, but it is the case that Lord Gill generously deigned to grace us with his noble presence eventually and did come before the committee and offered by way of a justification and explanation his view of the matter which we had tried so long and hard to encourage him to do. It is not just that the ultimate aim is achieved, it is very often that the underlying issue has been pursued in a way that I do not think otherwise would have been and in a way that I think is a great credit to the Parliament. I would say to members who are elected in the next session to understand the potential that the Public Petitions Committee offers to them to represent their constituents' best interests and not just the floor of this chamber or the other more traditional committees. I think it's been an excellent debate. Lots of consensus and I'm grateful for Jackson Carlaw updating me about Lord Gill. I had missed the fact that Lord Gill had been before the committee. Obviously it was something I said, Presiding Officer, that he didn't wish to come when I was going to be there, but in fairness I did meet him with one member. I think that if I could summarise Jackson Carlaw's arguments, he was very much a champion for the committee. It seems to me that everyone who has spoken in the Parliament today has effectively been a champion for the Petitions Committee, whether they are still current members or not, to pursue the issue at heart. All committees are there to keep the executive in check, but I think that the Petitions Committee in particular has done that particularly well. I would like to put in record a particular thanks to Nigel Donne, who did make an intervention earlier. In my time as convener, Mr Donne was an honourable member of the committee because he appeared so often before it, talking about a very memorable junction in Aberdeenshire, I remember rightly. I wish him every success with getting that through transport to Scotland. Kenny MacAskill, who was an important member of the committee, was a very effective member of the Petitions Committee, talked about the important role of consensus. I think that no-one else mentioned that local authorities have picked up the great work that the petitions system has carried out. It was also interesting to note that national governments and parliaments from across the world have certainly visited our Parliament to see how it operates. For example, the Welsh Assembly were very innovative approaches that they have had. I think that they learned quite a lot from the way that we operated in this Parliament as well. Kenny MacAskill made an important point that, effectively, many petitioners see the Petitions Committee as an operator of last resort. We should always remember that. I think that it is very important that we need to look at that. Kenny MacAskill also made the point about balancing meetings between the Parliament and its fortnightly cycle and getting out to particularly disadvantaged communities, which was certainly picked up, as John Wilson said, in previous reports, that we really need to see the committee trying to do more outreach work. I would make an honourable mention of the Parliament Day approach. I think that the Presiding Officer has made some very innovative approaches. In my experience, the committee going to Western Isles was a great success. Certainly, what I find worked was spending three or four days in advance of Parliament Day to make sure that we had petitions, as Angus MacDonald mentioned, on WiFi and CalMac, to make sure that there was a bit of demand, to then ensure that the petition day worked. I think that I would particularly mention having the reception at the end where over 200 people turned up across sections of the community. I think that that is a really extremely good example of best practice. Salomalec made a very important point about the milk quota case in Agall and Bute, which I would certainly hohar to the support, since I was heavily involved with that. I think that it is a very important point about more engagement with minority communities. In fact, Angus MacDonald made the same point, because he said that we have to look very carefully underrepresented groups. We need to make sure that the principles of the Parliament about being open and accessible are pitched towards our committee as well. I am glad that Angus MacDonald was there to remind us about the excellent work that was done by Barnardo's, who asked us to do a major inquiry into child sexual exploitation, which Government by and large picked up all the recommendations. That was a lot of work for all the committee, and I would say that previous petition committees have also done fantastic work since 1999, but doing a major inquiry is something that we should all look at very carefully. John Wilson, who gets the Parliament's long service award for being the longest serving committee member to date, made some interesting points about misability and looking at the social economic appraisal of prospective petitioners. I think that I am out of time. I always like to mention, of course, that Stewart Stevenson talked about the committee being a creature, about benchers and how we need a TV slot to advertise what we are doing. I would also echo his comments about the great work that the clerks to the committee have carried out. You still have a minute and a half, if you want. Finally, I think that this has been a very interesting debate, and I would endorse the conclusions of the independent inquiry into petitions, keep up the good work as an excellent committee, and I fully endorse the comments that have been made to date. Many thanks. I now call on David Torrance to wind up the debate on behalf of the committee. I think that it's only important for me, having sat on the committee myself, to remember the spirit of John Macallion, who was the first convener on the committee that I sat on myself, and his pioneering spirit certainly took the committee forward. Anyway, enough from me, the self-indulgence. Mr Torrance, eight minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the committee. The importance of a petitions process is, I think, accepted across the chamber. It is a core part of meeting our founding principles and interests in our process that extends across the world. A willingness to learn from our experience of the operation of the process will keep the process at the forefront of good practice. The insights that we gain through reviewing the system ensure that we don't lose sight of the wider picture and the value of the process in the public for Scotland. The Public Petitions Committee is unique within the Parliament in terms of the variety of subjects considered and that the subjects are determined by members of the public. The reasons for a petition being brought forward are similarly varied. What each petition and petitioner has in common is a basis in the design or delivery of public services in Scotland. Petitions can stem from the most tragic of circumstances. People are willing to come forward with sometimes the deeply personal stories and a commitment to make sure that others do not face the same difficulties that they have. We must have an equal commitment to hearing those stories and carrying out the scrutiny that can help to find solutions. Petitioners who were interviewed for their search were asked for a view of the purpose of a petitions process. One petitioner, Beth Morrison, has been to give the ordinary person a voice.  It is out there, it is public's information. It is giving me an outlet and hopefully it will bring about real change. The research notes, as long as people are treated fairly or perceived that they have been treated fairly, the more trust they will have for political institutions such as the Scottish Parliament, and the more willing they will be to accept political decisions, including those of the committee. Recognising this is important because the petitions process is not one that can guarantee the outcomes that petitioners may desire. It would be misleading to suggest otherwise. We can guarantee that every petition that is lodged will be given consideration by the Parliament. Petitions views will be taken into account at every stage of consideration and that petitioners will be informed of the progress throughout the process. A report recognises areas where we can do more. Actions that can be taken include better promotion of the process so that people know that it is there for empty use and that the Parliament will listen when they do. Looking into the future, the collection and use of high-quality data will help us to maintain a robust process, demonstrate fairness and know that all voices are being heard. There is a range of options for doing this and our successor committee will have to adopt the new test practices. If the experience and knowledge that we have gained in this session can be shared and used, I am confident that we will have an even stronger process in the years to come. Speaking for the current committee, I am grateful to members for their contributions to this debate. I am glad that you have taken this opportunity to debate and discussed this meaningful way to enable us to take forward the recommendations into the next Parliament sessions. Thank you very much for taking my intervention. I just wanted to run something past yourself because you have had a lot more experience than I have. What about the petitioners who have been unsuccessful? Do you think that there is room for those unsuccessful cases to go through either members' business or, perhaps, through motions that might help the process? I thank Hanzala Malik for her intervention. I agree with him on that point that petitioners who have brought petitions forward to the committee have not been successful. There must be another route for them to go through the Parliament. I would also like to thank my fellow committee members, both past and present, for their contributions to the committee. I thank myself for giving to the support staff of the committee for the hard work and advice that has been invaluable to members and many of the tasks that they undertake. Turning to debate, David Stewart, Jackson Carlaw and John Wilson all mentioned the mesh petition and the success of it, but any of us who sat in that committee was only emotional. I have evidence sessions that I have sat on, not only for the petitioners but for us who were there on the day. As Hanzala Malik mentioned about engagement with ethnic minorities or the lack of engagement by the Parliament in the petitioners' committee, we need to look at that process to see if we can increase that engagement out there with groups that we cannot reach. John Wilson, can I congratulate you on being the longest serviced member of the committee? As Stewart Stevenson came up with a real novel way of how we could go out there and engage with the public by advertising on TV and see if we could reach more of a general public. It is maybe one that the Public Petitions Committee could take on. Angus MacDonald and Jo Fitzpatrick mentioned Tinker's Heart, and I will come to that in a minute, but Michael McMahon also mentioned the quality of engagement in the visit to Inverary, and one of his meetings was that the whole public became engaged with the committee. That is what I am going to turn to just now. The meeting of the Public Petitions Committee, which took place in Inverary on September 2015, is an excellent example of how engagement with local communities and the Scottish Parliament can be beneficial. That allows people to feel that they are not only an integral part of the petition process, but also that their contributions will be taken into account in determining a final outcome. It was happening to see that the 14th Public Petitions Committee meeting, which was held on a glorious day in Inverary, was well attended by members of the public, and the reaction of Jess Smith following her submission on the successful conclusion to Tinker's Heart petition was indicative of just how important it is