Disney's new Little Mermaid just flopped at the South Korean and Chinese box offices But is it for the reason that this article suggests? I don't know. The internet is debating it Yeah, and the discussion got spicy Of course some people are accusing, you know, Chinese and South Korean moviegoers of being colorist Because the movie relatively did perform better in the Philippines and Indonesia Other people are like, dude, to call countries racist because they didn't like one movie that may not even have been that good to begin with It's ridiculous. Those countries also love Black Panther And of course the discussion just went to like 6,000 other places We're gonna get into the comments section, give our own takeaways Make sure you like, subscribe, turn on your notifications and why is this such a big deal? We're talking about a Disney movie starring Holly Bailey who used to date DDG They just broke up. She's great at singing, but everybody's using this to discuss the world The Little Mermaid was supposed to unite us all. Disney movies are what they're supposed to do Under the sea Oh, why is a Disney movie and box office numbers from Asia being used to divide Asians and Black people in America? I don't understand it What was the angle of the writer we need to know? By the way, I'm not completely discrediting the articles like perspective or tone or viewpoint I'm just questioning it because it did seem a little ultra selective to be honest Um, so let's just go through the numbers real quick Okay, so it did 3.5 million in China opening weekend, not very good, right? In South Korea did 4.4 a little bit better in South Korea is a lot smaller of a market in Indonesia and the Philippines It did respectively like 4 and 4.1 million So I think it did relatively better in those countries, but not like amazing amazing, right? But the article that was posted on next shot. We don't know if the writer was Asian or white There's a lot of speculation. There's almost conspiracy theories if you read through the comments section We're basically saying they went through some of the netizens Reactions in China in South Korea and there that's where some of the comments were a little bit Into the problematic zone. No, there were some racial comments But the comments that they highlighted basically said, oh, yeah, you know, I imagine that Ariel is this white woman And that's what I grew up knowing. So this switch up is too much for me to relate to I Cannot handle the dissonance with my childhood. Yeah, I just watched a little mermaid ten years ago And then ten years later. She is a completely different person. Um, yeah But basically anyways guys we want to get into the comments section But I want to leave you with one question before we get into the comment section, which is very spicy What if the movie did well in South Korea in China? Are we gonna hear positive news about that and it's saying like oh look East Asia's not colorist And they're not racist because people love the little mermaid over there or is it only because they didn't do well That's why we're hearing this news and it's being kind of this narrow This narrative is being spun using a movie as a litmus test is so ridiculous Oh, they didn't put Finn on the Chinese Star Wars poster China's racist Oh, they worship Kobe almost more than any other country on earth including America.  It's very tough. Yeah. Alright, so David Let's get into the comment section. Alright, so the comment section was we have to take a look at the data set This is what David Choi music said. Listen would have CRA or Asian movies have done really well in Africa How did movies like Black Panther do like we said it's all about the data set I think Halle Bailey did a good job, but to draw conclusions from this is kind of ridiculous and a reach, right? Yeah, I don't like how Basically global statistics from Asia are being used to divide Asians of black people in America to me It's very weird, you know, that's what makes you question the aim of this author because they don't mention that spider-verse with Miles Morales whose black and Latino did really well in Asia and a lot of Will Smith movies do really well and Black Panther I believe got the most of its money from Asia and China market of all the markets in the world Oh, yeah, and as far as black women woman king is supposed to be releasing in China soon, too So obviously they see some appeal in that movie Also Shang Chi and Mulan which are Chinese American or Chinese led movies they flopped in Asia So it's not only because of race, but but I will say race could be a factor, right? I mean also China makes up 40% of the NBA's global profits However, this was a pretty good counterpoint Andrew. This is from a black guy He said it is because the idea of hyper masculine black men whether in IRL as athletes or as Action figures have been globally accepted However black women are more so struggling because of the perception that they are more masculine than your average woman And I can empathize with this because I feel like as an Asian guy We get perceived as more feminine than your average baseline I guess male in the world whereas Asian women they get perceived as extra extra feminine But obviously in the women lane, that's a better quality than it is amongst the it basically it's the mirror problem It's the vice versa problem that Asian men and black women have so I can empathize with this comment Yes, somebody said guys the majority of black fled films such as black panther men and black Spider-Verse they've done really well like you said. I mean somebody else said this is not even surprising though to be honest because Considering how much of a problem colorism and racism is throughout Asia. So this is somebody basically pointing out I'm not surprised that this movie failed in South Korea and China. Yeah, I think that There is colorism and here's the thing we talked about on our channel before where colorism I guess by the way that we define it in the West it does exist, but it's not for the same reasons It's not between this like white European and like black African kind of colorism spectrum It's actually just between different shades of Asians and that other different types of Asians obviously have different bloodlines and stuff But it's really not for the same reason this more about like oh you worked out in the farm So you're tan and then that makes you like a lower-class person or something that's kind of where it's more I'm not saying it doesn't exist I'm just saying it's different and it's like kind of weird to use the Western terms to describe Asia if you don't study Asia Study its own unique history and blah blah blah the ebbs and flows Somebody said brother movie was just not appealing in general stop making false correlations black panther had the highest box office in China Yeah, so currently little mermaid is 67% of rotten tomatoes. That's actually a decent score But it's not like an amazing score. So I mean I think there is debate on whether people actually like the movie or not Yeah, I guess in China on the two major movie rating sites that are similar to rotten tomatoes They got a 7.0 and a 5.2. So that's actually not that bad considering how bad it performed You know what I mean plus they bootleg a lot in China Who knows maybe a lot more people saw it, but they watch it on a hacked iPad with a camcorder Let's be honest somebody said yes us dark-skinned Asians like Filipinos support this I don't know about East Asians though. They might be more colorist shout out to the Philippines showing up and supporting the film And then this other guy this black guy came in and said Southeast Asians and black people have always had strong ties So this kind of goes back to more of the spiciness, right? Because now we're sort of like deviating into the the branches off of what the tree trunk original discussion was What do you think of this? Oh, man? I love that the idea of splitting up Asia is really really interesting to me Yeah, I do think listen if you have tanner skin and you see someone else on the screen that has tanner darker skin You're more likely to relate to them. I get that I think that is true So I think there is some relatability now I think where there it turns into racism is if like an Asian person's like oh like oh, I don't want to watch this cuz She's black. Oh my god, like, you know, and if that's really how they feel in their heart Then that is definitely a racist feeling but at the same time, you know Those countries are like 90% plus Asian like East Asia like Korea's like 95% Korean China's like 92% Han Chinese So it's like they are like, yeah, it is just maybe you could say it's like is it I think they're used to more of a spectrum of looks in Southeast Asia to be honest. I will say that that is for sure I mean, I would say anecdotally growing up my East Asian friends more so Acted white as generalized as that sounds and my Southeast Asian friends more acted black Right if we were to use the white black binary that America often exists in right, right, right, right? Somebody said man The point is their netizens just didn't make the same commentary on skin color that we saw that pop up in the article Yeah, I could see that being true. Like I said guys I don't think that all the dynamics that were pointed out by this author in this like piece Against the China box office in South Korea box office were wrong, but I just don't know how far you can extrapolate it from these numbers Somebody said Mulan flopped across the globe. Maybe it's not just race is the biggest issue guys There's a lot of other factors that people don't like to consider. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Yeah from a lot of blue checkmarks They were saying Halle Bailey is was the perfect casting choice. I agree. You know what my always ultimately thinking Andrew I was thinking as messy as these discussion and comment sections and long as these threads and debates are getting Hopefully Disney out of plan to spark something that even though it's messy right now in the long term They can be more something productive coming out of it Yeah, you know I think a lot of movies that end up making a big impact in the world are heavily discussed at the time of release Right and it's good that this sparked such a discussion because that means the story in the movie is Actually influential and impactful So I think that even Asians in Asia like in China and Korea having this conversation right now Right and maybe our conversation gets back to them or maybe this American conversation gets back to them or them Questioning their own reasons on why they didn't like that movie. Maybe they find out. Oh, yeah It is because like I don't like that or like, you know, whatever reasons it could be for They're gonna think about it now. Yeah, if that happens who knows guys like I said man Sometimes I think these articles people like people don't really care what's happening in Asia They just care when it's like something in a weird niche roundabout way related back They try to extrapolate something about the relationship between this group and this group a lot of people There's no correlation, but it just seems like there's a lot of other stuff We could be going off of a lot of people in America tend to only look at the negative news out of Asia not the good news not the Unifying thing not the bridge-building things because obviously good news doesn't travel as much as bad news Divisive news is the most interesting Somebody said I'm personally black and I work at the NAACP who cares about making Disney richer There are so many bigger issues in society than this this movie being successful or unsuccessful Isn't going to change anything. So that was a comment from a black woman who works at the NAACP This is a comment from a I guess a little bit more conservative white guy moderate conservative white guy said the world isn't California guys, why are we taking LA Hollywood? California standards in China judge the rest of the world these things are really layered. They're really complicated They don't even think about it. We they might end up with a certain result and have got the math behind their solution It's completely different. Right, right, right And then one last comment was like oh well, you know like thanks for covering this because I lived in Asia three years And it's not as easy for a black person to live there and then someone responded that saying well What if an Asian person moved to Africa West Africa? What is their life going to be like? How are they going to get treated right? This is a interesting argument I guess it shows you how global the world is getting because a lot of people have like traveled to other continents now Obviously our parents our grandparents wait, so so let me tell you this so I guess there's two Americans that are arguing About how an Asian person or a black person gets treated in Asia and how an Asian person gets treated in Africa And these are two Americans arguing about this. I Don't like I need to see the box office receipts for CRA in Zambia I need to see the Ghana box off right. I mean, we don't know. Yeah I guess it's just interesting to be bringing up Africa in China when you're arguing about things in America I guess I do I actually realized that a lot of people cannot disconnect like just like looks of people even people who theoretically should know better Or or maybe it's just going off your skin tone who knows man. Anyway Andrew, what are our final takeaways? I do think that race played into the box office aspect a little bit I do think so I would agree with the author to a very limited extent in the sense of like yes You're pointing out something that very melt well may be true But as far as like this and this and where it zigged and where it's agged and where you know the whole the whole discussion went I don't know I just think it's weird the way Americans always need something so trivial tied back to like access Hollywood to talk about much more structural things Yeah, and also like Considering the comments that you got from fellow Americans about little mermaid and they were way worse than some of these comments You know what I mean? So I'm just like I guess I guess I'm not like I guess I'm not like super shocked But I hope that you know, hopefully this discussion reaches back over to some of those Asian people who left those comments And maybe they can have this discussion in Asia and honestly I do think that everybody is tribalistic, but when your country becomes more powerful There's like talk about this talk about that global north versus global south and like all these like splits that kind of like end up sort of like Like I said there here's the discussion, but then the branches go everywhere So anyway guys, let us know what you think in the comments section below guys keep it civil Is it a big deal? Is it not a big deal? What can you take from it? If anything until next time we to hop out boys We out


Section one of the Epistles of John. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Paul Brian Stewart. The first Epistle of John from Young's Literal Translation, translated by Robert Young. Chapter One. That which was from the beginning. That which we have heard. That which we have seen with our eyes. That which we did behold. And our hands did handle. Concerning the word of the life. And the life was manifested. And we have seen and do testify. And declare to you the life. The age during. Which was with the Father. And was manifested to us. That which we have seen and heard. Declare we to you. That ye also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father. And with the Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you. That your joy may be full. And this is the message that we have heard from him. And announce to you. That God is light. And darkness in him is not at all. If we may say. We have fellowship with him. And in the darkness may walk we lie. And do not the truth. And if in the light we may walk. As he is in the light. We have fellowship one with another. And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son doth cleanse us from every sin. If we may say. We have not sinned. Our selves we lead astray. And the truth is not in us. If we may confess our sins. Steve fast is he. And righteous that he may forgive us the sins. And may cleanse us from every unrighteousness. If we may say. We have not sinned. A liar we make him. And his word is not in us. Chapter 2. My little children. These things I write to you. That ye may not sin. And if anyone may sin. An advocate we have with the Father Jesus Christ. A righteous one. And he. He is a propitiation for our sins. And not for ours only. But also for the whole world. And in this we know that we have known him. If his commands we may keep. He who is saying I have known him. And his command is not keeping.  And in him the truth is not. And whoever may keep his word. Truly in him the love of God have been perfected. In this we may know that in him we are. He who is saying in him he doth remain. Or according as he walked also himself so to walk. Brethren. A new command I write not to you. But an old command. That ye had from the beginning. The old command is the word that ye heard from the beginning. Again. A new command I write to you. Which thing is true in him and in you. Because the darkness doth pass away. And the true light doth now shine. He who is saying in the light he is. And his brother is hating. In the darkness he is till now. He who is loving his brother. In the light he doth remain. And a stumbling block in him there is not. And he who is hating his brother. In the darkness he is. And in the darkness he doth walk. And he hath not known wither he doth go. Because the darkness did blind his eyes.  Because the sins have been forgiven through his name. I write to you fathers. Because ye have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you young men. Because ye have overcome the evil.  Because you have known the father. I did write to you fathers. Because ye have known him who is from the beginning. I did write to you young men. Because ye are strong. And the word of God and you doth remain. And ye have overcome the evil. Love not ye the world. Nor the things in the world. If anyone doth love the world. The love of the father is not in him. Because all that is in the world. The desire of the flesh. And the desire of the eyes. And the ostentation of the life. Is not of the father. But of the world. And the world doth pass away. And the desire of it. And he who is doing the will of God he doth remain. To the age. Little youths. It is the last hour. And even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come. Even now antichrists have become many. Whence we know that it is the last hour. Out of us they went forth. But they were not of us. For if they had been of us they would have remained with us. But they might be manifested that they are not all of us. And ye have an anointing from the Holy One. And have known all things. I did not write to you because ye have not known the truth. But because ye have known it. And because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar? Except he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ. This one is the antichrist who is denying the Father and the Son. Everyone who is denying the Son. Neither hath he the Father. He who is confessing the Son hath the Father also. Ye then that which ye heard from the beginning. And ye let it remain. If in ye may remain that which from the beginning ye did hear. Ye also in the Son and in the Father shall remain. And this is the promise that he did promise us. The life. The age during. These things I did write to you concerning those leading you astray. And you, the anointing that ye did receive from him. And you at doth remain. And ye have no need that anyone may teach you. But as the same anointing doth teach you concerning all. And is true. And is not a lie. And even as was taught you ye shall remain in him. And now little children remain in him. That when he may be manifested we may have boldness and may not be ashamed before him in his presence. If ye know that he is righteous know ye that everyone doing the righteousness of him hath been begotten. Chapter 3 See ye what love the Father hath given to us, that children of God we may be called. Because of this the world doth not know us. Because it did not know him. Beloved now, children of God are we. And it was not yet manifested what we shall be. And we have known that if he may be manifested, like him we shall be. Because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who is having this hope on him doth purify himself, even as he is pure. Everyone who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do. And the sin is the lawlessness. And ye have known that he was manifested, that our sins he may take away. And sin is not in him. Everyone who is remaining in him doth not sin. Everyone who is sinning hath not seen him nor known him. Little children, let no one lead you astray. He who is doing the righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who is doing the sin of the devil he is. Because from the beginning the devil doth sin. For this was the Son of God manifested. That he may break up the works of the devil. Everyone who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not. Because his seed in him doth remain. And he is not able to sin. Because of God he hath been begotten. In this manifest are the children of God. And the children of the devil. Everyone who is not doing righteousness is not of God. And he who is not loving his brother. Because this is the message that ye did hear from the beginning. That we may love one another, not as Cain, of the evil one he was. And he did slay his brother. And wherefore did he slay him? Because his works were evil, and those of his brother righteous.  We have known that we have passed out of the death to the life. Because we love the brethren. He who is not loving the brother doth remain in the death. Everyone who is hating his brother, a man-killer he is. And he have known that no man-killer hath life age-during in him remaining. In this we have known the love. Because he for us his life did lay down. And we awought for the brethren the lives to lay down. And whoever may have the goods of the world. And may view his brother having need. And may shut up his bowels from him. How doth the love of God remain in him? My little children, may we not love in word nor in tongue, but in word and in truth. And in this we know that of the truth we are. And before him we shall assure our hearts. Because if our heart may condemn, because greater is God than our heart, and he doth know all things. Beloved, if our heart may not condemn us, we have boldness towards God. And whatever we may ask we receive from him. Because his commands we keep. And the things pleasing before him we do. And this is his command. That we may believe in the name of his son Jesus Christ. And may love one another. Even as he did give command to us. And he who is keeping his commands in him he doth remain. And he in him. And in this we know that he doth remain in us, from the Spirit that he gave us. Chapter 4 Beloved, every Spirit believe not, but prove the Spirits, if of God they are. Because many false prophets have gone forth to the world. In this know ye the Spirit of God. Every Spirit that doth confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is. And every Spirit that doth not confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is not. And this is that of the Antichrist, which he heard that it doth come, and now in the world it is already. Ye of God ye are little children, and we have overcome them.  They of the world they are. Because of this from the world they speak, and the world doth hear him. We of God we are. He who is knowing God doth hear us. He who is not of God doth not hear us. From this we know the Spirit of the truth, and the Spirit of the era. Beloved, may we love one another. Because the love is of God, and everyone who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God. He who is not loving did not know God, because God is love. In this was manifested the love of God in us. Because his Son, the only begotten, hath God sent to the world, that we may live through him. And this is the love. Not that we loved God, but that he did love us, and did send his Son appropriation for our sins. Beloved, if this God did love us, we also ought one another to love. God no one hath ever seen. If we may love one another, God and us doth remain, and his love is having been perfected in us. And this we know that in him we do remain, and he in us, because of his Spirit he hath given us. And we, we have seen and do testify that the Father hath sent the Son, Savior of the world. Whoever may confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God and him doth remain, and he in God. And we, we have known and believed the love that God hath in us. God is love, and he who is remaining in the love, and God he doth remain, and God in him. And this made perfect hath been the love with us, that boldness we may have in the day of the judgment. Because even as he is, we, we also are in this world. Fear is not in love, but the perfect love doth cast out the fear, because the fear hath punishment. And he who is fearing hath not been made perfect in the love. We, we love him, because he, he first loved us. If anyone may say I love God, and his brother he may hate, a liar he is. For he who is not loving his brother whom he hath seen, God whom he hath not seen, how is he able to love? And this is the command we have from him, that he who is loving God may also love his brother. Chapter 5 Everyone who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and everyone who is loving him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of him. And this we know that we love the children of God. When we may love God, and his commands may keep. For this is the love of God, that his commands we may keep. And his commands are not burdensome, because everyone who is begotten of God doth overcome the world. And this is the victory that did overcome the world, our faith. Who is he who is overcoming the world, if not he who is believing that Jesus is the Son of God? This one is he who did come through water and blood, Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood, and the Spirit it is that is testifying, because the Spirit is the truth, because three are who are testifying, in the heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these the three are one. And three are who are testifying in the earth, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are into one. If the testimony of men we receive, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that he hath testified concerning his Son. He who is believing in the Son of God hath the testimony in himself. He who is not believing God, Eliah hath made him, because he hath not believed in the testimony that God hath testified concerning his Son. And this is the testimony that life age during did God give to us, and this the life is in his Son. He who is having the Son hath the life. He who is not having the Son of God, the life he hath not. These things I did write to you who are believing in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that life ye have aged during, and that ye may believe in the name of the Son of God. And this is the boldness that we have to award him, that if anything we may ask according to his will, he doth hear us. And if we have known that he doth hear us, whatever we may ask, we have known that we have the request that we have requested from him. If anyone may see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give to him life to those sinning not unto death. There is sin to death, not concerning it, do I speak, that he may be Siege. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death. We have known that everyone who hath been begotten of God doth not sin. But he who is begotten of God doth keep himself, and the evil one doth not touch him. We have known that of God we are, and the whole world in the evil doth lie. And we have known that the Son of God has come, and hath given us a mind that we may know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and the life age during. Little children, guard yourself from the idols. Amen. End of the First Epistle of John from Young's Literal Translation. Translated by Robert Young. Section 2 of the Epistles of John. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Paul Bryan Stewart. The Second Epistle of John from Young's Literal Translation. Translated by Robert Young. The elder to the choice could ear, and to her children whom I love in truth, and not I only, but also all those having known the truth. Because of the truth that is remaining in us, and with us shall be to the age. This shall be with you grace, kindness, peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. I rejoiced exceedingly that I have found of their children walking in truth, even as a command we did receive from the Father. And now I beseech thee, quidia, not as writing to thee a new command, but which we had from the beginning, that we may love one another, and this is the love, that we may walk according to his commands. This is the command, even as ye did hear from the beginning, that in it ye may walk, because many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh. This one is he who is leading astray, and the Antichrist. See to yourself that ye may not lose the things we have bought, but a full reward may receive. Every one who is transgressing and is not remaining in the teaching of the Christ hath not God. He who is remaining in the teaching of the Christ, this one hath both the Father and the Son. If anyone doeth come unto you, and this teaching doeth not bear, receive him not into the house, and say not to him, hail, for he who is saying to him, hail, hath fellowship with his evil works. Many things having to write to you, I did not intend through paper and ink, but I hope to come unto you, and speak mouth to mouth, that our joy may be full. Salute ye, do the children of thy choice sister. Amen. Third Epistle of John, from Young's literal translation of the Holy Scriptures, translated by Robert Young. We then ought to receive such that, fellow workers, we may become to the truth. I did write to the assembly, but he who is loving the first place among them, deotrafies, doth not receive us. Because of this, if I may come, I will cause him to remember his works that he doth, with evil words preting against us, and not content with these, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and those intending he doth forbid, and out of the assembly he doth cast. Beloved, be not thou following that which is evil, but that which is good. He who is doing good, of God he is, and he who is doing evil hath not seen God. To Demetrius' testimony hath been given by all, and by the truth itself, and we also we do testify, and ye have known that our testimony is true. Many things I had to write, but I do not wish through ink and pen to write to thee, and I hope straight away to see thee, and mouth to mouth we shall speak. Peace to thee. Salute thee, do the friends. Be saluting the friends by name. End of Third Epistle of John.


My name is Bailey Hansen. I live here and teach here in Malbukeke, First Nations in Crown River, Newfoundland. I am the senior high science and math teacher and I also coordinate the adult basic education program that we hear. We have here at a school that we teach adults in the evening. We do follow the provincial curriculum because well eventually all of our students are going to go to post-secondary and most of them do go within the province so we want to keep them on par with the province and that's what we do follow and we have an understanding with the Department of Education and stuff like that so we get resources and use all the same textbooks and all that. Sometimes we can adapt it how you know we would like to include our our culture and our values and stuff like that. Ecosystems is such a broad topic and it is through the curriculum is great through especially well all through the grades really you touch on some form of ecosystem so elders play a great part in being able to explain how an area used to be and how it is and how our ancestors used the land and be able to compare it to what the kids are used to something that I've been working with closely I guess is one of the things that I oversee along with everything else is a development of that coastal monitoring program and more specific to our area. Right now we're just focusing on grade 10 science the science 206 but there's ways that it can be immersed in other curriculums as well so eventually it'll be but right now we're just focusing on that one there I just had a workshop on it like two weeks ago so yeah in this in the province of Newfoundland they're trying to all science curriculums are trying to put more emphasis on oceans and oceans learning because we are an island we're surrounded by the ocean and you know there's so many job opportunities out there for young individuals if they want to pursue something and then just to be to be familiar with it there's not many kids this day needs that are you know are used to that type of environment and in understanding and not like we you know we go back 50 years like everyone was a fisherman or a new fisherman or fish themselves you know what I mean is that the culture has changed and just getting them back to understanding that and there was a need and that's where that oceans learning partnership came out of and then specifically the coastal anatomy program so it's done in partnership with DFO and um there's lots of other supporters but yeah DFO was one of the bigger supporters for that and Memorial University I teach um my coordinate and I teach the math um and we do in the evenings we have three evenings a week and uh we get students come in and they usually sign up we'll we'll post it out to the community and we we have about eight students this year um working on their upgrading to get their high school equivalency and um I must say I really enjoy it it's um it's kind of like a breath of fresh air instead of teaching high school students because these people are so eager to get the work and want to do the work and and get it done you know that mentality and like sometimes what high school is sometimes like pulling teeth right so but yeah it's a it's a nice contrast and I really enjoy it before I taught the math and was coordinated I used to teach the science and the same thing I found it really um enjoying and and give you kind of like um I don't know thank you more humble yeah yeah like I tell my little girls and mom he's gotta go teach night school to adults and it's very admirable that they've come back to finish it right you can't you can't knock them there so yeah very really good yeah exactly it's very rewarding and it's something that I enjoy and I'm glad that we keep that program here in the community so yeah and again we work closely with um the Department of Education and the coordinator that they have in there and we're always I'm always emailing her back and forth and getting direction and making sure that we we follow the same as the rest of the province so I think it just incorporates well you know you have your education but it just makes it it's rounding of a person I assume you know it's you teach not only academics and stuff but you teach life skills and cultural and you know we do well I don't do a whole lot of it but I plan to um but a lot of we're in this beautiful area that we can do a lot of land-based learning and I'm in development now with it's a coastal monitoring program um specifically for science to be able to take students down to the beach and look and identify different organisms and compare the ecosystem on the shoreline and eventually hopefully be able to get out in a boat and see you a more marine environment and compare the two that way and is right in our backyard and then we can bring in well what did our grandparents do down here and um what was the fishing like and you know all that things that we can tie in there with our where we are and historically in our culture. I can tell you on what I've seen um as well I'm a fairly new teacher I've been teaching for six years but the language program has especially here in our school has done leaps and bounds from when I was in school like you ask me words in the language now I could probably paint painful of phrases and names and you know how you came to five and stuff like that but the kids now like they're having full on conversations and like it blows my mind and to see that progress is only gonna get better you know what I mean so that's one big thing for me is the language seeing that revive is nice because it's tied in with everything yeah exactly it's like if you don't have language you don't have anything really right so and and we'll just be in more I guess culture where we are very culture where we're very culture based here but just always more of it you can always build more and like I said myself I want to see myself do more land-based learning um outside especially now that we're getting settled here so we've only been this our second year so um within 10 years I'm I'm sure I'm gonna have lots of good things to do and so I have a good plan on what to do so that's my hope and just build on what we have already which is a great great thing because you can you go down you can talk about the weather that particular day look at all the different um aspects of weather you can look at um you know just look around and see if there's any pollution or you know how do we affect that environment and you know that's like the social aspect of it all and then you you know you compare the ecosystem you look at that so that's the science of it and you know you can get your coordinates and have your you know compass and so you know you get your geography done in there too so you know you can really find learning in anything you know I mean that's what that's what I think and you know if you approach it the right way you can almost teach anything from it you take away some kind of lesson from it something that's more fluid you know what I mean it's nothing that has to be structured to be if this is indigenous you know it should be more fluidic and you know it has culture and it has land base and it has academics and it has all these things tied into it so it's it's it's fluidic and it and it's hands on and it reaches the kids on so many different levels that's that's what I see it as it is it is fluidic


The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency says it has arrested a woman bound for Italy with 100 raps of heroin at the departure hall of the Murtala Mohammed International Airport in Lagos. And the L.A. spokesman Femi Babafemi disclosed this in a statement made available on Sunday. The suspect, a 53-year-old Nadi Chiniri, was arrested earlier this month during an outward clearance of passengers on Qatar Airways flights to Florentine, Italy. The drugs found on her were concealed in five containers of a hair-relaxer cream.


I welcome members to the 13th meeting in 2017 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private, and it is proposed that the committee takes item 9 in private. Item 9 is a consideration of the committee's third quarterly report for the parliamentary year 2016 and 2017. Does the committee agree to consider item 9 in private? The next item on agenda is the committee's consideration of the powers to make subordinate legislation conferred in Scottish ministers in the criminal finances bill as amended. The bill is a UK Government bill that was introduced in the House of Commons on 13 October 2016. Amendments to the bill are currently being considered at report stage in the House of Lords today, having previously been considered at committee stage in that House on 3 April 2017. On 13 December 2016, the committee previously considered and reported on the provisions in the bill and a legislative consent motion was agreed by the Scottish Parliament on 2 March 2017. Following the legislative consent motion, further amendments were tabled for consideration in the House of Lords and a supplementary legislative consent motion was lodged on 30 March 2017. In lodging the supplementary memorandum, the Scottish Government noted that the timescales for consideration would be tight, as the bill was already at committee stage in the House of Lords. Those timescales tightened further, with the announcement of a UK general election on 8 June 2017 and the consequential dissolution of the UK Parliament thereafter. As a result, it is expected that the bill will now complete its passage through the UK Parliament by tomorrow. To comply with those very tight timescales, the committee is required to consider and report on the LCM today. It is suggested that the committee could be content with the amendments from its perspective. Does the committee agree to find both the amendments tabled for report stage in the House of Lords on 25 April 2017 to the powers that the bill delegates to the Scottish ministers in clauses 53 and 54 of the bill and the parliamentary procedure to which those amended powers are subject to be acceptable in principle? Many thanks. Does the committee also agree that it is a matter of concern that the Parliament has not had a reasonable amount of time to fully scrutinise those changes? In particular, from the perspective of parliamentary scrutiny, it is agreed that it is regrettable that the committee will not be able to avoid publishing its report on the same day that both the amendments are voted on at report stage in the House of Lords, and the Scottish Parliament votes on the supplementary legislative consent motion. Are we agreed? Thank you. We now move to agenda item 3, which is the contract third party rights Scotland bill, and this is our final consideration of oral evidence on the contract third party rights Scotland bill at stage 1. It is a real pleasure to welcome Minister Annabelle Ewing, who is a minister for community safety and legal affairs to our committee today to take part in this final evidence session. It is also a pleasure to welcome Katrina Marshall, a solicitor for the Scottish Government legal directive, and Jill Clark, who is a bill team leader in the Civil Reform Unit. Welcome back, Jill. I now invite questions from my committee. I have the first question, and the first question is regarding the general benefits of the bill. Minister, if we may, the first question is, we have heard from various witnesses that the bill will clarify uncertainty in the current law and give parties the flexibility to amend or cancel third party rights. Could you explain why this is important and outline other benefits that you think are relevant, please? Thank you, convener, and good morning to all the members of the committee. I am pleased to be here today to seek to answer your questions on the bill. With regard to your question, convener, I think that it is clear, and I have read all the evidence sessions that you have had, that there has been a lack of clarity in terms of the common law, and, indeed, significant concerns about predictability and flexibility. If one reads the whole documentation, including the Scottish Law Commission's discussion paper of 2014, then the report in 2016 and the submissions that you and the committee have received, I think that it is quite clear that what we have seen in Scotland is a long-standing existence in terms of the law of third party rights, but an increasing difficulty in having anybody seek to invoke the benefit of Scots law as far as the third party right regime is concerned. Indeed, in terms of Scots law, I think that it was in the discussion paper of the SLC of 2014 that it started with looking back to a case, dating back to, I think, 1590 or thereabouts, the Moncour case. I think that that suggests that if we are having to look back to a case of 1590, that we might want to think about whether there might be better ways to do that. However, what has grown up in Scotland is a body of law driven by case law that has presented very serious difficulties in terms of the key issues of clarity and flexibility. Those difficulties, in short, involve principally, I suppose, the issue of the revocability of the right, and the understanding in Scots law, since a seminal case in 1920, Cymruco v Cymruco's executrix, that, in order to properly confer a third party right, there had to be a revocability. It also went on to say that there had to be a communication and notification intimation of the right in order to establish the right, but the key issue was that the right had to be irrevocable. In modern day commercial activity in particular, that is a very inflexible position that does not make using that law attractive in the slightest. Also issues have arisen, though, as regards clarity in terms of the remedies open to the third party to, when enforcing the right, the defences open to the contracting parties when they are seeking to defend a third party claim. There is an element of a lack of clarity of the application of a law of prescription to third party rights and so forth. Taking all that in the round, what the result has been, convener, is that people have sought rather to find another way round this. I think that you have heard significant evidence on what has been termed walk around. The two key walk arounds in this area have been either making the third party rights clause in the contract or indeed the whole contract subject to English law in terms of their legislation or alternatively or perhaps cumulatively sometimes having recourse to collateral warranties. I think that you have heard a lot of evidence that collateral warranties involve a very big long paper chase in many larger transactions where you have unnecessary expense at time involved in securing all the collateral warranties that are required. Therefore, there has been a lack of confidence in Scotland in using the third party rights regime as set forth in the common law. What this legislation principally is seeking to do is to remove that obstacle to using third party rights law as it is the case in Scotland and has been for many, many centuries. Having read all this documentation and all the arguments of the SLC that have been put forward, I think that one could talk all morning about the problems that have been in using the third party rights common law regime in Scotland, but that is just a flavour of the problems that we have seen. Therefore, as I say, what this bill is seeking to do principally is to ensure that that obstacle is removed. Excellent. Well, thank you very much. I think that we will actually agree with your aims and objectives. I must say that we will, throughout the morning, elicit other statements from you and look forward probably in due course to you bringing forward amendments, but you might want to talk about those as we go through the questions. So, I will now hand over to my colleague, and I have to convene to Stuart McMillan. Stuart, you have some questions, please, for the minister. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Certainly, you touched upon this a few moments ago with your comments just regarding the use of Scots law, and certainly with the policy memorandum for the bill, it states that this legislation will actually promote the use of Scots law. Can you outline how this bill will actually achieve this, please? Okay. Well, what we are doing is, if the bill is passed in committee and in the Parliament, what we are seeking to do is provide an option. You will still have the freedom to contract in Scotland. That is a fundamental principle of contract law in Scotland. You will still have freedom to contract and, basically, within certain overarching limits, do what you want with your contract. However, that provides an option, and I think that that will be seen over time. It will not happen overnight, but I think that that will be seen over time as helpful and will lead to a change in behaviour in terms of how we have approached third-party walk-arounds, as I referred to in recent years. As I say, it will not happen overnight, but I think that there will be a change as people see this as a helpful option available to them. I think that this point emerges from your evidence. I remind you that, aside from the administrative and expense involved in clatter warranties, increasingly there are question marks about the scope of clatter warranties, about the enforceability of clatter warranties. Therefore, it may be that, as those issues come more to the fore, there might also be a need to look at what other options might be available. Over time, that will help to change the culture of recourse to third-party walk-arounds in Scotland, which can only be to the benefit of the reputation of Scots law and the accessibility of Scots law for parties in Scotland seeking to contract. In terms of some of the evidence that we have heard, some witnesses suggested that lawyers often choose English law when setting up contracts, as it has been considered to be clearer than Scots law due to England being that bigger jurisdiction, and certainly with more cases going through their particular courts. It has also been suggested that there is that probability that, even with the passing of this legislation in Scotland, lawyers will still choose to use English law. Is there anything that can be done when and if the bill passes in the Scottish Parliament? Is there anything that can be done to help to promote the legislation to encourage more people to use Scots law? There would be a job of work to be done in terms of ensuring that practitioners in Scotland were aware of the new legislation and the alternative that they have at their disposal. That can be done in a number of ways. I would imagine that the Law Society of Scotland would be involved in information awareness and the fact that advocates would have a role. I understand that the Royal Incorporation of Architects, for example, in their evidence to the committee suggested that they would seek to proceed by way of a practice note. Of course, there are law conferences just about every day, and that would be an opportunity to ensure that proper awareness was raised about this new option for parties in Scotland seeking to contract. In a whole range of fields, it is not just large commercial contracts, it can affect potentially anybody and individuals particularly as well. I think that there would be a job of work to be done. Obviously, we, as a Government, would seek to facilitate that information awareness raising as carried out by the relevant professional bodies. However, in the end of the day, as I say, it will be a matter for the parties to the contract to choose how they wish to structure their contract and what they wish to do. However, what we are trying to do is to say that there will be in due course an attractive option for you. That is what the option is. You may wish to consider that as a more cost-effective way of drafting your contract. On your point about the relevant professional bodies, would the Scottish Government certainly be open to working with the likes of CBI Scotland, FSB Scotland and other non-legal professional bodies to help to promote that legislation? Once the legislation is passed, it does not mean that all responsibility is suddenly put to one side. Yes, of course. We all have an interest if the legislation is passed in ensuring that it is made use of and in whatever way the Government can help to facilitate the actions of other relevant bodies, including business organisations. Of course, we would be happy to consider what we could do in that regard. You touched on the benefits to individuals slightly in your answer to Stuart McMillan. Much of the focus that we have been taking evidence so far has been on the benefits to the business sector, which is understandable. What could you perhaps say to what degree the Scottish Government would expect the bill to benefit individuals as well as businesses? What I can say is that the scope is not limited to large corporates. The scope is there and applies to everybody seeking to contract where the relevance of a third party, conferring a third party right, would arise. For example, in the evidence before the committee, references have been made by the SLC to, for example, holiday contracts where one member of the family will contract the holiday and all the arrangements pertaining there, too. Something mega goes wrong, which can happen, and the other members of the family may not have any right of recourse because they have not personally concluded the contract. That is a very obvious example of where getting the law accessible to everybody could be a help, particularly to individuals. I know that the SLC has given the example of where you have a situation of an informal carer for an adult who has mental incapacity and, again, may contract on behalf of for the benefit of that incapacitated adult. However, in the end of the day, if there is a problem who has suffered the loss, it is not the informal carer, so that gets you back to the basic problem of where you need to be able to ensure that you can properly confer a third party right that can, in fact, be invoked and enforced. Those are just two examples of where we can see already the applicability of the new regime to individual cases and that it would be a benefit to them. Some concerns have been raised about the impact of the legislation for smaller businesses. Professor Beall, for example, suggested that small businesses may not always realise that the rights of third parties are subject to cancellation or variation, particularly if it is tucked away in small print. Is that a matter that the Scottish Government has considered? If so, does it have any plans to ensure that smaller businesses are properly protected? Whatever the size of your business, I think that you would want to ensure, if you are entering into contracts, that you know what the contract entails. I should perhaps at this stage, because I am not meaning to suggest that this would be the only route, but I am a member of the Lost Society of Scotland and I hold a practice certificate. I was about to say that, normally, the advice would be to seek legal advice, although I am not practicing, so it is of no personal benefit to me. That would be the normal advice to seek legal advice as to what exactly it is that you are contracting to do. I think that it is always very important that an individual, a small business and a large business knows exactly what they are signing up to. There is no shortcut to that if you feel confident that you can make that judgment yourself without legal advice. That would be up to you, but legal advice would always be helpful in that regard. I have not noticed some of the evidence. Indeed, there was a submission from a small from a subcontractor. I do not know the size of that subcontractor. Certainly, the issue arose to the feeling that if you are a smaller subcontractor at the end of a very long chain, you may not feel that you are getting an equal say, but I would suggest that that is not really within the scope of the bill. That is rather a matter of the relative contracting power of each contracting party, and the bill does not impose obligations on third parties. It simply confers rights on third parties, which the third party is not bound to accept. In that regard, it does not act to the detriment of a smaller subcontractor or a smaller business. That is important clarification. You see benefits in having this clarity over what the remedies will be. Yes, I think so. In broad brush, it is all very well having a right, but if the right cannot be enforced and you cannot seek a remedy under the law in the exercise of your right, it would perhaps not be regarded as particularly valuable. It is important that the bill, as I alluded to earlier in my response to the convener, seeks to clarify other issues, including the very important issue that the member raises about remedies, and to make clear that the remedies include the right to damages, because that was an issue that had been the subject of a particular lack of clarity over the many decades and centuries that we have been relying on the common law and third party right regime. Again, in our evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the use of third party rights legislation in England. We have heard that lawyers in England and Wales have been quite slow to use the equivalent English legislation. As you have already touched on, ministers often use work around such as collateral warranties. Instead of third party rights, again, you said an earlier answer. You think that things will take time if the bill is enacted, but do you consider that there is a similar risk that the same problems will occur in Scotland, as we have seen perhaps in England? I think that it is important to recall that, when the 99 act was introduced for England and Wales, prior to that, there had been no possibility of conferring a third party right. Under English common law, the absolute rule was what is called privity of contract. Your contract was absolutely between the parties to the contract, and it had no effect beyond that. Therefore, for England and Wales, the 99 legislation introduced the concept for the very first time. I would imagine that, as a result, it is not simply that you are codifying a right that has existed at common law, but that you are actually introducing a new right. Therefore, it may be that there has been a certain reluctance to try something new that parties may prefer to do what they know, which is to go with the collateral warranty route in particular. However, I understand from reading the evidence that things may be starting to change in England. As I said earlier, with the slightly key question marks now coming in with regard to collateral warranties, in particular with respect to their enforceability, we may continue to see an increasing recourse in England and Wales to their legislation. Of course, the position in Scotland is slightly different in that, as I said, we have had a common law regime of third-party rights for centuries. What we have found is that we have had problems in those third-party rights being the regime of parties having recourse to our common law regime for the various reasons that are explained, but we nonetheless have had third-party rights as part of our legal system for hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of years. Therefore, by codifying our law, we are not introducing, per se, something new. We are simply hoping to make it more accessible to people. Therefore, we start from a slightly different place. Whether in the end of the day that that will have a different result in terms of recourse to our legislation, I think that we have to wait and see. I think that we are optimistic that, by removing the obstacle to the recourse to our third-party law regime, we have seen that, over time and with the information awareness point that Stuart McMillan made, we will see an increasing recourse to our legislation in the way that we have seen. Further to this committee's work on the Legal Writings, Counterparts and Delivery 2015 Act 2015, I think that officials have conducted a kind of anecdotal survey that suggests that that is starting to change previous requirements in terms of extensive activity to get a document executed by all parties. Therefore, I think that we have started to see changes there. We would be hopeful that, with this legislation, over time, we would also see similar changes in terms of increased recourse to our legislation. We can tell from your evidence that you believe that this legislation would provide a helpful option to people. What in particular could the Scottish Government do to try and encourage the pace of change? You have mentioned law conferences and there is a job of work here for the legal professions. Is there anything in particular that the Scottish Government has considered? We are happy to work alongside, collaboratively, with the various professions that are most obviously involved, together with business, to ensure that parties and practitioners in Scotland know that there is a more accessible option now or will be if the act is passed available to them. We are happy to consider any particular ideas in that regard. Does the Scottish Government quite content to see a flexible approach to remainment? We took evidence from some witnesses from the construction sector, for example, and they were positive about that, but they were quite realistic and said that the use of collateral warranties will probably continue. For lots of clients and investors, that would be the first point of call. Are you quite relaxed about that? We accept that, in Scotland, as I referred to, freedom of contract is an overarching principle of contract law in Scotland and therefore it is entirely up to the parties to choose how they wish to construct their own contract in whatever field it is. The role of government is not to come and impose a dictate on how they do that. The role of government is to facilitate options for them to ensure that Scotland's law, particularly in the commercial field, is keeping a pace with other jurisdictions so that people operating here in Scotland—not just in the commercial field but given that that was the reference that the member raised, but that they have the option and that is the way that we would intend to proceed. There would be no requirement that they invoke the bill, but we would hope over time that they would see the advantages of invoking the bill. It is fair to say that the more familiarity that practitioners have with the legislation, the more likely it is that they will be at least open to suggesting to their clients that this is something that the client may wish to consider. We can have grounds for reasonable optimism that legislation that will, over time, be seen as a help in Scotland's law and not a hindrance. Thank you very much. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Section 406 of the bill includes rules that stop contracting parties modifying or canceling a third party right. Could you outline how those provisions will work in practice? Okay, I understand that there have been different views expressed about section 406. I think that the general view is that they are seen as balanced and that the objective that the insertion of those provisions is trying to secure is a reasonable objective. That is, if we go back to the basic problem that had arisen with regard to recourse to Scotland's common law in the area of third party rights, that is the issue of irrevocability. It is recognised in the bill, and the bill is important to say that it is a default setting. The parties are still free to contract however they wish, but it is the default setting and it sits within the framework of Scots of the general law on obligations and contracts. However, with regard to section 406, I think that it was recognised that it would be helpful to try to strike a balance in terms of giving the parties to the right to say that they can modify or cancel the contract in effect without the consent of the third party on whom the right had been conferred, but at the same time try to find a balancing to limit that where it would be manifestly unfair. For example, one of the examples in those sections is where the third party has actually relied upon the right, and that has been known to the contracting parties or they should reasonably have been able to foresee that the third party in the circumstances would rely on that right. Therefore, it is felt that in terms of setting up the default structure that it should be a focus of the bill that there should be an attempt to deal with manifest unfairness, and that is what sections 406 are seeking to achieve. I understand that certain, but not all, of those who have given evidence have suggested that there may be a different terminology that they might wish to see, but it seems that they are not all agreed by consensus on what that different terminology would be. We feel that—I think that one issue that has been raised is that the sections 406 in the view of some is unnecessarily complex, but we feel that setting out and codifying the position in legislation and setting up the default position has to deal with the multiplicity of possible facts and circumstances. It is not just a question of a simple, how you have to pay me a sum of money situation. It has to deal with the whole possible set of circumstances with our ken in terms of drafting. Therefore, we have to endeavour to anticipate that. That is why we have been happy to reflect the SLCs carefully, very carefully thought through approach to that issue. That is why we have set out the provisions in the way that we have. We feel quite comfortable with the provisions as they are currently set forth. We have heard from Professor Hugh Beal that, while the equivalent English provisions are cooter and less sophisticated than the Scottish ones, they are possibly easier to understand. A number of other witnesses have also highlighted concerns about the clarity of section 4 and 6 of the bill. Do you think that the provisions are sufficiently clear for courts to follow? I do think that they are clear. I think that, as I was trying to make the point that what we are trying to do is to reflect, we are also going back to first principles. The bill is codifying hundreds of years of Scots law. We have had the tradition of third party rights and we have to not pretend that we are starting from scratch. We are not starting from scratch. We are codifying what has been a centuries-old element of our legal system. Therefore, we have to approach it in that way. A direct comparison with the provisions of the legislation in England and Wales on this particular issue or any other issue is not making the right comparison, because we are comparing a piece of legislation that introduced for the first time third party rights into a legal system. That is not the case with regard to the proposed legislation. Therefore, we are starting at a different place and we have to reflect that in the drafting of our provisions. Instead of seeking to have to quote Professor Beall a cruder version, I am not entirely sure that that is what the Government is seeking to ensure that the integrity of Scots law would be seeking to do as a first choice. Rather, we should seek to draft the provisions in a way that will hopefully meet what they are seeking to achieve, which is to slightly balance the issue of fairness in terms of the position of the third party. I hope that that is helpful to the member. The Faculty of Advocates has argued in its written evidence that the drafting of section 9 of the bill could be improved. What is your view on the faculty's point of view and its suggestions in relation to the redrafting of this section? Yes, good morning. I am aware that the faculty has certain concerns about the drafting, albeit not what the section 9 is seeking to do, which is to allow those third party rights to be arbitrated. However, I know that they have some concerns about drafting. We feel quite comfortable that the drafting reflects the objective of being sought. We are not entirely sure whether there may be some misunderstanding in terms of some of the argumentation that is put forward by the faculty on that point. However, if there is clear evidence that there would be a better way to achieve the obvious objections of section 9, we would be happy to look at that. However, we feel that we have the drafting right on the issue. However, if there is clear evidence that we need to look again at that, we would be happy to do that. It would be fair to say, Minister, that we have had a lot of evidence to suggest that it could be made clearer that perhaps more elegant might be another way of putting it. Given your foregoing responses that you are seeking elegance, would you be considering bringing forward an amendment in that regard or that the case has not yet been made as far as you are considering it? I am not convinced that the case has yet to be made, because I understand that we feel that there has been a certain misunderstanding on the part of those who have a problem with the drafting. We do not feel that they have quite understood the way that section 9 sits in the bill and it is into a relationship with other sections, including the key definition section, but perhaps it is a joke. It is helpful to hear from you. I think that what the minister said is exactly right. I think that we would still like some time to work through with the Scottish Law Commission and, in particular, David Bartos, who helped them a great deal on their chapter on arbitration just to work out whether there is a very real issue or not, because we are not convinced at the moment. However, as the minister says, if there is an issue, of course, we will be happy to consider an amendment, but we are not quite there yet. For my lack of hearing, you are in discussion with David Bartos and others in this regard at the moment by way of explanation. Thank you very much. That is very helpful. I want to move to section 122 of the bill and section 122 of the bill protects existing third-party rights that are acquired before the act has come into force from abolition. It is written evidence that the law, Shepard and Wetterburn, argues that the reference to acquired in this section means that existing conditional third-party rights may not be protected from abolition as they will not be acquired until the condition is fulfilled, which might not happen until the act has come into force. What is the Scottish Government's view on this argument? Yes, I think that it was a very good point raised by Shepard and Wetterburn, and it is certainly clear that the intention is to ensure that a contingent, if you like, conditional use, coetition and tertiary third-party rights currently in existence are able to be enforced at the time of crystallisation of the right, and it is absolutely not the intention of the bill to do anything that would hinder that. Therefore, I think that it is clear that we need to reflect further on our drafting on that particular point, because I think that the use of the word acquired, while it is clear in one regard, could perhaps benefit from further clarity just to ensure that there is absolutely no dubiety about the fact that these contingent third-party rights are absolutely not affected by currently in existence by this legislation, so it is something that we will be actively looking at. I think that that would be very welcome. I must say from our point of view, and we wouldn't want you to see something that somebody had taken away from them. Therefore, we would want to see them maintained. I am now moving on to adjudication. If I may minister and some witnesses have indicated that it might be worth investigating whether the bills, rules and arbitration could be applied to adjudication used in the construction sector, others have suggested that this would overcomplicate and slow down the adjudication process. What are the Scottish Government's views on the concerns raised within the construction industry in relation to the arbitration section of the bill? Further to the evidence provided, I understand that officials are currently looking at the issue of the housing grants, the adjudication process, specifically as regards construction in the housing grants construction and regeneration act 1996, and that is currently being looked at. We will reflect on the specific nature of that. In terms of adjudication in general, I think that the point was made by Hewdon Dass that if we were to add adjudication, he took the view that it would not be necessary and could be confusing, and that was, as you have alluded to, as against others who felt that this might be something worth looking at. I think that an important point to bear in mind in this regard is that adjudication, as far as I understand it, is a temporary process and would lead to either the courts or agreement, the courts or arbitration. I think that that probably was the starting of point in terms of the consideration of this issue or one of the points. I think that it is also important to recall why it was necessary to have a specific reference to arbitration in the bill. That is because the 2010 Arbitration Scotland Act expressly limits the possibility of invoking the act to those parties who are parties to the arbitration agreement themselves. Therefore, in order to displace that provision of that statute, as far as third party rights are concerned in the circumstances set forth, we had to make an express reference to the arbitration act. We are not necessarily convinced that that would be the same for other forms of dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, that is why there has not been a reference to other forms in the act, but we are reflecting on that point just to ensure that we have the act and the legislation drafted in the best way possible to not inadvertently exclude those proceedings that could be included. Excellent. I think that that is certainly what we would want to hear in that regard, and that is still if you like a work in progress. Thank you for that, minister. Now we move to the human rights element of this bill. The policy memorandum explains that the bill complies with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to a fair trial, as it gives third parties a choice of using arbitration. Can you expand on why the bill complies with the convention? Well, the presiding officer has ruled that the bill is within scope, so I would not want to second guess the presiding officer. However, just for clarity, I think that the point being raised here is the issue of whether you can be forced, if you like, to give up your otherwise recourse to the courts. In terms of the arbitration provisions, it is clear. Going back to first principles about conferring a third party right, you cannot impose an obligation, you cannot impose a requirement for a party to proceed with arbitration, you can simply facilitate it and it would be up to the party to choose to do so or not and therefore waive in that instance their rights to the courts. That is why, at its essence, given that there is no compulsion, there is no breach of article 6. I think that that is very welcome, and I would certainly want you to be absolutely clear in that regard, because where the Parliament has tripped up, as you will be well aware in over the last number of years, has been this removal of the element of choice, which has seemed to be where we have fallen foul. So, as long as we are not removing choice then. We are facilitating an option to choose arbitration. Going back to first principles, conferring a third party right is simply that you cannot impose an obligation on the third party in your contract, you cannot do that. It is up to the third party to accept the right or not, the third party doesn't need to accept the right. In terms of the first element of the arbitration provision, it is clear that, in terms of the right being conferred, part of that package is—or could be—that the matter would be, in event of dispute, subject to arbitration, but the third party in accepting the right is accepting the package, and that is the key issue. Okay, thank you very much. I thank you, Alison. I now move to Stuart McMillan. Mr McMillan, please. Thank you, convener. Minister, on in your comments, when you spoke about the third party rights and the length of time that has been in operation in Scotland, it has gone back hundreds of years. I am certainly not going to argue with you in that particular area. Some of the evidence that we have received has highlighted that there has been an issue with the third party rights in Scotland since the Second World War. Do you think that there actually is an argument that the pace of reform in the law reform area has actually been too slow? In an ideal world, I guess, one would like to see a lot of activity and a lot of fronts, but, realistically, particularly taking into account complex areas of the law, you want to get it right and you want to have discussion. That is what the SLC has done with regard to the complex area of the law. It has proceeded with extensive consultation. It has carefully considered the responses that it has received. It has then proceeded with a draft. It has had further discussions on particular issues. We now have the stage 1 evidence session with the minister today. We would all like to see things happen more quickly in life, but realistically, in very complex areas of civil law particularly, there is a process to be followed. The point of the process would be to ensure that we get the best piece of legislation that our collective endeavours can possibly arrive at. I think that the prize is therefore worth a wee bit more of a delay, but I understand that Scotland is not unique in this regard. I think that one of the evidence sessions suggested that, for the English and Welsh legislation in 1999, there was a reference to perhaps the first possible mootings of doing something before the Second World War. Things tend to move not as quickly as the general public would like to see, but, as a matter of getting it right, it is important to proceed without undue haste. Of course, we can always strive to do things better. Thank you. Certainly, an issue that arose in some of the evidence sessions was that regarding the black hole of non-liability and something that has come up by some witnesses. We understand that the SLC is considering this issue separately. One of the things that has come up regarding the SLC and its activity seems to have been on individual areas of law. However, in terms of the whole process of law reform, is there an argument that the law reform could be speeded up if further law reform bills incorporated more than just one specific area of the law? That is an interesting question. I guess that that is one possible way. Of course, I think that we have seen both at Westminster when Westminster is still legislated, exclusively in the area of the Scottish civil law and indeed in this Parliament, in terms of some bills, that, once you have an omnibill, things can get a bit rushed and difficult. Instead of being a focus, a clear, straightforward focus on the matter at hand, you get all these bits added, you have unintended consequences, something else needs to be added at the last minute to deal with something else that you have included earlier on. It could become a bit of a hotch potch, so I think that you have to have a balance of proceeding in an orderly fashion, but also respecting the interests of the public in ensuring that we maintain our legal system in an effective and accessible way for the benefit of all of our citizens. There is a balance, but it is an interesting question and one that I can pursue further in my next meeting with Lord Pentland perhaps. One should bear in mind that the wider the reach of the bill in terms of the bringing in within its scope, a whole series of not necessarily interlocked issues raises issues in terms of how that bill then ends up further to its parliamentary handling. There is no ideal solution to the issue at hand, but we are certainly encouraged to note that the SLC is proceeding with its next programme of reform. I think that they were just about to announce that. I will launch that tomorrow, but it is torn. This bill and probably the legal writings bill are a good example of something that is from a big contract framework that the SLC are looking at. If you wait until they concluded all of that, we would be waiting even longer for law reform to happen, but by breaking it down into bite-sized chunks, at least something is happening and improvements are being made. We would just wait longer, but there is a programme for the 10th programme of law reform launches tomorrow. Certainly, on the legal writings that I was on, the committee looked at that as well. I think that the point regarding the bite-sized chunks is well made. I think that the potential going forward without having a bill that is overarching, but maybe to have two or three bite-sized chunks, if they are compatible, might be something worth considering, compared to just individual bite-sized chunks going forward. Exactly. Each instance would depend, I suppose, on the facts and circumstances of what you were seeking to do and what possible things could be combined. It is an issue that I am happy to raise in my next meeting with Lord Pentland, which I do not know when it is set for, but I am sure that it is soon. Is anyone any further supplementary questions for the minister? If not, it remains for me to thank the minister and Joe Clark and Katrina Marshall for accompanying her today, and for giving us your evidence so elegantly. Thank you very much indeed. We will now reflect on what you have said and look forward to the stage 1 process continuing. Thank you very much. Can I now just suspend the meeting for a moment? Okay, everyone, shall we start again? We move now to agenda item 4, which is instrument subject to affirmative procedure, and no points have been raised by our legal advisers on the draft Apologies Scotland Act 2016, accepted proceedings regulations 2017. Is the committee content with this instrument? Thank you very much. I will now move on to agenda item 5, instrument subject to negative procedure, and the next instrument for consideration is the Electricity Works Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland Regulations 2017 SSI 2017 No. 101. The purpose of those regulations is to update and replace the Electricity Works Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland Regulations 2000 in order to implement Directive 2014-52 EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The committee notes that the meaning of Regulation 31C could be clearer if the provision referred to the consultation bodies as defined in Regulation 2.1, rather than those authorities as drafted. That is particularly the case, as no authorities appear to be referred to in Regulation 31C. Accordingly, does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of Parliament on Ground H as the meaning of Regulation 31C could be clearer? The committee also notes that there are errors in Regulations 13, 5, B, 18, 1, 29, 3 and 34 that are all similar in nature. Those provisions all fail to properly cross-reference other provisions either in the same instrument or in other regulations that have been acknowledged by the Scottish Government. On that basis, does the committee also agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general ground as the regulations contain the following minor drafting errors related to cross-referencing. Firstly, Regulation 13, 5, B refers to Regulation 11, 1 of the Environmental Information Scotland Regulations 2004, but it was intended to refer to Regulation 11, 2 of those regulations. Secondly, under Regulation 18, 1 refers to a notice published under Regulation 21, 1, but it was intended to refer only to Regulation 14, 2 C. Thirdly, Regulation 29, 3 refers to particulars in paragraph 2C, but it was intended to refer to paragraph 2A. Fourthly, Regulation 34 refers to Regulation 30 to 32, but it was intended to refer to Regulations 31 to 33 on electronic communications. The committee notes that the Scottish Government intends to bring forward anemending instrument to rectify the errors in the regulations that are identified above. Does the committee agree to welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to bring forward anemending instrument? The next item for consideration is the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland Regulations 2017, SSI 2017, number 102. The purpose of those regulations is to update and replace the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland Regulations 2011, SSI 2011, number 139, to implement certain provisions of the directive 2014, number 52, EU. Like the Electricity Works Environmental Impact Assessment Scotland Regulations 2017, SSI 2017, number 101, the committee notes that those regulations raise a matter of drafting clarity. Specifically, with regard to Regulation 421C, it would be clearer if the provision referred to the consultation bodies as defined in Regulation 2.1 rather than those authorities as drafted. Accordingly, does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the attention of Parliament on Ground H as the meaning of Regulation 421C could be clearer? The committee also notes that the instrument contains some minor drafting errors that have been acknowledged by the Scottish Government. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the regulations to the attention of Parliament on the general reporting ground in light of the following minor drafting errors? First, Regulation 196B refers to Regulation 111 of the Environmental Information Scotland Regulations 2004, but it was intended to refer to Regulations 112 of those regulations. Secondly, there is an error in schedule 6 revocations in the citation of the waste meaning of hazardous waste and European waste catalogue, Miscellaneous Amendments Scotland Regulations 2016, as they are the 2015 regulations. The committee notes that the Scottish Government has confirmed that it intends to bring forward an amending instrument to make the changes to Regulation 196B and 421C. Does the committee agree to recommend that the planned amendment should also correct the error in schedule 6? No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the flood risk management flood protection schemes, potentially vulnerable areas and local planned districts Scotland amendment Regulations 2017, SSI 2017 number 112. Is the committee content with this instrument? Final instrument for consideration in instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure is the Act of Sederent Fatal Accident Inquiry Rules 2017, SSI 2017 number 103. The purpose of the instrument is to set the procedural rules that apply in the sheriff court in relation to fatal accident inquiries. This follows the enactment by the Scottish Parliament last year of the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden deaths, etc. Scotland Act 2016. The committee notes that rules 1, 2, 1 and 3.5 and paragraph 19 of schedule 4 as currently drafted appear to be defective. Accordingly, does the committee agree to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament and Ground I in respect of the following instances of defective drafting? First, the definition of apply and related expressions in rule 1.21, which means to apply in accordance with schedule 1, does not provide for an exception where the context requires otherwise. That is despite the instrument containing a number of references to apply and related expressions that are not intended to engage the procedure in schedule 1. In addition, the procedure in schedule 1 incorrectly applies in relation to rule 3.5 in connection with a person who is not given notice of an inquiry under section 17.1 of the fatal accidents and sudden deaths, etc. Scotland Act 2016, but who wishes to apply? Also paragraph 19 of schedule 4 incorrectly includes in the definition of legal representative a person having a right to conduct litigation or a right of audience by virtue of section 27 of the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Scotland Act 1999. In addition, our legal advisers have also raised a number of minor drafting errors. Does the committee therefore agree to draw the instrument to the attention of Parliament on the general ground as the instrument contains the following minor drafting errors? Rule 4.84 refers to the fees payable under paragraph 2, but it was intended to refer to paragraph 3. Form 3.1 in schedule 3 does not reflect rule 3.12f insofar as it does not provide for the first notice to be to set out in the case of a discretionary inquiry under section 6 of the 2016 act, which condition in section 6 3A of that act is met. The signing block in form 7 in form S4.7 in schedule 3 is missing. The heading of form S5.5C in schedule 3 does not reflect that the form can be completed by the participant who obtained an order for recovery of documents in terms of paragraph 5.3b of schedule 5, and paragraph 5.1b of schedule 5 refers to a participant executing commission and diligence under paragraph 4, but it was intended to refer to paragraph 6. The Lord President's private office has undertaken to rectify, you will be pleased to know, all of the errors identified at the next available opportunity, which will be considered in light of the meeting timetable of the Scottish Civil Justice Council. Does the committee agree to welcome that the Lord President's private office has undertaken to keep the committee informed of this? In addition, with a view to clarifying the correspondence with the Lord President's private office, does it also agree to recommend that the proposed amendments should also include inserting a signing block in form S4.7 within the schedule? We will now move to agenda item 7, which concerns the Domestic Abuse Scotland Bill. It is the consideration of the committee's approach to the delegated powers provision in the bill. The powers are limited to ancillary and commencement powers. It is suggested that the committee could be content with the powers. Does the committee agree that it is content with the powers in the bill and to prepare a stage 1 report in this regard? Many thanks. I now move the meeting into private.


The amazing Emerita Mather is here. She is the VP of Marketing at ClickUp. Can you tell us a little bit how you got to where you are today? Just been in tech my whole life, just hopped around a bunch of different companies, mostly done growth stage startups at SuperSide, which was like where I was for four years just previously. I joined them super early, like pre-product, grew the business to 45 million just before I left. So pretty good growth story. So did that. And then now my ClickUp, ClickUp is way more established. I've never worked at a company like this, like ever. They're like super established business, like 160 million. Like they raised 400 million a couple of years ago.   But yet, even with all of that, there's so much opportunity.