The next item of business is a debate on motion <IP_ADDRESS> in the name of Annabelle Ewing on the contract third party right Scotland bill at stage 1. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now? Can I call on Annabelle Ewing to speak and to move the motion minister? Thirteen minutes are thereabouts, please. To open the stage of the contract third party right Scotland bill. The bill is the result of some solid law reform work on the part of the Scottish Law Commission. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the team at the Scottish Law Commission for their considerable hard work in producing their report and the draft bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their very thorough and considered deliberations on the bill. I particularly welcome their stage 1 report and I am pleased to note that, in turn, the committee welcomes the legislation and recommends that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. I am glad also that the committee recognises the support among stakeholders for the bill and that the changes that the bill will make to the current law are widely welcomed. In the report, the committee highlighted a number of issues to which it has invited the Scottish Government to reflect further upon. I hope that the committee has had an opportunity to consider my response to the stage 1 report, but I will return in more detail to those issues a bit later in my opening remarks. The bill addresses some fundamental difficulties with the law as it stands, and it will remove the barriers that are stopping people having confidence in the law and using the law. The ability to create third-party rights is important. There are many reasons for third-party rights to be created, and those apply to individuals as much as to business. For example, when booking a family holiday, it may be beneficial for family members other than the person who booked the holiday to be able to enforce the rights under the contract, but at the present time that is an area plagued with difficulty. Also another example would be taking out life insurance, the proceeds of which are payable to another person. It would of course be of value to the third-party beneficiary to be able to enforce terms of the insurance policy in their favour, but again in terms of where we are with the current law that also is plagued with difficulty. Another example would be a company within a group taking out an IT contract where it wants all of the companies in the group to be covered. Again, it may be helpful if group companies who are not partied to the IT contract are able to sue under the contract, for example in relation to losses suffered as a result of any breach, but again that is another area of economic life where we see considerable difficulties in terms of our current common law. In everyday life and in business, it can therefore be very helpful to create third-party rights. It can provide important entitlements and protections for, as we have seen, not just businesses but also importantly for individuals. For that reason, we need a legal system that is fit for purpose and which keeps up with the times. As the Faculty of Advocates representative Dr Ross Anderson said when he gave evidence to the committee, the bill will ensure that Scots law provides the tools that practitioners and others need. The bill is therefore intended to address a number of problems with the law as it stands. For a third-party right to be in existence, the current law requires that the contracting parties intended to benefit the third party and that the right is constituted irrevocably. However, this common law doctrine is rarely used in Scotland and has been the subject of criticism on the basis that it is inflexible. There are many uncertainties around the application of the law and that it does not meet modern standards. I note that, on the issue of irrevocability, the committee welcomes its abolition and the flexibility that the new legislation provides. The law has also been criticised as being unclear with Lord Reid of the UK Supreme Court, remarking that there is a need for commercial parties to have clearer rules in relation to third-party rights under contract. The absence of confidence in the law as it stands among Scots law practitioners means that English law is sometimes chosen in place of Scots law to govern transactions that are otherwise Scottish in nature. The current uncertainty over third-party rights and lack of flexibility damages the reputation of Scots law by limiting its use. Of course, it would be possible to allow the status quo to continue and to effectively leave it to the courts to improve the law through judicial reform. However, if that approach was taken, although some policy objectives might be achieved by the courts under the common law, that cannot be predicted or guaranteed and would certainly take much longer than the statutory route offered by the bill. I am not wishing to engage in a law lecture, but I see that there are some eminent jurists here before us. However, the leading case on irrevocability dates back to the 1920s. I am sure that the Tory front bench knows what case I am going to be citing, which is, of course, Carmichael's executive tricks—that seminal case on third-party rights and irrevocability. However, even assuming that a suitable case might arise, which might be doubtful if English law is being used instead, as a workaround, there is no guarantee with the approach that the policy of the objectives of the bill would be realised. In addition, any court decision would only examine the relevant facts of that particular case. It would be unlikely to look at the law in the round and would therefore be unlikely to produce a comprehensive solution in the way that the bill does. That uncertainty is unsatisfactory for practitioners and others who have to base advice to clients on the present law. We see therefore no benefits in that non-statutory approach. The law in Scotland on third-party rights would be likely to remain out of date and inflexible and would continue to constitute unnecessary hindrance to business and to individuals alike. I welcome the very positive evidence that has been presented to the committee from a range of witnesses. Although, like the committee, we do not think that the bill will result in transformational change overnight, we are, however, confident that placing the law of third-party rights on a statutory footing will represent a significant improvement on what we have now and that, over time, and perhaps and hopefully not too long a time, we will see an increase in the use of Scots law. By that, I simply mean that we are Scottish solicitors who are currently turning to those alternatives, those work-arounds such as applying English law to the contract or that part of the contract or having recourse to collateral warranties because of a lack of confidence in our law as it stands and because of the current difficulties with which the committee is familiar, there will be the welcome option of this legislation and it seems clear that there are practitioners out there keen to make use of it. More than once, I have also heard that, although some might be able to adopt expensive and complicated work-arounds to the law as it stands, that facility, as the Law Society of Scotland rightly pointed out in its submission ahead of this debate, that facility is not available to everyone, but everyone deserves a legal framework that works. That bill, Presiding Officer, will deliver that workable framework. It is fair to say that any issues about the bill have focused on a few drafting issues, and, as I mentioned, the committee invited the Scottish Government to reflect upon those. I will now turn to some of the issues. I am very grateful indeed to the committee for raising and bringing those to my attention. One issue that the committee raised was whether the bill inadvertently fails to preserve conditional undertakings that are constituted before the legislation comes into force, but which third-party right may in fact crystallise after the commencement of the legislation. That was a point that was noted in written evidence from Shepard and Wedderburn. Those concerns relate to section 12, which abolishes the common law rules on third-party rights, otherwise known as use-quisition tertiary. We have considered carefully the points that were made and raised by Shepard and Wedderburn and discussed in committee, as it clearly was not our intention to seek to make that cut across and to hinder the enforcement of such, if you like, putative third-party rights. We therefore agree that the bill should be amended to address the issue, and I will be bringing forward an amendment at stage 2 to do that. Similarly, we have reflected on the provision at section 10 of the bill, which relates to the renunciation of a third-party right. On the view offered by Professor Vosianar on this section and also the law society's evidence to the Scottish Government that this provision is superfluous, we have concluded that, in fact, section 10 subsection 1 is not needed. Section 10 subsection 1 is simply a statement of what is already a matter of general principle, and we agree that there is no need to restate that in the bill. We are also still considering whether a change should be made to the arbitration provisions at section 9 of the bill to address the concerns raised by the faculty of advocates. Officials have written to the faculty witnesses in this regard, Dr Ross Anderson and David Bartos, about this matter, as I think that their concerns may be down to a small misunderstanding. Officials have suggested a meeting with the representatives of the faculty, and I would wish to reassure the chamber that, if there is a better way of implementing the Scottish Law Commission's report, I would be happy to reflect further on that. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to the principle that legislation should be clear and accessible, but it also needs to be effective. On section 1, as I have set out in my response to the stage 1 report, the Scottish Law Commission gave careful consideration to the use of the word undertaking and concluded that it was the most suitable choice because the undertaking may be found in one or more terms of the contract, express or implied. Against the background of that careful consideration, we are not inclined to interfere likely with the commission's recommendation—that is, number 5, in its report. The provisions in a contract that are intended to comprise the third party's rights that they are under should be referred to as the undertaking. On whether the section is unclear about what the benefit is to the third party, we think that the cumulative effect of sections 1 and 2 is that the undertaking in favour of the third party must be contained in the contract. It must be clear that the contracting party is intended to confer an enforceable right upon the third party thereby, although their intention needs not be stated as such expressly but can be implied from other wording in the contract at admissible surrounding circumstances. The third party must be identified or identifiable from the contract. From that, it is clear that a third party merely benefitting from a contract between others without any of the other requirements being in place is not enough to create any right in that third party. We are therefore content with the effect of section 1. As I explained in my response to the committee, the provisions at sections 4 to 6 need to be capable of dealing with a wide and sometimes complicated range of circumstances and must be fit for all purposes. We would be concerned that, in paring down the provisions to make them perhaps more streamlined, we would lose that capability, which I think would be highly undesirable. In any case, I would flag up that there was no real consensus from witnesses about what revised drafting should look like, and it would be fair to say that their views were mixed. Some found that the drafting here to be quite wordy, but others were content and reflected the product of some careful consideration by the Scottish Law Commission. Ultimately, everyone was, I think, of the view that the sections achieved the right result. That is very encouraging, and I think that that is the most important issue. For all of those reasons, it would not be our intention to amend those sections. I hope that the committee is reassured that we have thought carefully about what it said in its stage 1 report. It seems clear that the bill has struck the right balance by providing an effective legal framework for third-party rights, while preserving the rights of parties to decide if they want to give third-party rights and how they want to give them those rights. As Karen Fynton from Brodie's put it, people will have more confidence that what they have written down will work. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the contract, third-party rights Scotland bill. Thank you very much, minister. I now call on George Scott to speak on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Mr Scott, 10 minutes are there abouts. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I am delighted to speak on behalf of the committee on the contract third-party rights Scotland bill and would refer members to my register of interests. The bill proposes changes to the law in Scotland that allows parties to a contract to create rights for third parties. The main aim of the bill is to make the law clearer and more usable in this area. Members will be aware that this is a Scottish law commission bill. The Scottish law commission bill process itself is a relatively new one, which was created in order to improve the implementation rate of Scottish law commission reports. The bill is now the third Scottish law commission bill to be considered by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee following changes to standing orders in 2013. Those changes provide that certain bills arising from SNLC reports may be referred to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee as the lead committee. That is the first such bill to be considered by the committee in session 5. As members will also be aware of the Scottish law commission's role, it is to make recommendations to the Scottish Government to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland. I would like to take this opportunity to stress on behalf of the committee that we share the objective of improving Scotland's law where we can to ensure that it remains up to date and competitive alongside other legal systems across the world. I would like to thank the Scottish law commission for all the work that it does in helping to achieve that objective. I would also like to thank our clerks, lawyers and officials from SPICE who supported the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in its consideration of the bill. In addition, I would like to thank everyone who provided evidence to the committee on the bill. I think that it would be fair to say that the bill is particularly technical in nature. Therefore, the information, expertise and elegant evidence provided in written and oral form was greatly appreciated by the committee in aiding our understanding of the complex area of law. The committee took evidence from law bodies, academics, arbitrators, representatives from the Scottish Government and, of course, the Scottish Law Commission. The committee endeavoured to capture a wide range of views on the bill. The committee heard evidence from legal practitioners representing sectors that are most likely to be affected by the bill, including the finance and construction industries in less obviously affected areas such as the agricultural sector. We also considered the implications of the bill on small businesses and individuals. By way of background, I now turn to the current law on third-party rights in Scotland, which is based on common law and has existed for centuries. I will briefly explain what is currently required to create third-party rights in Scots law. Firstly, there needs to be a contract. Secondly, the contract must identify the third party in some way and the intention of the contract to confer a right on a third party, whether by implication or derived from an express provision in the contract. Lastly, the third party right needs to be irrevocable, meaning that it needs to be clear to a third party that the contracting parties to the contract intended to give up their right to change their minds about granting a third party right. However, there are concerns about the lack of clarity, certainty and inflexibility within the current law, which has resulted in legal practitioners and their clients not using Scots law of third-party rights and instead relying on English law or work around such as collateral warrantries. Further, a key problem with the current common law on third-party rights is that it has been developed on the basis of case law, but that development itself is dependent on cases being brought forward. However, as this is an area of law where no cases have been brought forward, there is continuing uncertainty as the position of the law. Indeed, the current position was dramatically explained to the committee by David Christie of Robert Gordon University as a death spiral of third-party rights, as the lack of clarity in the law prevents its use, which therefore leads to a lack of case law, which in turn prevents the law from being developed, meaning that this uncertainty continues. The uncertainty that Bill seeks to remedy stems from a House of Lords judgment that was made in the 1920s, as the ministers referred to, which stated that, once someone had been given a third party right, it was irrevocable. In other words, it could not be taken away, cancelled or modified. The committee heard that the judgment has created significant inflexibility in the law as a result, and legal practitioners tend to shy away from using it, more recently favouring English law or work-arounds instead. Therefore, the main proposal of the bill is to abolish the existing rule that third-party rights have to be irrevocable once created, thus making it easier to create and subsequently remove third-party rights in contracts. In order to help the committee to understand how the bill might be used in practice, the Scottish Law Commission helped to provide some examples and written evidence to the committee of when the bill might be used in practice. For example, the bill will make it easier for contracting parties to create third-party rights in their contract even if a third party does not yet exist. That is often the case in relation to companies within a group structure that have not yet been formed at the time of creation of a third party right. I now turn to the committee's key conclusions on the bill. First, it is clear that universal support for the bill is moving from the current common law position to a statutory footing that will provide greater clarity for users of the law, namely legal practitioners and their clients. As well as greater clarity, the bill will also provide greater flexibility for users of the law. As I have already mentioned, currently in Scotland, third-party rights have to be irrevocable to be made. The proposed legislation abolishes this rule and will make it easier to create and subsequently remove third-party rights in contracts. The committee therefore welcomes the abolition of this rule. Nonetheless, and while recognising that it was not appropriate for the bill, the committee encouraged the Scottish Government in its report to further reflect on the protections that are in place for smaller businesses. It is therefore pleasing to note the role highlighted in the Scottish Government's response for the small business commissioner in affording those protections to such smaller businesses. The committee also recognises that protections and balances are required to protect third parties, particularly as the bill will allow those rights to be changed or indeed cancelled altogether. The committee therefore welcomes the protections that are included in the bill in sections 4 to 6. However, I would like to highlight concerns raised by a variety of stakeholders about the clarity and usability of the provisions in those sections. Although the committee welcomes the protection for third parties included in the bill in those sections, the committee invited the Scottish Government to reflect on the evidence received from stakeholders, particularly the faculty of advocates in sections 4 to 6. I note from the response to the stage 1 report that the Scottish Government does not intend to amend those sections. I recognise that there was no unanimity on how those sections should be amended, but it is perhaps a little disappointing that a revised form of words could not be found. The committee also received evidence from stakeholders highlighting the need for greater drafting clarity in sections 9, 10 and 12 of the bill. While I do not intend to detail those drafting concerns, we welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to amend section 10 and 12 and to reflect further on the drafting of section 9. Although I have outlined some of the principal benefits that would be derived from the passing of the bill, the committee is also aware that it may not be widely used in the short term. Indeed, the committee heard evidence of the equivalent new legislation in England and Wales that has been in place since 1999 is only now starting to be used. However, it is worth highlighting that the Scottish context with regard to third party rights is different from that of the English one. As I have mentioned, there is already a legal tradition of third party rights in Scotland under common law that did not exist in England and Wales prior to 1999. Therefore, the proposed bill does not start from a blank sheet of paper on third party rights. On that basis, the committee recognises that there is scope for the legislation to be used more quickly than has been the case in England and Wales. There are also technical and financial difficulties associated with the continuous use of work around such as collateral warrantries. The committee believes that there is good reason for greater use of the proposed legislation to avoid those difficulties in future. I highlighted at the start of the speech the importance of ensuring that Scott's law is fit for purpose in order to remain modern and competitive alongside other legal systems across the world. Our committee is of the view that the introduction of the bill would be a useful tool for legal practitioners and their clients to have available to them when setting up third party rights and contracts. We would encourage the Scottish Government to promote the advantages of the legislation should the bill be passed by the Scottish Parliament. The committee therefore has no hesitation in recommending to the Parliament that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. Thank you, Mr Scott. I call Murdo Fraser to speak to the Conservatives. I should start my contribution by reminding members of the entry in my register of interests, which states that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I do not hold a current practising certificate. There are many challenges that I have faced in my career as a member of this Parliament. There are the complex constituency cases, with which we are all so familiar, where it seems that no matter whatever is put in, it is almost impossible to get a resolution that satisfies the constituent. There are the lively debates in this chamber on a variety of divisive issues where party positions have to be set out and defended, and there are the constant pressures of juggling workload with competing parliamentary constituency and family demands. I can honestly say that there have been a few greater challenges that I have faced in my parliamentary career than trying to craft a seven-minute speech to open the debate out with the bill that we have before us. In saying this, I intend absolutely no slight on the diligent and hardworking members of this Parliament's delegated powers and law reform committee with their able convener, my colleague John Scott, who has already opened the debate for the committee. I enjoyed reading the report, which was a very fair and balanced summary of the issues that are being faced and addressed by the bill. It is fair to say, however, that there is not a lot of controversy around what is being proposed. The two and a half hours that we originally had allocated to debate this afternoon seemed rather over-generous. I am sure that I am not alone to be relieved that that has now been reduced to two hours. I suspect that many of us will end up making very similar points in the course of the afternoon, and I am refreshed by the fact that I am one of the earlier speakers in the debate. To the bill, Presiding Officer, this arose from work done by the Scottish Law Commission. An excellent body is probably undervalued, whose members beaver a way to address important, but sometimes seemingly minor changes in the law. I would like to echo the remarks from the minister about the importance of the Scottish Law Commission and the approach that it takes towards dealing with legislative reform. The bill deals with third-party rights, specifically allowing rights to be conferred by contracting parties upon a person who is not a party to the contract. That is what is known in Scots law as the use of classitum tertio, if I remember the pronunciation correctly from my law lectures many years ago. It is good enough for me, and I was remembering it too. The issue that was identified by the Law Commission was, as we have previously heard, that third-party rights could only be conferred if they were deemed to be irrevocable. That created a problem for those who are dealing with commercial contracts. If a third-party right was not deemed to be irrevocable, then it could not be enforceable in the Scottish courts. In practice, there were many situations in which it would not suit the two contracting parties to have those third-party rights deemed to be granted on an irrevocable basis. There is, in practice, always a way around those problems. In practice, Scots lawyers have got round this by drafting cholesterol warranties, which are separate documents that convey a specific third-party right standing alongside the main contract document. From my own legal experience, I can well remember good practical examples of the issue arising in the context of construction law, where a new building might be constructed, a developer will engage a range of professionals, including an architect, a structural engineer and a surveyor, in relation to the construction contract. The contract, of course, is between the developer of the building and the professionals, but it is usually the case that, on completion, the building will then be sold on to a third-party or leased. The new owner or the new tenant has no direct contractual relationship with the architect or the other property professionals. If there were a fault with the building, which would lead to a claim having to be made, without appropriate warranties being put in place, or whether it is a matter of not being dressed in another fashion, it would not be possible for the new owner or the tenant to pursue the professionals involved in the event that there were negligence on their part. Under existing practice, those problems were got around by the issue of collateral warranties from the professionals involved. In a previous life, I made a reasonable living out of drafting such documents and revising them, Deputy Presiding Officer. However, the changes in the bill will at least require a new approach to that and may well mean that extensive warranties are no longer required in that situation, and perhaps it will make it easier for commercial and construction contracts to be entered into. I thought that it might be interesting to draw the chamber's attention to the fact that in terms of recent reports, in fact, there are now certain difficulties appearing with regard to enforcement of collateral warranties, and that is another trend to perhaps take into account in that regard. Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to the minister for that intervention. That is a useful additional piece of information to bear in mind. As the committee's report states, we have known about this problem for a long time. Indeed, the issues go back to the Second World War. In England and Wales, the problem was identified as far back as 1937 but was only legislated for in 1999. The gap in Scotland is therefore somewhat longer in terms of getting to legislation, but the good news is that this bill has been introduced after only three years from the date on which the law commission issued a discussion paper, and we have therefore moved relatively quickly to resolve those issues from the point that came to the law commission's attention. The bill has been widely welcomed by stakeholders from all sides. There are, as the committee has identified, a few minor concerns that have been raised about the drafting, which the Scottish Government has been asked to reflect on, and I welcomed the comments from the minister in our opening statements about how the Government tends to respond to the various points in the committee report. Overall, it is a bill that seems to have universal support. The committee considered the question of how quickly the bill would be used once passed and implemented. Lawyers are, by their nature, a conservative beast. That is conservative with a small sea for the purposes of the official report, although sometimes of course with a large sea too, but it is likely that working practices will take some time to adjust to the new legislation. As John Scott has just told us in England and Wales, the 1999 act took a long time to be used, but it should mean that there will be in time a new approach to the preparation of contracts and perhaps less paperwork than is previously the case. In theory, less paperwork will mean quicker deals and lower costs to clients, although from my days in the legal profession I would not want to be over-optimistic on what can be achieved in that direction. I think that I have done my best to fill my time. The subject is a very worthwhile piece of legislation and the Scottish Conservatives will be happy to support it at stage 1. I will now hand the challenge on to others to continue the excitement. Thank you. You are indeed lucky to speak so early on. I am wondering what others are going to manage to say, but I have no doubt that you can imagine something up. I call Clare Baker, who is pleased to open for Labour. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First, I would like to associate myself with opening comments from Murdo Fraser, but I would like to start by thanking the committee for the stage 1 report on the contracts third party rights Scotland bill. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is a fairly recent creation of the Parliament and I understand that this is the first piece of legislation that it has considered in this session. The committee was established in recognition of the pressures, particularly on the Justice Committee in previous sessions, and developed from the previous subordinate legislation committee, the committee has additional role of being the lead committee for bills arising from the Scottish law commission report. Even with the recognition that the Scottish Parliament as an institution has facilitated a significant and necessary increase in law reform, it can still be difficult to ensure parliamentary time for law commission bills, and the appointment of a dedicated committee provides greater opportunity for scrutiny and legislation. The Scottish law commission plays an important role in ensuring that our laws are relevant, easily understood and consistent. Established over 50 years ago, its task is to recommend laws that will improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland. As the bill that we are considering today illustrates, the relationships that are governed by laws are constantly developing and changing as society changes. It is important that the law keeps pace with the way in which the changes to the way in which we live, work and do business. That process is important. If our laws are outdated or unnecessarily complex, they can lead to injustices as well as inefficiencies. Laws that are in need of reform can increase inequality and limit access to justice. The law must be relevant to how people live in society, how we facilitate good business relationships and support people's personal decisions. The bill under consideration today comes with a degree of consensus from committee members and those who gave evidence to the committee. That might suggest that law reform is easy, but I look at other recommendations previously taken forward by the Law Commission, including the abolition of feudal tenure of land and the protection of the rights and interests of adults who are incapable of managing their affairs, demonstrates that the changes can generate a great deal of debate and discussion—perhaps not this afternoon, however. The bill that is being considered today has been thoroughly discussed by the committee, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who have provided evidence over a number of weeks. The bill has been introduced following a long-established understanding that the existing common law governing third-party rights is no longer fit for purpose and a growing confidence that it should be replaced with new statutory rules. A Scottish Law Commission discussion paper from 2014 identified the range of legal and practical problems arising from the current law on third-party rights, primarily concerns around clarity, certainty and inflexibility within the current law. The absence of that has meant that legal practitioners and their clients typically resort to using English law or work-arounds, such as collateral warranties, rather than using the Scottish law of third-party rights. Evidence has been recognised that the law does not allow the flexibility that people need in today's commercial or personal legal transactions. Although the bill is widely supported, there were a few issues raised for further consideration as we look towards stage 2. In changing the rights of third parties by the abolition of the irrevocability rule and introducing new flexibility, the counter to that is the need for the protection of third parties, given that their rights could then be changed or cancelled altogether. Some suggestions have been made to improve the drafting, which the Government should reflect on. One of the more interesting comments regarding that was from Craig Connell QC, who said in evidence, that when I see sections that talk about reliance and to a material extent, I wonder what that means and think to myself that we can litigate over that. In evidence, the Government was reluctant to look at redrafting. In a briefing for today's debate, the law society considers signposting regarding the content and effectiveness of sections 4, 5 and 6 would improve the accessibility of the legislation, a suggestion that underlines the purpose of the bill. There was also evidence of a need to redraft parts of section 9 on arbitration, but again the Government appeared inflexible at the committee. I recognise the Government's commitment to review those sections and the comments from the minister this afternoon, so we will see what arrives at stage 2. There was a discussion at the committee around arbitration as the only available dispute resolution mechanism, which suggests that that might not best serve all contracts, particularly construction contracts, and not provide flexibility. I note the committee and the minister's comments that they were not persuaded of that case, but I hope that there is an opportunity for further reflection. The bill aims to provide a new statutory framework with clearer, more usable rules on third-party rights and provide clarity in Scots law. However, there is, right at the outset, a recognition that, while the bill seeks to address the use of workabouts or the deployment of English law, it is not expected to be widely adopted any time soon. While there is undoubtedly evidence to support the need for the bill, it is initially unlikely to be used very often with a preference for the familiar and a tendency towards caution or conservatism, as described by Murdo Fraser, to be anticipated from the legal profession. However, witnesses, including the Law Society and the RIS, suggest that the benefits offered by the legislation may encourage legal practitioners and clients to use the bill, particularly those in the pursuit of flexibility, which is currently offered by English law. Others identify difficulties with the use of collateral warranties. The faculty of advocates make an interesting point that the accessibility and clarity of the legislation may be an advantage to people who are unable to access expensive legal advice. The Law Society briefing for today states that it is important to bear in mind that the legislation will significantly improve the position of parties who are always going to use Scots law, particularly those who cannot afford the legal advice that is necessary to set up an arrangement that uses foreign law of a complex alternative. Their interests should not be forgotten. If it can increase the quality and good legal practice, that is to be welcomed. There is, however, no expectation that the bill will immediately make any difference to working practices, but it addresses an identified weakness in Scots law and provides an additional tool to be used alongside other existing alternatives. There is a role for the Scottish Government and partners to highlight the potential benefits of the legislation. Although challenges have been identified, raising awareness will lead to the appropriate use of the legislation, increasing confidence and familiarity. In advance of the bill being passed, the Government could reflect on the most appropriate way to achieve that. Thank you very much, Ms Baker. And now, the challenge for the open speakers, Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Alison Harris. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I do not need to address all the bill as both the minister and John Scott, the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, have already undertaken that role in their usual, efficient and particularist manner. I was quite impressed by Murdo Fraser's contribution to Clare Baker and his understanding of what we have discussed as we went through the evidence in the committee. Certainly, Murdo Fraser's contribution is seven minutes, which he clearly felt as if he was struggling to manage. I thought that the whips will be watched and listened to Murdo Fraser this afternoon. We will have appreciated that that was Murdo Fraser's pitch to get a transfer over to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee so that Murdo Fraser can undertake that particular piece of work going forward, and further SLC bills, as the Parliament progresses in this session. Murdo Fraser is not denying it, so it must be true. A couple of points that I want to discuss have been touched upon by previous speakers, but they are worthy of further debate. Before I highlight those points, I want to address one issue. Members know that the bill has come about because of the work of the Scottish Law Commission. That is the third such bill and also the first time in this session that the SLC has sent a bill to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. In the last session, I was on the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in the last session of Parliament, and we undertook a similar piece of legislation. That was the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland Act 2015, passed in 2015. If memory serves me correctly, it was the minister's brother who steered that bill through the session at the time. I genuinely thought that, at that time, using the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee was a useful tool to have in the armory of this Parliament when it comes to the law reform. I am delighted that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee now has that power and that responsibility to look at law reform, because I think that it helps with the wider issue of law reform in Scotland. The DPLR committee has been supportive of the bill, and those who have provided evidence have suggested that. Paragraph 27 to 40 of our committee report touched upon the speed of law reform and the introduction of the bill, in particular, as others have highlighted. As the evidence shows, there was not much by way of concern about that, but, nonetheless, during questioning, I asked the minister in light of the SLC proposals being smaller.  I asked the minister if she and the Scottish Government would consider, alongside the SLC, when further SLC bills are introduced into the Parliament, could they potentially incorporate more than one area of law reform? I am pleased that the minister provided the commitment to explore the issue for the future. As we know that law reform does not take place on a regular basis or in a vacuum, the bill and the area that covers highlights. Therefore, if it can be possible to improve and update the law by more SLC bills covering multiple areas, I believe that we can truly make even more headway in terms of law reform. However, we are not alone, as the bill does highlight, that similar legislation in Westminster was first made in 1937, with the bill being presented to the UK Parliament in 1999. I now want to touch upon a couple of the aspects of the bill. First, the bill provides the certainty that the codification of the law of third-party rights provides certainty for users of Scots law. Our report highlights that in paragraphs 51 to 61. Law firms will be able to use that certainty in legislation instead of using expensive collateral warranties or using law from other jurisdictions. Murdoff Fraser touched upon the issue of the collateral warranties, and it was touched upon as we went through the evidence that they are that they can be expensive. A hint of some organisations might be fair to still use collateral warranties because of the revenue that they can generate for those particular firms. However, I think that this piece of legislation in front of us will certainly help to deal with that and to help Scots law. In our case, it will have the issue of potentially ensuring that cases do not then use English law but can remain using Scots law. Witnesses were clear that there will not be a rush to use the new legislation, as training will certainly be required once it has been enacted. Nonetheless, in time it will be used in a greater number of contracts. That can only be of economic benefit for Scotland. I thought that the evidence from Karen Fountain, a partner with Brody's LLP, was particularly useful when she said that the bill is effectively taking us back to the run-seal moment. The contract should do what it says on the tin. At the moment, you cannot be confident that that is the case and that you need to be confident. I thought that that was a very strong argument to use with that. Johnathan Gaskell of DLA Piper, who provided positive evidence also, stated that, for that reason, the bill is a good thing. It codifies the existing law and gives certainty. The final point that I wish to touch upon concerns sections 4, 5 and 6 of the bill. The evidence that we took as a committee was clear. Witnesses presented their opinions on the clarity of those sections. The Faculty of Advocates suggested that the sections were not easy to follow. The Lost Society of Scotland shared that view. The Lost Society of Scotland has also presented members with a useful brief for today, once again highlighting those particular sections. They provide a suggestion to assist in making those sections clearer. I absolutely agree with the minister and her evidence to the committee, as we touched upon that in paragraph 90. However, our committee in paragraph 91 invites the Scottish Government to continue to reflect on the clarity and usability of the provisions. As members will know, we received the Scottish Government's response today and have read it. I will read it again, as well as the member's contributions from this afternoon. I am afraid—I never thought I would have to say this—that I must ask you to conclude. I have been enjoying the bill. I notice that you are a rarity in the second stage of DPLR. Can I call Alison Harris to be followed by Ben Macpherson, please? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in this afternoon's debate on the bill. I also thank the Scottish Law Commission for its work, which led to the introduction of the bill and for helping us to understand the importance of reform of this area of law. I have been involved in the scrutiny of the bill as part of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I have heard very compelling evidence, along with my fellow committee members, on why the general principles that this bill captures are the correct ones, and I will therefore be supporting it at stage 1 today. Let me turn firstly to the problems with the current approach at common law, which has been consistently identified. We heard from the Scottish Law Commission that the common law was not fit for purpose and that waiting for the courts to change it could take decades. Lord Reid of the UK Supreme Court said that there was a need for clearer rules in relation to third-party rights under contract. Indeed, the current law has remained unchanged since 1920, but in our modern market economy the requirement for reform is more pressing, and that is why it is up to us in this Parliament to embark on reform. One of the main challenges that the current law presents is that it has contributed to significant legal uncertainty. The Law Society of Scotland has said that lawyers are really not comfortable with giving advice to clients in areas such as this where the law is unclear. For example, it is not even clear at present what remedies are available to third parties in the event that their rights are breached. The Scottish Law Commission highlighted the issue as one of the main benefits of codifying the law, calling it the most significant uncertainty in the current Scottish law of third-party rights. The requirement for third-party rights to be a revocable is another serious issue with the existing legal position. That essentially means that, for a third-party right to even be created, the parties must intend to give up the right to change their minds about granting the right at any point in the future. In the committee, we heard a lot of evidence that echoed the concerns of the Scottish Law Commission, which suggested that parties were deterred from creating third-party rights at all because of this requirement, and lawyers are left looking for workarounds such as using English law instead. That happens because the legislation in England, the English contracts, the Rights of Third Parties Act 1999 grants much greater flexibility to the contracting parties. It allows them to terminate or vary the terms of the contract without consent of a third party. That kind of approach encourages the parties to create third-party rights in a way in which the Scottish law deters them from doing. Bringing the law in Scotland on to a statutory footing is beneficial, but, as the committee heard from Hugh Dindass, the honorary vice president of the Scottish Arbitration Centre, the bill is also beneficial as it brings some harmonisation between Scots and English law. He said, and I would agree that, it would be unfortunate if we tripped up on a difference in principle between English and Scottish legislation, given that there is such a high volume of common trade. The main principle that the bill takes forward is the abolition of the existing rule that third-party rights have to be irrevocable to be created. Contracting parties are severely restricted because they cannot build flexibility into a contract at the outset or respond to events as they unfold in a flexible way. The bill can also bring greater clarity to third parties about how they can enforce their rights in a way in which they cannot do so currently. It is essential that, when the Scots law commission and practitioners tell us that the common law is creating commercial barriers, we respond accordingly and pass legislation to remove those barriers. The stage 1 report of the committee highlighted the fact that the general principles of the bill had very broad support, but identified a few areas where it could be strengthened. Although the evidence that we heard suggested that the bill might not be widely used in the short term, I do hope that the greater flexibility that it allows will encourage parties to make use of it in the future. I also welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to reflect on the committee's comments about the drafting of some of the provisions, and I hope that those concerns will be addressed as the bill proceeds. As we work to overcome those challenges, the general principles of the bill remain the correct ones, in my view. In conclusion, this bill gives us the opportunity to bring not only greater clarity to the law but to create a framework that allows third-party rights to become usable. Third-party rights that are properly created and able to be revoked in certain circumstances will be positive for the parties to the contract, as well as for the third parties themselves. By building greater flexibility into our system of the third-party rights in Scotland, we can offer the commercial environment that contracting parties and third parties need. I sincerely hope that the bill can achieve its objective and addresses the concerns that have been identified in the current law. I thank everyone for listening as if they had not heard all of this earlier on in the day. I call Ben Macpherson to be followed by Monica Lennon. May I refer members to my register of interests, my voluntary register of interests, as a non-practising member of the law society and also to my employment history as a solicitor with Brodie's LLP—some of the experiences of which I will refer to in context of this debate. I also thank the Scottish Law Commission for the process in which it took them to this point where we are debating the bill at stage 1 and also to fellow members in the chamber today and on the committee and the witnesses for their evidence and for the arguments and speeches put forward today. I strongly welcome the bill and the principles within it as a development to make sure that the Scottish Law is fit for purpose for modern commercial environment, is flexible and ready and can also provide crucially contract security. The codification of third-party rights will be helpful for practitioners and their clients, as Murdo Fraser rightly said, and it will remove a practical barrier for commercial transactions in order to meet modern-day expectations. As has been already stated, the codification and the principles around third-party rights relate to the ability for parties who are not directly party to the contract in question to have rights within that framework. It has been right to allude to a few different aspects of commercial law, and I would like to refer to a few. It has been stated in the evidence, particularly in the SPICE report, that it will have application in insurance and also in pensions, but there has been some focus today on construction law, and I think that that is where the aspect in my experience as a trainee solicitor working on construction contracts will have most use practically going forward. The ability for funders or a buyer or a tenant to create direct relationship and claim losses with third parties, for example in construction subcontractors such as an architect, which has been a common example used, but it could also be other types of subcontractors to commercial contract, for example electricians or other aspects of construction. The ability to create that within the contract itself will certainly be of use to practitioners and those who are looking to take forward construction contracts, and also those who are involved in commercial property transactions of previous construction projects of past. For example, I worked on a transaction once where there were multi-aspects to it, and there were elements of the construction that had been based in English law, and there were elements of the construction that had been based in Scots law. Because of the third party rights that are available in English law, those were drafted into the substance of the contract itself, whereas the Scots law elements of the contracting required collateral warranties. I remember very well thinking one evening during that deal that I was going to be able to go home after finishing the Scottish contracts and being told, oh no, we've actually got to do the collateral warranties now. For anyone working in construction, there are nuances about construction law. There are nuances about the inclusion of third party rights, whether they are sometimes advantageous to put them in collateral warranties. For example, there are questions about whether, when stepping rights are advantageous. Overall, I think that for construction lawyers and those involved in the construction business, this piece of legislation will assist in providing the legal frameworks that are necessary and, through that, creating an environment where construction projects can be taken forward with less legal work required, although I appreciate the points that Murdo Fraser made about how sometimes that's not always the case. I also think that, in terms of financing projects, those will be useful. For example, renewable energy projects, where financiers will now be able to create third party rights in the contract, rather than having to rely on collateral warranties, that will also be helpful for Scotland's renewable energy industry, for example. I warmly welcome the flexibility as well, so the removal of irreocability and the ability to set up flexible contracts at the outset and to adjust contracts in response to events. Those will be very useful aspects in terms of developing the law. I also welcome the fact that there is inclusion in the bill around the concept of arbitration. Having also worked as part of my previous role as a lawyer on contracts that went to arbitration, I think that any mechanisms that can help to make the ability for parties to seek arbitration more expedient rather than having to go to litigation should be welcomed. I welcome the fact that the minister is considering the points of the committee and the points that have been raised by stakeholders around drafting. Together, we can all work together to make this piece of legislation as user-friendly as possible. In the words of the Law Society of Scotland, it is something that helps to promote Scots law and for the benefit of all so that Scots law contracts can be used in Scotland where they are advantageous and required. There you are. I made you flustered. I call Monica Lennon to be followed by John Mason, Ms Lennon, please. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today's debate to agree the general principles of the contract third party rights Scotland bill. I am also one of the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. As you have heard, we have taken extensive evidence on the Scottish Law Commission bill in recent months. If anyone wondered what we do on a Tuesday morning, you now have some idea. I would also share the comments that our convener, John Scott, made in opening to. There are a lot of people to thank, and they have been thanked already, so I would just add my thoughts to that. From the outset, I am not a lawyer, although many of you are. That is very technical. From the outset, I was really keen to understand why the bill was required in the first place and who would benefit from it. We have had a lot of weeks to consider that, and, as we have gone forward, I have been persuaded by the bill and its merits. The minister, in her opening remarks, outlined that third party rights are helpful in everyday life and in business. It is important, therefore, that Scottish law keeps up with society and is effective. There are consensus that the current common law arrangements do not achieve that, and there are also consensus that the bill will provide a welcome remedy. It is good to have something that we can all agree on. At the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, we explored, written and oral evidence what benefits would be derived from moving from the current common law position to a statutory footing. We heard that case law is unlikely to develop fast enough to deal with the problems identified in the law. Indeed, the bill team and the Scottish Law Commission have indicated that relying on the common law position is unsustainable. The legal uncertainty arising from the current common law approach was a concern raised by many of the witnesses. Underlying rationale for bringing the bill forward has been that the current arrangements are simply not fit for purpose. A lack of certainty in the law is preventing the use of third-party rights, which then leads to a lack of case law preventing the law from being developed. John Scott has already quoted David Christie of the Robert Gordon University, who describes that scenario as a death spiral and very eloquently. The evidence overwhelmingly found that the system needs an upgrade, so the bill seeks to codify the existing law on third-party rights into one easily accessible place. That is a very welcome step. How will the bill be used? That is an issue that I contemplated many times during your deliberations. If the bill is enacted, will it become a useful law and one that will be used in the face of competing in well-established work-arounds or relying on English law, as we have heard today? One of the themes that emerged through our evidence sessions was that the purpose of the bill will be both to clarify the law in Scotland and to promote the use of Scottish law, which is also stated in the policy memorandum. The Scottish Law Commission officials indicated during evidence sessions and as part of their investigation that lawyers in Scotland are applying English law to Scottish contracts, although it did not seem to be possible to quantify that in any way other than through anecdotal evidence. In response to questioning on that particular point, Professor Hector McQueen of the Scottish Law Commission has said, "...it is certainly not that we have anything against the use of English law or indeed English law generally. It is more a case of where Scottish law is not doing the job, it is up to Scottish lawyers, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish courts where possible to do something about that. If one leaves a law and a state that means nobody uses it, there is something amiss." Our attitude to such matters is just part of the mechanics of society, if you like. People will remain free to use English law if they prefer it and they might do so. However, it is a pity if the legal system is not working for those who work in it." I think that captures the principles and the practical aims that underpin the bill exceptionally well. At the same time, there has been a dose of realism about the implementation of the bill. We have heard from the experience in England in Wales that it has taken time for legislation to be adopted. Is there perhaps to be expected that the bill's provisions will not necessarily be adopted by the legal profession Scotland immediately? In fact, we have heard that legislation on third-party rights had been in place in England in Wales for some time through the 1999 contracts act, but there has only recently been an uptake in the use of the act. Even then, as we have heard again, it appears that, in most cases, in the construction sector, for example, it continued to rely on collateral warranties. However, witnesses, including the Law Society of Scotland and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, have suggested that the benefits offered by the bill could encourage legal practitioners and their clients to use new codified legislation. Of course, we are not starting from a standing start in Scotland. In terms of fairness and equal access, I will pick up on what Dr Ross Anderson, the Faculty of Advocates, suggested, where he said that the bill may benefit people who do not have the resources to access expensive legal advice. He said that one of the great advantages of the bill is that it sets out in modern language what the law actually is. We have also heard that the use of collateral warranties can be quite costly, so again, there are practical benefits. I did not think that I would have more to say than the time allows, but I have been encouraged to wrap up there. The bill will be a useful tool for legal practitioners and their clients. No-one expects it to be for a rapid uptake in the short term, but it is important that Scots law does a good job. It is important for the reputation of Scots law, so I welcome the principles of the bill. The bill has obviously been a fascinating debate, because we are over time, so I will ask remaining speakers to be a bit more disciplined, please, than up to six minutes. John Mason, followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I used to have the privilege of being on the DPLR committee in the last session of Parliament, but I did tell the whips last May when I was re-elected that I did not want ever to be on it again. However, I do accept that one attraction of this committee is its compact size of five, compared with other committees that I am on, which have 11 and are totally unwieldy. I commend the committee for holding five evidence sessions, so I am reassured that they have carried out their work very diligently, as always. I think that therefore Parliament can rely on them and probably needs to, many of us, rely on them in a technical area that most of us are not familiar with. I thought that it was good to see the comment of James Rust of Morton Fraser that change had not taken place because in the past there was a lack of parliamentary time, but now that we have the Scottish Parliament, quote, the dam has burst, and we have got on with it, unquote. I think that it is specifically having the DPLR to handle this type of legislation, which has clearly been good. I note the recommendation at paragraph 40 that more than one area of law reform might be considered at one time, and I certainly agree that that is worth exploring, as long again as lay members of the committee as I was when I was on it do not get too confused by dealing with different issues at the same time. I note that the minister is going to consider that further. Recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission, which leads to SLC bills, is a process that seems to be settling down well. I was in the committee previously when we considered the last bill, which was in bankruptcy. I have to say that it is easier to speak on those subjects when you have been on the committee. As with the first bill, the legal writings bill, I was not on the committee but ended up speaking on it, which I have to say, as others have said, that that was a bit of a challenge. As I understand it, DPLR can only consider non-contentious bills, and my feeling would be that we could relax that stipulation a bit and let them consider a slightly wider range of legislation. This is the second SLC bill dealing with contract law, with legal writings having been the previous one. If I remember correctly, that was to make it easier to sign contracts without all signatories having to be in the one place or the one piece of paper physically having to go around all the signers. To focus on this particular bill, I am particularly attracted to the SLC comment, which says that it supports the policy quote to make arbitration in Scotland and under Scots law as attractive as possible to potential users from elsewhere, as well as those already in the jurisdiction. The fact is that we live in a competitive world and we want to win business for our legal system, just as we do for other sectors of our culture and economy. Scots law has long been distinctive from elsewhere, and it is such distinctiveness that we want to harness to our benefit. That is not to say that we want to make our system as cheap as possible or otherwise encourage a race to the bottom, as the saying goes, but we do want our law to be simple and straightforward, and if that requires moving from common law to statute, so be it. I felt that the SLC submission put it clearly that case law can have advantage of being more flexible, but the downside is less certainty, and that may put people off entering a contract at all, or at least entering a contract under Scots law. I liked the comment by David Christie, which others have referred to that uncertainty is effectively a death spiral, which means that a lack of case law is leading to the law not being developed. However, in the specific case of third party rights, it is actually the lack of flexibility in revising or amending a contract that is one of the key problems. Normally, a contract can be revised or amended by agreement, but the present situation makes that more difficult if a third party is involved. We have already had reference to the House of Lords case, which enforced that in flexibility. The report deals with the issue that increasing flexibility for the parties in a contract that is removing irrevocability can potentially reduce the rights of third parties, and that is dealt with in paragraph 62 to 73. However, the committee reaches the conclusion that it supports abolition of the irrevocability rule, paragraph 74, and that sufficient protections have been provided. I see from its report that the DPLR committee has raised a number of issues with the minister, and she has agreed to consider those and has recently responded. I think that the tone of that response seems very constructive, and I look forward to seeing what amendments might come forward at stage 2. However, today we are at stage 1 and considering the principles of the bill. I see that the committee has spent some time on the question of whether the bill will actually be used much in practice, and I think that that was a worthwhile question for them to ask, as there is little point at our passing legislation for the sake of it or to appease Parliament's detractors who measure our success by the number of bills we pass. The general feeling from witnesses seems to be that this legislation will not have any major and dramatic impact, nor will its provisions be widely used in the short term. However, it certainly moves us in the right direction, and I note the comments of Professor Voghinar, if that is how he is pronounced, about which legal system provides the law of choice. I guess that that is where many of us would want to be in the longer term, where Scotland, as a small and flexible nation, might provide legal and economic benefits that will attract organisations and individuals to do their business here. I am always interested in any financial aspects of a bill, however, I see that there were no responses at all to the finance committee calling for evidence, so that is reassuring. Therefore, I am happy to add my support for the bill, and I trust that members will allow it to move forward tonight. I call Mike Rumbles to be followed by Rona Mackay. Well, Deputy Presiding Officer, being the 10th speaker in this debate is something of a challenge, even for me, with everybody. I won't take an intervention just yet. With everyone agreeing and largely making the same points of which we all agree, but here goes. I just contrast this with the stage 1 debate earlier in the week on seatbelts in schools. That was unanimously supported. This is going to be unanimously supported, but on that debate, there were really major contentious issues. The bill could be improved, and it was a really effective challenge of ideas in the chamber. Today, everybody is agreeing with me. Presiding Officer, that was meant to be a joke, but it fell flat, but there we are. For a Liberal Democrat, it is not usual to have everybody in the chamber agreeing with you. There we are. I am glad that everybody is agreeing with me. I noticed that the greens are not here, but I would like to have included them in that remark. From the Liberal Democrat benches, I start, as others have done, by thanking the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and parliamentary staff for their work to date on this relatively small but important bill. I would like to acknowledge all those who have given evidence to the committee as well. In particular, the Scottish Law Commission, whose deliberations and recommendations have given rise to this welcome and much-needed codification of third-party rights within contracts. As the committee makes clear in their report and other members from across the chamber in this debate have highlighted, this is the bill that commands unanimous support among stakeholders. To ease the problem, I will stick to about three minutes, Presiding Officer, because I have just removed the next two and a half pages of my speech. There we are. Notwithstanding the benefits that the bill is expected to deliver, however, all the evidence suggests that it is unlikely to be an immediate impact should it come into law. In the short term, take-up and use of the new law is unlikely to be high. Over time, however, I think that there is every reason to expect that the newly created certainty and flexibility should prove attractive and encourage greater use of the law in the future. On that point, it would be helpful to know whether the minister believes that there are steps that can be taken to raise awareness or perhaps even encourage take-up. Is this something that has been discussed with the Law Society, for example, and if so, can she update Parliament on the outcome of those discussions? Indeed, are there particular circumstances where the change in the law may be expected to have a more immediate impact or where the advantage of this bill is likely to be the most significantly felt? Deputy Presiding Officer, Ray is the bill that reaches stage 1 without the need for some form of amendment being identified. I note that the committee has helpfully identified a number of areas with a language used when the bill could benefit from being tightened up. Overall, however, I welcome the fact that ministers have accepted the case that the committee has made about the need to tighten up the language and that work is already under way. I think that it is very helpful and should ensure that Parliament is able to pass a bill in due course that delivers the certainty and flexibility that is so needed so that the contract law in Scotland, around third party rights, is fit for purpose in the future. I have failed by 12 seconds. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. As a member of the Justice Committee, I care deeply about access to justice and demystifying the legal process so that it is better understood by the layperson. That is why I am happy to support the general principles of stage 1, report of the contract third party rights Scotland bill, which replaces the current law, which is causing uncertainty and confusion. In short, it has passed its sell-by-date. The changes proposed are based on the recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission, which found that the existing law is no longer fit for purpose. The new bill provides a new statutory framework that incorporates clearer, more user-friendly rules on third party rights. Those rights, as we have heard, can be of use in a wide range of personal and commercial situations, for example, insurance contracts, company contracts, construction contracts, and, last but not least, pensions, where an employer's pension scheme might allow a third party to be nominated as the beneficiary if the employee dies while still in employment. Some of the difficulties with the current law include confusion over whether third parties have a right to claim damages for breach of a third party right. Time limits for bringing claims under the current law are also very unclear. The general rule is that most claims can no longer be made five years after the day in which loss, injury or damage first occurred. However, the prescription and limitation of Scotland Act 1973 does not even mention third party rights. In addition, the rule of irrevocability is too inflexible. We know that, under Scots law, third party rights have to be irrevocable, but there is uncertainty as to what that actually means. The Scottish Parliament believes that the need for irrevocability is one of the main problems with the current law. The Scottish arbitration legislation under the Arbitration of Scotland Act 2010 does not deal expressly with third party rights, unlike in England, Wales and some other countries in which the law enables third party disputes under certain circumstances to be dealt with by arbitration. It is clear that the law needs a new statutory framework, and that is why it has been universally welcomed by stakeholders, such as the royal incorporation of architects in Scotland, who say that it will clear up areas of ambiguity and doubt. The Law Society of Scotland states that the law on this issue is outdated compared with the approach of other modern legal systems. I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee raised concerns about the drafting of some provisions in the bill, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government will reflect on the clarity and usability of those positions, because that is, after all, the main purpose of this new statutory framework. The good news is that the bill is not expected to result in any great costs, and there is an argument that it could provide in time some savings to businesses and to the legal profession. I stated at the outset that I applaud anything that brings clarification to legal matters and which enhances access to justice. For that reason, I am happy to recommend the general principles of the contracts third party rights bill to the chamber today. I now call Gordon Lindhurst, followed by Emma Harper. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Who can say that Scottish law is not interesting after the contributions that we have had on this matter here today? I must say that, as a member of the Faculty of Advocates and a long-time student of the law, details in my register of interests that I make reference in passing the concept of uptake of a new law does seem to be rather less than traditional Scots legal parlance. Usequisitum tertio rather rolls off the tongue more readily than the thought of someone going into the supermarket of law and choosing a nice juicy law like the contracts third party rights Scotland Act 2017. That may come more easily to parliamentarians like ourselves. It is, however, right to consider the background to where we find ourselves today. The case of Carmichael against Carmichael's Executrix, reported in 1920 session cases House of Lords at page 195, is seen as one touchstone of the current common law in Scotland on third party rights. It is instructive to consider that the case was decided almost 100 years ago and arose out of events that took place more than a century since. It is helpful to think briefly about the individuals in that case, because to do so brings us face to face with the reality of what most, if not all law, is about, fellow human beings like ourselves. No doubt Mr Hugh Fletcher Carmichael did not think that he would be making legal history when he accepted that proposal for insurance on 21 October 1903, nor is it likely that he wished to ever see the policy that was taken out on the life of his son Ian Carmichael in cashed on his son's death. He paid the annual premium of £9.10 shillings, but no pence, in to use the words of the policy, lawful money of Great Britain for many years. His son Ian joined the new and fledgling air force during the First World War and tragically died in an air accident in the summer of 1916. Ian had left a will in favour of his aunt Ms McCall as his executrix. His father, however, had kept and retained the policy in his possession. Sadly, there followed a dispute between Mr Carmichael and Ms McCall about who was entitled to have the proceeds paid out to them. Out of that dispute arose the case of Carmichael against Carmichael's executrix, eventually decided in the House of Lords in favour of Ms McCall. I have outlined that background of the case and the individuals involved simply to bring to life the bill that we are debating today. Amongst the dusty legal furniture of bills, sections and subsections, we need to remember that what we are actually dealing with is and will be important in the lives of the people of Scotland. That is one of the reasons that it is important to have legal clarity, which is one of the driving purposes behind this bill. With that in mind and mindful that others have already made reference to the background, I would like to raise a number of points on drafting clarity in the bill. Most of those have already been presaged in the evidence before the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and set out in its report. I also note the letter from the minister to my colleague John Scott as convener of the DPLR Committee setting out the Scottish Government's position on those matters, and I thank her for that. However, notwithstanding that response, I would mention the following and hope that further thought might be given to those three matters. First of all, the suggestion that sections 1 and 2 could conveniently be made into a single section that was made in evidence of the committee. I think that that is not a bad idea, but I have a particular concern with subsection 2.1. It states that it makes provision elaborating on section 1. It is unclear to me why it is thought to be at all necessary, since the normal statutory practice is to simply, as indeed is done elsewhere in section 2, refer to the particular subsection that it is intended to modify. If one couples subsection 2.1 with subsection 2.7 of the bill—I can see people's eyes glazing over going into the detail of this—the application of the normal rules of statutory interpretation may lead to undesired results. At best, in my view, subsection 2.1 appears unnecessary and superfluous, but at worst and indeed likely, it is a source of difficulty that might result in litigation. Secondly, sections 5 and 6 appear to depart from the normal mode of statutory drafting by putting a definitional subsection first followed by the subsection that is meant to define and clarify. Contrast that with the immediately preceding section 4, which follows the usual order, i.e. a subsection that sets out a proposition and then a further definitional subsection. To a lawyer's eye, or at least mine, that looks like writing backwards, and although it may not alter the effect of the section, it does make its reading awkward for the practitioner. Thirdly and finally, and here I commend the drafting of the bill rather than criticising it, is subsection 1 of section 10. Now, my comment on this is not meant as a criticism of the minister, because my understanding is that she has listened to and sought to take on board comment that section 10.1 is unneeded. However, my own comment is that, in a bill meant to define and bring clarity to third party rights and place them on a statutory footing, it is, in fact, probably helpful to have the definition contained in section 10.1 in the bill, so I simply raise that as another point. Those are for what it is worth my humble comments on the bill at this stage. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate, and I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the five committee members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, John Scott, Stuart McMillan, Alison Harris, Monica Lennon and David Torrance for their work in this committee. As is customary, as well as warranted, I thank the committee clerks, who are involved in drawing together the report, as well as everyone who gave evidence in the committee. I was given advice when I came here regarding participating in this parliament, that I should participate in debates on subjects that I am not familiar with, so I think that George Adam MSP from Paisley's advice was good, and I know he's back in the chamber, good. As already, by listening to everybody and the minister at opening speeches and member speeches, I'm already better prepared to explain some aspects of third party laws, and I look forward to supporting south of Scotland constituents if that arises. Since I've attended many committee meetings, cross-party groups and many events, although my background is in healthcare, since being elected I have had to engage in many different subject areas and learn to adopt a new language in order to assess and process information that is presented to me. I have adopted words like Scottish statutory instruments, affirmative and negative and process of annulment, and now thanks to DPLR collateral warranties. Learning about the various processes involved in running our country and developing knowledge in a range of areas and portfolios is something that I enjoy about this job as an MSP. Yesterday, I stumbled upon a conversation in the corridor with colleagues about today's debate. Although I am no expert on the law, I was interested to hear about the importance of this contract third party rights Scotland bill in bringing an area of Scots law into line with what happens internationally, some examples have been mentioned already. My goal today is to speak about this report and convey to South Scotland constituents how the bill will positively affect them. I first looked for a definition of third party. It is simple generic terms. Any individual who does not have a direct connection with a legal transaction but who might be affected by it. The Scottish Law Commission examined Scots law on third party rights in 2014 and compared it with international benchmarks. Last year, the Scottish Law Commission's report was published and concluded that the existing law needed to be replaced. Those concerns were about the lack of clarity and inflexibility in the current law. The Law Society of Scotland highlighted that uncertainty and noted that lawyers do not like to give advice in areas where the law is unclear. Scots law on third party rights dates from the House of Laws decision in 1920. That is the case that Donald Cameron mentioned so eloquently, the case of Carmichael vs Carmichael's executrix. If I had to repeat what Donald had to do, I probably would have had to stop at one minute. The judge decided that it was not enough for contracting parties to intend a third party to have a right by saying so in their contract. They must take additional formal steps to make this provision irrevocable. In order to be established under current law, the contract must identify the third party, show intention of contracting parties to confer a benefit and provide a benefit that is unalterable and irrevocable. The current situation in Scotland is unfortunate, as contracts in favour of third parties are of great economic importance, particularly with regard to life insurance and contracts of annuity. I understand that a further issue concerns the inability of groups of companies to rely on third party rights to deal with group loss. That problem arises where a company operates using a complex group structure and suffers loss due to problems caused by a supplier's failure to provide a particular service. The supplier can, in the absence of a clearly defined third party right, state by way of defence that they were only contracting with one member of the group. As a result of those complexities, the Scottish Law Commission found that legal practitioners and their clients are relying on English instead of Scottish law, and that has been mentioned in relation to third party rights. In evidence sessions, the committee was told that there has been an awareness of the problems created by the 1920 judgment since the post-Second World War period. However, Professor Beall of the University of Warwick told the committee that there had been an equally long period between the identification of the problem and its resolution in England and Wales. The bill, in question, was supported universally during the committee's evidence sessions. It will implement the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations and reform the common law on third party's rights. I spoke earlier about thanking the witnesses for the evidence that they provided, and I am aware that Minister Annabelle Ewing was extremely knowledgeable about the complexities of third party law when giving evidence directly to the committee. That is welcome news that our minister is well informed in her portfolio. The bill has been welcomed by stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland and the Royal Incorporation of Architects. Third parties will benefit the bill because it will become clearer how a third party may enforce his or her right. For example, as has been mentioned, if a mother books a holiday for her spouse and her children and the holiday fails to deliver on promises made in the contract, the mother can claim damages for her disappointment, but so can her spouse and each child as third parties with rights under the contract. We now move to the closing speeches, and I call on Mary Fee. Around six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing for Scottish Labour, I'd like to thank everyone for taking part in today's debate, and it's clear from the debate today that we are all in agreement that the contract third party rights Scotland bill is a necessary change required to our legal system to benefit all parties entering contracts. I also thank the Scottish Law Commission for undertaking this work and the resulting bill, and thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for producing a very informative stage 1 report. To ensure that our legal system is fair, balanced and just, Scottish Labour supports the changes that are proposed by the Scottish Law Commission. By replacing the common law third party rights with a statutory version, we can end the uncertainty and inflexibility around the current system. The committee report informs us that the bill is universally supported and welcomed by all stakeholders. The speed of law reform is an issue that is not new to politicians or those in the legal profession, and the proposed changes to third party rights in Scotland are not unique in the lack of progression to reform the law. Nearly a century after the House of Lord's Justice in Carmichael v Carmichael's executive tricks, it is right that we make the necessary changes soon. I was surprised to read the evidence from Professor Beale of the University of Warwick, who highlighted that, in England and Wales, the work to change third party rights started in 1937 and legislation was only produced in 1999. On the general principles of the bill, creating legal certainty and flexibility are important and crucial benefits of changing the replacing common law with a statutory approach. The committee reports that the current common law position is unsustainable, as case law is unlikely to develop fast enough to deal with the problems identified. Indeed, that view was shared by those who provided evidence. On creating legal certainty, we read that David Christie described the current system as a death spiral. Those are strong words and lawyers are by nature risk averse creatures. Of course, they have to be for obvious reasons, and businesses, investors and public bodies also fear uncertainty. You only have to look at the constitutional quagmire that grips the UK to know that. As a result of uncertainty, we read that lawyers are resorting to other jurisdictions for certainty. David Christie of Robert Gordon University rightly referred to the bill as rebooting common law. Turning to the speakers in the debate today, speakers have illustrated the benefits that the bill will bring in areas such as insurance and finance. The minister, in opening remarks, spoke of the need for legislation, that is fit for purpose, and is mentioned by Ben MacPherson in his contribution. Monica Lennon spoke of the savings that the bill might bring, as highlighted in evidence by the Law Commission and the Royal Corporation of Architects. Clare Baker spoke of the need for clarity and the uncertainty that currently exists, while also highlighting the need for third parties to be protected. John Mason touched on the need to make arbitration more attractive. As one of the closing speakers in today's debate, I say that I wholeheartedly support Murdo Fraser's opening remarks. Turning back to the legislation, the flexibility that the legislation will bring is a key benefit and an issue that has been raised by several speakers, including Stuart McMillan and Alison Harris. The abolition of the unavocability rule is welcome in order to make it easier to create and remove third-party rights and contracts. The committee report and the bill's explanatory notes give some details of the issues surrounding flexibility using the current common law approach. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates support the abolition. In supporting the abolition and welcoming increased flexibility, Kenneth Rose, partner of the CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, talks of the required flexibility, making our legal system more attractive and user-friendly for individual parties. It is right that we abolish the unavocability rule to ensure the protections and balances required for third parties entering contracts. I recently criticised the Scottish Government during the railway policing bill for trying to fix something that was not broken. Here is an area of law that is broken and must be fixed. The legislation might not be as important an issue to the public as policing, but it is very necessary for our businesses, our investors, our public bodies and any other users of Scots law to ensure legal certainty in contracts. We on those benches are happy to support the principles of the contract third-party rights Scotland bill. I now call Adam Tomkins and, strangely enough, we now have time in hand. A generous seven minutes—not too generous, Mr Tomkins—a generous seven minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When Murdo Fraser and I contracted with our whip not to have to speak in James Dornan's earlier members' debate on the Lisbon Lions, we had little idea that we would have to sign a collateral warranty to appear in this debate instead. However, as Rangers fans, that is supporters of Scotland's most successful club, it was nice to listen earlier today to memories of Celtic's historic achievements. My law school colleagues, past and present, would be both appalled and alarmed to know that I was speaking in a debate about the law of contract. Not only was the law of contract my worst paper at university, but I had the misfortune to study the English law of contract and not Scots law. The minister Annabelle Ewing referred to there being eminent jurists in the chamber this afternoon. I do not know who she was referring to. I am sure that she was not referring to me, but I am certainly not an eminent jurist in the law of contract. Constitutional law is my field. There are some overlaps between contract law and constitutional law. I was reminded of the great work by Sir Henry Main, the ancient law, and the principal argument in the great work was that, over the centuries, law had moved from status to contract. Law had moved from a hierarchical order to a voluntary compact. Stanley Baldwin, the great interwar conservative prime minister, said that Henry Main had been his most influential tutor, although he confessed that he could not quite remember whether Main's argument had been that law had moved from status to contract or whether it had been the other way round, which just goes to show, I suppose, that you can be a successful political leader without paying any attention in your law lectures. Contracts, Presiding Officer, allow people and indeed companies to create rights and duties that can be enforced in court. In general, those rights and duties are only enforceable, as we have heard, between parties to the contract, and no right or obligation can be created in respect of someone who is a stranger to the contract and who is termed a third party. In some legal systems, the rule is strictly enforced. In Scots law, by contrast, it has long been recognised that, in certain limited circumstances, a contract can contain enforceable rights in favour of a third party. We have heard from numerous contributions, including from the minister this afternoon, how these third party rights can be used in a wide range of personal and commercial situations, including in insurance contracts, in contracts involving company groups, in construction contracts that Ben McPherson and others have talked about, and also, I think, in pensions law. The current common law is widely criticised in Scotland, not least because of this rule of irrevocability, which insists that the third party right to be enforceable needs to be clear to the third party from such circumstances as delivery or information or equivalent, and that the parties intended to give up the right to change their minds about granting the third party right. Brody's, one of Scotland's leading law firms, described in evidence to the Delegated Powers Committee that the Scots law in this area is stuck in the 17th century, which is an odd thing to say about an area of law that dates from a case that was decided in 1920, but it is widely regarded as being historic and inflexible, as being not fit for purpose, and the irrevocability rule is, as I have just said, particularly controversial. As we have heard, representatives of both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have welcomed the bill and its proposed removal of the irrevocability rule. It has been difficult to find very much politics in the bill, and that is probably a good thing, but let me just make one point about it, which may or may not be something that the minister will want to respond to in her winding up. It is very important that Scots law retains its market competitiveness. There is a competition in legal systems, and we have heard numerous speakers this afternoon talk of how Scots lawyers are drafting contracts at the moment, which are enforceable under English law, in the English courts, rather than in Scots law because of the antiquated nature of our rules with regard to third party contracts. We have also heard how this is an area of law that has changed in England as long ago as 1999, and we are only now changing it here in Scotland. I know that we are doing it now because the Scottish Law Commission has only relatively recently reported on it. My question to the minister would be this. If there are other areas of Scots law where we are losing our market edge, where we are losing our competitiveness because the statute book has not been kept up to date and the common law is falling behind, is it part of the Government's thinking to encourage the Scottish Law Commission to identify those areas at an early opportunity and to report on them so that we can update Scots law so that it is able to compete effectively with other legal systems in Europe and other legal systems in the United Kingdom? It does seem odd that we are dealing with a problem only now, which was created by a House of Law to Judgment nearly a century ago. The law does not always move very quickly, but it does seem particularly slow. As Stuart McMillan and others said in their interventions in the debate this afternoon, this bill is an exercise in the codification of an aspect of Scots contract law. This puts me in mind the very first essay that I wrote as a very young law student a number of years ago. The subject that I was studying in the first year of my law degree was comparative legal systems. The essay that my tutor asked me to write was an essay comparing the strengths and the limitations of codification as a means of law reform. I am glad to say that I am glad to say that no copy of this rather tiresome essay remains, but I remember that I took the French civil code as an example of what not to do when you are using codification as a means of legal reform. The first half of the essay was a series of arguments against codification. I started the second half of the essay with the phrase, however, to be fair to the French. I wrote about why I should codify it. My tutor took exception to the opening line of part 2 of the essay, and he underlined it. He said in the margin, arrest this unhealthy tendency. Never be fair to the French. It is the only bit of advice from that particular law tutor that I can remember. In closing, I have two quick comments about the specific aspects of the bill that have been referred to by the Delegate to Powers and Law Reform Committee, which the minister has responded to in her letter, which I saw only for the first time earlier this afternoon, and which I would urge her to pause and think about, again, given the strength of the concerns that are reported by the Delegate to Powers Committee. The first is the use of the word undertaking in section 1, which seems, from the evidence that the committee has marshaled, to be something that is ripe for what would be wholly unnecessary litigation. It might just be worth having another look to ensure that that word is used appropriately and is defined as carefully and as specifically as possible. Secondly, with regard to the committee's comments on sections 4 to 6 of the bill, which have already been mentioned by other members this afternoon, the Faculty of Advocates was quite strong in its evidence that those provisions were not drafted appropriately. The Law Society of Scotland shared those views. Craig Connell said that he could see litigation written all over those provisions. Professor Hugh Beall, who wrote the law of contract book that I studied from many years ago at university, said that those provisions were hard to understand while so was his book. I would urge the minister respectfully and gently to reconsider whether the bill has been appropriately drafted in those provisions. I know that she said in her letter today that she is on balance satisfied that the bill is satisfactorily drafted, but I think that those issues might merit further consideration. Thank you very much. I have taken advice, Mr Tomkins, and we reckon that that was a B+. I call on the minister to close this debate. Can you take us up to about 25 past, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by thanking the members here today for their contributions to what has been, I think, a worthwhile debate. I would say that there are important contributions from across the chamber, be they from lawyers, eminent or otherwise, or from non-lawyers alike. I thank them for their consideration of the important issues that we have been looking at today. I am pleased that members shared the aims of reforming the law in this area and that there is support for the general principles of the bill across the chamber. A clear, positive and readily accessible statement of the law in a short statute will improve the standing and value of Scott's law. It is clear that contracting parties to a contract and those who are provided with third party rights in a contract should all benefit from the law being clearer, up-to-date and more flexible. Where a third party has rights under a contract as a result of the legislation, they will be able to take full advantage of the legal remedies for any breach of contract that would be available to a party to that contract where the undertaking favour of that party and also the defences on the part of the contracting parties will be available in terms of any claims from the third party to the extent that they are relevant. That is an important issue that perhaps was not touched on so much this afternoon. I have listened with interest to what has been said and of course I will reflect and consider all points that have been made and also perhaps on the more technical issues raised by Gordon Lindhurst and at the end in terms of the section 1 definition of undertaking by Adam Tomkins. There were other points raised today which I would like to seek to try to respond in the time available at least to some of them. In terms of the general issue of the pace of law reform, we have heard references from Murdo Fraser and from Mary Fee to the example of the English and Welsh legislation that was dated from 1999, but in fact we see from the committee's deliberations that discussions on that legislation first started in 1937, I believe, but I think that it is important to recall that the legislation in England and Wales introduced third party rights into the law for the first time because of course they had proceeded on the basis of privacy of contract and therefore it is not quite the same to make a direct comparison to what has been going on in Scotland where third party rights have been in existence for centuries. I think that the earliest case on record and I do not know if Mr Tomkins B plus would have perhaps been higher if he had been able to make reference to this one was, in fact, the Montcœur case, which dates from the 1590s, wherein we see a reference to third party rights. Scotland has had the common law of third party rights for centuries. What we have seen are particular problems developing with regard to certainty and flexibility indeed around about 100 years ago with the seminal case of Carmichael v Carmichael's executrix that many members have been referring to today and obviously are becoming quite relaxed about citing legal, seminal legal cases, which I think is a very positive development. We did hear a very eloquent overview of the facts of the Carmichael v Carmichael's executrix case from Gordon Lindhurst. Those problems were starting to develop as a feature of that case, however it is not fair to say that that then has been an on-going focus of activity since that case came into force, because, of course, it is only recently as society, commerce and industry have developed that these problems have been more acutely felt. So I think that that is important to place that in some context, but of course the position is that we recognise that the 1920 case did cause a lot of problems and that is why we are engaged in this important piece of work to see what we can do to bring our law up to the 21st century and to fix the problems that have clearly been identified and that is what this bill is designed to do. I would say more widely in the area of law reform it is important not perhaps to react to particular decisions and developments overnight because, of course, a one-off rogue decision of a court can often be quickly overturned and, in many instances, the law is capable of keeping itself in good order. That has not proven to be the case, however, with regard to the enforcement of third party rights in Scots law. Of course, at the same time it is important to note that the law is often complex, it needs careful thought and consideration and I would agree with what Stuart McMillan said that the DPLRC plays a very important role in this Parliament in terms of progressing law reform. In that regard, Adam Tomkins suggested that we might seek to accelerate this process and, indeed, we have regular meetings with the Scottish Law Commission and I am due to meet with Lord Pentland in September. That is, of course, an issue that we can discuss going forward. What I would say at the same time is that reforms to the civil law of Scotland had prior to the reconvening of this Parliament being a matter for the Westminster Parliament and, of course, in a crowded agenda, perhaps the focus was not on reforming Scots civil law. Also, in terms of the issue that Stuart McMillan raised about whether or not we could look at in our approach to law reform via the DPLRC as to whether or not it would be possible for the Scottish Law Commission to consider perhaps to use an ungainly word bundling up certain what would otherwise be discrete issues. I am also happy to take up with Lord Pentland when I next meet him to see to what extent that would be possible, because all of us would be interested in ensuring that we keep our law up to date. In terms of the issue of how quickly we feel this legislation, if passed by this Parliament, will be taken up, of course we cannot be definitive, but again I would stress that our starting point here is different from that in England and Wales, where, of course, that legislation in 1999 introduced in England and Wales third party rights for the first time. I understand that, of course, from a commercial perspective, it is clear to the members of the legal profession and, indeed, to those conducting business in Scotland that that would be a route to save time and money and legal fees, which is always an attractive option on the part, particularly of business. Therefore, it may be that we will see over time that the recourse to the work-arounds that we have referred to this afternoon, including collateral warranties, will become less attractive. In terms of the issue raised by Mike Rumbles and others of how we encourage use of the new legislation, I would say that reform of this kind often, in fact, has a momentum of its own. I know that Professor Hector McQueen of the Scottish Law Commission, who is listening to our deliberations this afternoon, has spoken at many law conferences and has spoken about this legislation and, hopefully, has encouraged others to consider making recourse to this legislation when, hopefully, passed by this Parliament. Members of the law society and members of the faculty have also spoken about the role that they can play in raising the profile of the legislation. We have heard from David Wetterburn of the Royal Incorporation of Architects when he presented evidence to the effect that he would be issuing practice notes to members alerting them to when the bill becomes an act. We also, of course, will work, as I said in my evidence at stage 1 in committee, with business and with the legal profession to see what we can do to facilitate, take up and awareness of the legislation. Of course, I will be happy to raise that matter with the law society when I have my regular discussions with the law society. Turning to the issue of sections 4 to 6, I have heard members' comments about those sections this afternoon. I will reflect on them further, because the Government is absolutely committed to the principle that legislation should be clear and accessible, but I would also say that it needs to be effective. I would stress that no one who has offered evidence has suggested that sections 4 to 6 do not produce the right result. All that is being said is that the sections could perhaps be drafted differently. Although it is, of course, always possible to draft provisions differently, it has to be recalled that there is no immediate consensus among witnesses on what might be a better formulation. However, I will, as I said, agree to reflect further, but I remain not entirely persuaded that such changes would be necessary to ensure that the bill is as effective as it can be. On the issue of dispute resolution mechanisms on the face of the bill, in terms of, for example, adjudication, I would just point to the evidence of Hewdon Das, hon. vice-president at the Scottish Arbitration Centre, who concluded by saying that, in summary, adding adjudication is not necessary and could be confusing. So I think that we are minded to reflect the position of such an eminent witness, and indeed I think that that was the conclusion that the committee itself reached. I think that I am moving towards my conclusion, Presiding Officer, and what I would say is that this has been a comprehensive debate on an important piece of legislation. I thank all members for their contributions and for their impressive diligence in consideration of the very technical issues raised by the bill. It is much appreciated, and it has made for a much more interesting debate than I think that some of us had initially foreseen. I have indicated that I am intending to bring forward amendments to section 10 and section 12. I have also indicated that I am still reflecting on the points raised about section 9 and arbitration, and, although I believe that they may have arisen as a result of a misunderstanding, we will continue discussions with the SLC and with the faculty of advocates. Conclusion, Presiding Officer, I will, of course, on the other general points raised that I have not had time to refer to specifically in my winding up comments. I look carefully at all the contributions that have been made, and I look forward to progressing the bill through the next stages in the Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and that concludes stage 1 on the contract third party rights Scotland bill. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 5776 on the Committee of the Regions. I would ask Joe FitzPatrick to move the motion. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 5776 on approval of an SSI. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Margaret Mitchell. The instrument exempts eight health regulatory bodies, whereas the General Teaching Council of Scotland and the Scottish Social Services Council from the provisions of the Apologies Scotland Act 2016. Section 3 of the act defines an apology and acts itself merely clarifies the current law of evidence and civil proceedings relating to apologies. Quite simply, it has been long recognised by the judiciary that an apology is not good evidence for providing liability or wrongdoing. By way of background, the origin of the act came from the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse and a suggestion from the then chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission that apology legislation was an effective way to help survivors gain closure. The committee is now in receipt of a letter that is suggested to the committee from the current chair of the SHRC expression concerns about one, the inclusion of the two non-health-related bodies in this instrument, and the lack of consultation with survivors and survivor groups. It goes on to state therefore that the Historic Child Abuse Action Plan review group should have been consulted on the provisions of this SSI, while the SHRC recognises that the eight professional health regulatory bodies are only exempted in the SSI. In response to the Scottish Government's health legislation on duty of candor, it significantly agrees with the Law Society's assessment that an apology in general is not a reliable indicator of wrongdoing and particularly as defined in section 3 of the act. Further more, it questions the necessity for regulatory bodies to be able to consider apologies. The SHRC therefore offers the following solution, one, that the GTCS and SSC consider ways in which their process could be adjusted to allow them to work within the Apologies Scotland Act 2016 without this exemption. Second, that the impact of the GTCS and SSC processes should be monitored to assess whether or not providing an exemption has a detrimental impact on their ability to carry out their role. The SHRC confirms that it is not clear that this will be the case given the position of the other regulatory bodies. I would request that the minister withdraw the SSI with a view to implementing the two suggestions proposed by the SHRC. A failure to do so raises serious questions about the effect of scrutiny of primary and secondary legislation in this Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The regulations do two things in relation to the Apologies Scotland Act. They make a small amendment to the existing exception for inquiries and they add an exception for the proceedings of 10 professional regulators. Those are the regulator of social service workforce and the regulator of teachers in Scotland, as well as eight health professionals regulators. As I explained in the Justice Committee evidence session, it is clear that the Apologies Act could have negative unintended consequences for the regulators' fitness to practice proceedings. In particular, it would impact on their ability to establish facts and make risk assessments and ultimately on their ability to protect the public. The exception is about professional regulation and it does not in any way prevent institutions such as schools or local authorities from offering apologies. The key point is recognised by the Scottish Human Rights Commission in its letter to the committee, referred to already this afternoon, and to whom I will be writing to set out the points in detail. The need for the exception was raised by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council as early as during stage 1 of the Apologies Scotland Bill. Their concerns were recognised by the Justice Committee in their stage 1 report. Continued work revealed that those concerns extended beyond the health regulators. The Scottish Social Services Council and the General Teaching Council for Scotland have made clear that they share the concerns about the impact of the act on their proceedings. The exception is about the need to protect the coherence of the regulatory processes in order that the organisations can fulfil their mission. Those regulators are concerned that if their professional regulatory proceedings were not accepted, they would impinge on their ability to police their profession and ensure that the public are protected. The proceedings are there to ensure that we all have confidence in those professions. The point is that, in those fitness to practice proceedings, an apology can say something important about the suitability of that person practicing a profession. We know that there are other professions where an apology is less important and apologies do not feature among the evidence considered. As I undertook in the Justice Committee's evidence session, my officials have written to other regulators whose proceedings are not included in the exception to explore how they are taking account of the Apologies Scotland Act 2016. I have also written to the group of survivors of childhood abuse who raised concerns with the committee about those regulations. I have explained to them that accepting those regulators' fitness to practice proceedings from the scope of the Apologies Scotland Act 2016 will in no way cut across the ability of institutions such as schools or local authorities to make apologies to survivors of childhood abuse. I am pleased that, in their response, the group of survivors found the letter very helpful in explaining the matter and the reasoning behind the Scottish Government approach. I am grateful to the Justice Committee for its thorough scrutiny of those regulations and for the cross-party agreement to recommend to the Parliament that they be approved. We now move to decision time, and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion S5M-5762, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on stage 1 of the contract 3rd party right to Scotland, will be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion S5M-5776, in the name of Jovis Patrick, on committee of the regions, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion S5M-5767, in the name of Jovis Patrick, on the approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed, and we will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion S5M-5767, in the name of Jovis Patrick, is yes, 50, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting of private.