I will stay torn as time is tight in this debate as well. The next item of business is to debate on motion 5290 in the name of Annabelle Ewing on the limitation childhood abuse Scotland bill at stage 1. Can I write members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Annabelle Ewing minister to speak to move the motion 13 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to be here today to open the debate on the general principles of the limitation childhood abuse Scotland bill. I would like to thank all of those who gave evidence and the convener and members of the justice committee for their detailed scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. In particular, I would like to thank the survivors who have been brave enough to come forward and to share their experiences. Many survivors have campaigned for this change in the law for many years and I would like to thank them for their bravery and their persistence. Without them, we would not be here today. I welcome the Justice Committee's support for the general principles of the bill. I am pleased to see that it recognises the importance of widening access to justice and removing a barrier that has proved insurmountable for so many survivors. The committee has highlighted some key issues and I will seek to address them in today's debate. As some members will be aware, the bill is put forward in response to a recommendation by the Scottish human rights commission through their work in the interaction process, which is a facilitated negotiation within a human rights framework and their subsequent action plan on justice for victims of historic abuse of children in care. The commission clearly brought to light the difficulties that survivors currently face in trying to access the civil justice system. Their work and evidence from a range of other sources demonstrates that the three-year limitation period is a barrier that most survivors have found impossible to overcome. That is why I am here today. The bill is about access to justice. It is about acknowledging the unique position of survivors of childhood abuse, recognising the apparent nature of the abuse, the vulnerability of the child at the time and the profound impact of abuse—an impact that lasts well into adulthood. The bill removes the three-year limitation period for cases of childhood abuse. It does so for rights of action arising before or after the bill comes into force. Moreover, the bill allows cases that have been previously raised but were unsuccessful precisely because of the limitation period to be re-litigated. The bill is a significant step for survivors of childhood abuse, recognising their unique position and the barriers that they have faced in the past. As I have been keen to point out, the bill is about striking a balance. At every step in the process of developing the policy and drafting the bill, important judgments have had to be made as to where the balance should be struck. That has included careful consideration of the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has also included striking a balance between being inclusive and, at the same time, avoiding unintended consequences. On the definition of abuse, I have listened carefully to the evidence presented to the committee and I have noted its recommendations. I would say that the bill goes further than other jurisdictions by including sexual, physical and emotional abuse, while similar legislation elsewhere has been limited to only sexual abuse or has included emotional abuse, which is connected to other forms of abuse. I have noted the committee's concern about the uncertainty around emotional abuse. While it may be more challenging to define and prove emotional abuse, that does not make the impact of such abuse any less fundamental or its consequences any less severe. What we are concerned with is abuse that seriously damages a child's emotional health and development. It will ultimately be for the court to decide whether a case presented to them involves emotional abuse and providing any further definition on the face of the bill may prove to be misleading or exclusionary. I agree with the Scottish human rights commission that Scottish courts are well placed to make assessments on a case-by-case basis about whether a case meets the relevant threshold to constitute abuse. I have also considered the evidence that has been put to the committee about the different forms that abuse can take and how that might influence the bill's definition of abuse. I am keen to ensure that the bill is confined to truly abusive behaviour, avoiding unintended consequences such as satellite litigation testing and pushing its boundaries. It is also important to point out that, for forms of abuse not mentioned on the bill, the definition is inclusive rather than exhaustive and the court is well placed to make appropriate judgments based on the evidence. However, I have reflected on the evidence to the committee and its recommendation in relation to abuse that takes the form of neglect, and I will, Presiding Officer, be giving this issue further careful consideration. Turning to section C of the bill, the new section 17C provides cases that have previously been raised but which were unsuccessful because of time bar can be relitigated regardless of whether they were determined by the court or settled between the parties without damages being paid, including where there is a decree of absolvator. I recognise that this is a unique step, but it is being taken because the position of childhood abuse survivors is unique. The context of childhood abuse, the particular impact that childhood abuse has on survivors and the fact that limitation periods have in the past operated so as to frustrate access to justice for survivors provides the necessary special justification. If decrees of absolvator were not included in the bill, a large number of survivors who previously raised cases, often cases that were assisted behind a lead case awaiting the outcome of that lead case, would not benefit from the bill. Those survivors agreed to the disposal of their cases because of the limitation period and it would be fundamentally unfair to treat them differently from a case that happened to be the lead case and which was therefore disposed of by the court by decree of dismissal on the basis of those same limitation grounds. I am grateful to the minister for taking the intervention. I very much understand the rationale for including a decree of absolvator within the scope of the bill. What I am perhaps struggling to understand is how that would not necessarily set a precedent that could be potentially dangerous in other areas of the law. I thank the member for his intervention. What I have tried to stress at the outset today and indeed in committee is that the drafting of the bill was conducted further to a very careful consideration of striking the right balance to reflect the unique set of circumstances pertaining to survivors of childhood abuse and to respect, of course, laws that are otherwise applicable, including the convention. Having conducted that careful consideration, I do not share the concerns expressed by the member that there could be any wider application. The way in which the bill has been drafted clearly sets forth the special justification requirement that you need to address in order to displace certain elements that would otherwise be applicable. Having carefully considered the matter, I can give the member assurance that I am satisfied that the provisions of the bill are convention compatible. I have listened with interest to the evidence presented to the committee in relation to previously raised cases. The committee has noted concerns about the provisions of the bill, which prevent actions from being re-raised, where there was a financial award that went beyond simply reimbursement of expenses. Those provisions are based on the policy that only actions that previously failed on time bar should be allowed to be re-raised, and thus reflecting the balance that I was explaining to Mr MacArthur a moment ago. If a survivor received financial compensation from the previous action, the link to failure due to time bar is not there. As I said, the bill is about striking this balance, and this is one of the issues where special care has to be taken. The bill already goes further than other jurisdictions, which have implemented similar legislation. Those other jurisdictions either do not allow re-litigation at all or restrict re-litigation to cases that are determined by the court. I noted earlier that the committee's concern about including the decree of absorptor and whether that would be convention compatible. However, can I say that the suggestion that was made by the committee on that particular issue in relation to the position where there has been some financial compensation? I would say that any compensation previously paid against any new compensation that would be awarded takes these ECHR concerns, I believe, to a whole new level and would significantly tip the balance away from the special justification and proportionality that is required in relation to potential interference with the ECHR in particular to article 1 of protocol 1. I have also noted concerns with regard to potential difficulties in establishing the terms of the settlement. As I said in my evidence to the committee, a pursuer seeking to rely on section 17C would have the burden of proving that the circumstances of their case fell within its terms unless that fact was admitted by the defender. Proving that the case is covered by section 17C will involve the pursuer leading evidence to this effect, which could involve a statement of their own understanding of what previously took place. It could also include records that the court holds or the pursuer could call on the defender to disclose any formal documentation to which the defender had access. I will reflect on what, if anything, can be clarified in the explanatory notes. As regard section 17D, the committee has also noted some concerns with regard to the provision. The section ensures that actions to which the bill applies will only be able to proceed if the defender's convention rights would not be breached as a consequence. Although it is clear that, even without the section, such actions would not be able to proceed, the section ensures that there is a mechanism for those issues to be dealt with and that it sets out the test that the court is to apply. Those provisions make it clear that, as a legislature, we do not expect every single case to proceed just because it falls within the new section 17A and we recognise that there will be cases where issues of fairness and prejudice will have to be carefully assessed. That is important, especially in the context of the unusual steps that we are taking in this bill. Without section 17D, it may appear as if the legislature assumed that all cases should go ahead regardless of ECHR concerns. Removing the section could therefore result in a challenge to the bill, which would have an impact on all potential cases with the result that survivors would be deprived of the benefit of the bill, while that challenge was resolved. Section 17D is another difficult area that has required careful reflection of where the balance should be struck. Although I can sympathise with calls for more clarity, it is important to keep in mind that each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. It is clear that what is relevant in one case could be completely irrelevant in another, and while it is impossible to predict what will be important in each case, factors that the courts might consider to cause prejudice to the defender include the diminution of the quality and availability of evidence or the defender's affairs of resources having been arranged in reliance on the disposal of an earlier case. However, it must remain a task of the court to assess whether or not these or other factors would give rise to the defender being substantially prejudiced in all the circumstances of the case and whether, having had regard to the pursuer's interests, the prejudice is such that the action cannot proceed. I am however keen to avoid a checklist approach to these very complex issues. My concern is that more guidance in the legislation, such as a list of factors, could perhaps unhelpfully constrain the court's considerations. In conclusion, I would like to thank the Justice Committee once again for its detailed scrutiny of the bill and for its support of the general principles. The bill is about access to justice and recognising the unique position of survivors of childhood abuse and the barriers that they currently face. The unique position means that the current limitation regime acts as barrier for most survivors. It requires survivors to explain to the court why they have not raised an action earlier, a task that has proved extremely challenging and traumatic for many survivors. It is clear that the current limitation regime has created an in-built resistance to allowing historical claims to proceed. The bill recognises that this in-built resistance is not appropriate for cases of childhood abuse. That is because, by the very nature of those cases, it is likely to take years, often decades, before a survivor is in a position to come forward. Meeting survivors, I have been struck by their dedication, their bravery and their determination to keep fighting for the acknowledgement and recognition that they deserve and for justice. I hope that you will all join me today in supporting the general principles of the bill, which gives them that recognition. I move, Presiding Officer, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the limitation childhood abuse Scotland bill. Thank you very much, minister. I call on Margaret Mitchell to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to speak in this stage 1 debate on the limitation childhood abuse Scotland bill and on behalf of the Justice Committee to thank the various witnesses who took the time to provide evidence to the committee. My grateful thanks also to the clerks and the committee members for their hard work in producing the report. In particular, I pay tribute to those survivors of childhood abuse who were willing to share their views with the committee, either in private or during our formal evidence sessions. Their contributions have been invaluable in shaping our thinking on the bill and we fully recognise the immense courage that it took to appear before the committee. Childhood abuse, in whichever form it takes, is apparent. The committee heard that being the subject of childhood abuse can have a silencing effect. Shame, guilt and fear, as well as the stigma associated with abuse, can prevent survivors from disclosing this abuse until many years after the event. Because abusers are often figures of authority, survivors are also frequently left with feelings of fear or mistrust towards authorities. That in turn means that it may be a considerable number of years, if at all, before survivors will be able to disclose or take action. Despite that, the current civil law fails to recognise why there can be delays in reporting and survivors are expected to make a claim by their 19th birthday. The courts have typically not accepted explanations for delay resulting from shame, fear and psychological difficulties that can result from childhood abuse. So, while the current law provides judges with a discretion to allow a case to proceed, even if it is brought out with the three-year limitation period, this discretion has virtually never been used. In over 40 years there has been just one reported case relating to historical childhood abuse, which has been allowed to proceed. In view of that, the committee considers that survivors have been let down by the justice system and have been denied the opportunity to have their voice heard. The bill, therefore, removes the limitation period, also known as time bar, for civil claims relating to childhood abuse. The committee heard powerful evidence that the time bar has created an insurmountable barrier to access to justice in the civil courts. Survivors of such abuse should be able to bring a civil claim for damages if they wish to do so. The committee is, therefore, unanimous in its support for this bill, which gives survivors a voice and, crucially, removes a barrier to accessing justice. Furthermore, given the nature of childhood abuse, the committee considers the retrospective effect to be both necessary and justified. However, pursuing a civil action will not be the right solution for all survivors and, in this respect, it is not a panacea. In fact, the committee heard that the court process could sometimes do more harm than good, but it is extremely important to recognise, as one survivor told the committee, that the significance of the bill is that, at long last, survivors will have the choice. Having said that, support must be available to survivors to take that choice. The committee, therefore, wholeheartedly agrees with the minister that, without such support, the bill will be an empty gesture. If a survivor does not decide to pursue civil action, there are other options to them, including the Scottish Childhood Abuse Inquiry or the Apologies Scotland Act. Turning now to other provisions, the bill does not remove the time bar for survivors who were abused before 1964. That is because their substantive right to claim compensation will have been extinguished entirely by the law of prescription. To revive those rights in the bill would involve imposing legal liability on you where none had existed for over 30 years. The committee is persuaded by the Scottish Government's argument that this approach would raise serious human rights implications. However, it urges the Government to consider what other options for redress could be made available for pre-1964 cases.  Overall, the committee agreed with that definition. However, members heard strong support, particularly from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, for explicitly including neglect within the definition of the bill. The committee considered that that would be consistent with other domestic and international law. That includes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Scottish Government's own national guidance for child protection in Scotland, which clearly documents that abuse and neglect are forms of maltreatment. More complex provisions in the bill include section 17C, which allows certain previously raised cases to be re-raised, including those disposed of by a decree absolvator. That in turn has proportionality and human rights implications, in particular in relation to our person's right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. A decree absolvator is a final judgment of the court in favour of the defender and usually prevents the same issue being litigated again. The committee understands that there is no precedent for legislating away decrees of absolvator as provided for in the bill, and that section 17C therefore raises issues about legal certainty. Furthermore, it was the view of some witnesses that this approach undermines fundamental principles of Scots law and could breach convention rights. Section 17D provides safeguards for defenders. The committee's report raises a number of concerns about those provisions, which I hope other members will refer to in more detail. Suffice to say, the minister told the committee that this bill is all about striking balances, and the committee recognises that to be the case. Notwithstanding the minister's opening comments, it has therefore asked the Government to look again at the provision to ensure that the right balance is struck. Finally, a vitally important issue raised during the committee's scrutiny of the bill was its financial and resource implications. The committee heard that those could result in significant costs for bodies such as local authorities and charities. The financial memorandum does not attempt to quantify those costs. While the committee recognises the difficulties in doing so, it considers that the financial memorandum does not fully reflect the fact that those costs go beyond any compensation to be paid. It may, for example, include a significant administrative burden in responding to information requests from people considering making a claim. Given that, the committee's report highlights the potential negative impact that the financial and resource implications of the bill could have on the provision of current services. That includes the adverse effect that the bill's provision could have on support services. In the words of one witness, it would be illogical that vital support provided to children today who have been abused or are at risk of being abused should be adversely affected by the bill. The committee therefore called on the Government to ensure that the bill is properly resourced. In conclusion, the committee supports the removal of the limitation period for childhood abuse claims and fully endorses the general principles of the bill. I now call on Douglas Ross to open for Conservative seven minutes, please, Mr Ross. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Scottish Conservatives support this bill and its aims. Like the convener, I would like to put on record my thanks as a member of the Justice Committee to the clerks and Spice for their work during our stage 1 considerations. I would also like to acknowledge the sensitive and constructive way that Margaret Mitchell chaired our meetings and evidence sessions, which looked at such an emotive and personal issue. Above all, and like the minister and the convener, I would like to pay tribute to everyone who gave evidence and responded to the committee's call for evidence. The bravery shown by the witnesses who had themselves been victims of childhood abuse highlighted their resolve that a change in the law is required. As a committee, we heard powerful evidence that the current limitation regime has created a significant barrier to justice for survivors of childhood abuse. While section 19A of the Prescription and Limitation Act 1973 allows courts to ignore the time bar when it seems equitable to do so, the fact that courts have used this discretion only once since the act was passed more than four decades ago means a change is needed. We know that victims often do not come forward with compensation claims until many years or indeed many decades after their abuse. It is wrong that the limitation period should prevent victims seeking this course of redress. Tonight, the Parliament, with the approval of this stage 1 report, can start the process of correcting that wrong. Although there is support for the legislation, the unanimously agreed committee report also noted concerns that I hope the Government will continue to monitor and address. I have read the minister's response to the committee report and have concerns at legitimate issues that we have raised by all committee members have received so far a superficial response from the Government. An example of that is the Scottish Government's financial memorandum, which is based on a figure of 2,200 cases that could be brought forward initially following the passage of the legislation. The Government's response to our report maintains that position. Despite several witnesses questioning the figure and the committee noting at paragraph 222 that the 2,200 figure could be a significant underestimate. Police Scotland argued that there is value in further scoping the methodology used in the financial memorandum and considered the 2,200 figure a conservative estimate. Harry Aitken of the former boys and girls abused organisation highlighted to the committee that one firm of solicitors previously had 1,000 survivors prepared to raise an action, but they had not been able to proceed following a test case relating to the time bar. It is paramount that survivors who have been previously unable to raise a civil action due to the time bar are not then left frustrated and disappointed with the legislation because the Scottish Government has not adequately projected the number of cases that could be brought forward and the Government must put in place the necessary resources to support the increase of possible actions. Still on finance, I would like to put on record my own concern about the scrutiny by the Finance Committee of this Parliament into the bill. I note that the convener is in the chamber and I would just highlight that at paragraph 37 of our report, the committee notes that the Finance and Constitution Committee received responses to its call for evidence on the financial memorandum but then agreed that it would give no further consideration to the financial memorandum. My understanding is that that has not been the practice in the past and I would be keen to understand why the Finance Committee took this approach when many others have raised issues about the financial implications of the bill. Another concern that was shared by some witnesses was the capacity of the court system. For people who have waited for many years to take this action, it will be important that they are not discouraged by lengthy and potentially avoidable delays. On page 10 of the minister's response to the committee report, Annabelle Ewing said on this issue that she expected that the actions raised as a result of this bill will be spread over a number of years. Yet I would suggest that there is a compelling argument to say that many people who have waited several decades for a genuine opportunity to raise an action will want to do it very soon after the bill becomes law. I think that this issue must be fully considered by the Scottish Government. The final issue that I want to raise is the recommendation at paragraph 245, which was just alluded to by the convener. That recommendation was agreed by all members of all parties. It says that it is important that the bill is properly resourced to ensure both that its policy intent is achieved and to prevent any negative impact on the provision of current services by local authorities. That recommendation is far stronger than the response that I got from the minister at committee when I asked if the Scottish Government was addressing the issues that COSLA had raised about resourcing investigations of the claims and potential financial awards. The minister responded to my question by saying that the Government was in consultation with COSLA and that we have to see what happens. What the committee says must happen is that the Government resourced this bill and local authorities must not have to cut services to pay for historical offences. We need the Scottish Government to accept this recommendation and tell us how they will achieve it. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the Justice Committee report states, this bill is no panacea. It will not be a solution to everyone who is looking for a solution to their childhood abuse. But there can be no doubting from the witnesses. Witnesses, I personally felt privileged to listen to that this bill is an important step forward for many as an access for justice. It is our duty as a Parliament to ensure that the bill meets the aspirations of the people who have suffered from childhood abuse. Having waited so long for this opportunity, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to give victims the best legislation to ensure that we really do give survivors a voice that they have been denied for so long. This is a narrowly defined bill, but it is an important one. The issue that it is looking to address is one that has been recognised as an injustice for a number of years.  We are aware of the risks and vulnerabilities that they have to face in creating safe, secure and happy lives for themselves. Access to the civil justice system was one part of that process, that some survivors will want to access, and this bill intends to make that possible. The report recognises that, although it is not a panacea and it will not be the right path for everyone, it will provide choice. I was struck by the committee's thanks to survivors who presented evidence to the committee, recognising their courage in sharing their experience. We should all recognise that this legislation is being introduced to provide options for people who have suffered very traumatic, damaging childhoods and adolescence, and while it is limited in what it can achieve and that it provides a date beyond which claims cannot proceed and while it does extend access to justice, it is not a path that all survivors may wish to take, the bill does increase options for people to have their voice heard and acknowledged. There has been evidence to question the necessity of the bill, highlighting the existence of the section 19A, which gives the court discretion to wave the time limit. There has been debate over undermining legal certainty about creating an exemption that would then set a precedent and the quality of evidence that could be compromised by the passage of time. However, that discretion has only been exercised once by the courts. Witnesses describe the barriers faced by survivors looking to take civil action, the time bar not recognising the complexity of the nature of the abuse, which creates barriers to raising a claim and the inconsistency with being able to pursue a criminal case for child abuse. The evidence from Victim Support Scotland outlines some of the difficulties faced by survivors. They said that it can take years for someone to realise what has happened to them was in fact abuse and it is common for abusers to use silence and tactics to ensure that the abuse is kept hidden. A significant amount of time can also be required for a person to feel able to disclose their abuse, because abusers are often figures of authority in the victims' lives. They are regularly left with feelings of fear or mistrust towards authorities, which can present challenges in reporting the abuse or participating in court action. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers gave evidence, arguing that anyone who has looked at the matter over the years would be forced to conclude that the Scottish judiciary is an extremely conservative body and that it has operated the discretionary power in a way that has simply closed the door. While the bill is welcome, it is regrettable that it has perhaps taken longer than was necessary to bring it forward. The difficulty with the time bar is well documented. In 2008, 10 years ago, Lord McEwan said in a judgment, that I have an uneasy feeling that the legislation and the strict way the courts have interpreted it has failed a generation of children who have been abused and his attempts to seek a legal remedy has become mired in the legal system. The concerns that I expressed remain with me, although sitting in the outer house, there is little I can do about it except to hope that reform will not be long delayed. I welcome the Government bringing forward the bill in this session, but I cannot help but consider the survivors who have continued to be excluded from civil action when they could have been given an earlier remedy. The bill has been introduced in the shadow of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, an inquiry that is hugely challenging but has also been problematic and has struggled to maintain the confidence of all survivor groups. While this bill addresses one aspect of the legacy of this abuse and goes further than the scope of the inquiry, it is imperative that the inquiry delivers accountability, answers and transparency. While I, along with the committee, support the broad principles of the bill, there are a number of areas that require further clarification or debate. In recognising the bill provides choice for survivors, there is also recognition that this is a difficult task, with all the normal practices of the legal system. The minister might want to say more about what kind of support could be made available to survivors bringing civil actions and what kind of training or specialisation there could be with the legal profession. There was also a discussion of the merits of specialist courts, which the Government could legislate for if they accepted the case. There is a further debate to be had about the definition of abuse within the bill. While I was not convinced by the arguments opposing a non-exhaustive definition, there were persuasive arguments about expanding the categories for abuse to have consistency with ECHR and international human rights law, and I welcome the minister's comments in that respect this afternoon. Witnesses raised questions about spiritual abuse and psychological abuse, which the minister considered and thought would be covered by emotional abuse, but a bit more certainty here might be helpful. There are two final issues that I wish to raise, a financial redress scheme and the accuracy of the financial memorandum. COSLA, Social Work Scotland and Solar argued the merits of a financial redress scheme. The bill will not apply to people abused prior to 1964 and there is no civil action available to them. I understand that a financial redress scheme could be a way to recognise their experience. It is also argued that it could avoid the stress and the exposure that would come with a public declaration needed through a civil case. It could also recognise the age and the health of some of the complainers and ensure that they are provided with redress while they can access it. It has been described as a way to possibly complement the bill rather than an alternative and I would urge the Government to advance the work on that as soon as possible. The committee raised concerns about the financial impact of the bill and the potential number of actions that could be brought forward, believing that estimates to be conservative. The head heard the concerns of potentially significant costs to defenders from COSLA and others. Those are important matters that the Government must resolve. I imagine that there will be greater interrogation of the bill at stage 2 regarding retrospective application, the fair hearing test and the substantial prejudice test. It is important that we get this legislation right and it delivers the policy objective that it is aiming to, one that we all support. The Government will have our support in taking forward this legislation. Thank you very much, Ms Baker. Moving to the open debate, speeches of six minutes please. Rona Mackayde, followed by Jeremy Balfour, Ms Mackayde, please. Access to justice is fundamental to a civilised democratic society and the Scottish justice system has a track record to be proud of. That is why the stage 1 limitation childhood abuse Scotland bill being brought before Parliament today is so important and so very necessary. It provides the vehicle for access to justice to thousands of the most vulnerable and wrong people in our society who have been barred from justice simply because they were unable to bring forward a civil action within a three-year period. Three years is not long enough for survivors to garner the strength to proceed with civil action against their abusers. They have been emotionally terrorised, stricken with fear and guilt and simply need much longer to come to terms with what has happened to them.  That is not a core action about neighbours fighting over a piece of land or suing a company for damages. That is about seeking recognition and an apology for being robbed of a childhood and sentenced to a lifetime of unimaginable emotional distress. During the evidence-taking process of the bill, members of the justice committee heard shocking, painful and distressing accounts of the terrible abuse survivors had suffered during childhood, sexual, physical and mental abuse. However, if it was painful for us to hear, it must have been agonising for the survivors to recount and I cannot thank and commend those who had the bravery and courage to do so highly enough. From somewhere deep within them, they found the strength to speak out about their traumatic experiences, the cruelty bestowed upon them often by people they trusted and how they were left feeling worthless and violated. They spoke out so that never again would these vile crimes be covered up. They did it to send a message to abusers that they will be caught and justice will be done so that future generations do not have to endure a lifetime of suffering like them. They did it to ensure that there is no hiding place for abusers. There have been fears that the bill will open the floodgates to those seeking compensation, which will be costly and put extra pressure on the court system, an issue raised by Douglas Ross and others. At this stage, the number seeking access to justice for historical crimes is unknown and estimates vary widely. There simply is no way of predicting at this stage. However, the Scottish Human Rights Committee believes that the vast majority of survivors will not go down the civil court justice route. However, what is certain is that this recourse will not be suitable or desirable for everybody. Many survivors simply could not face the prospect of publicly resurrecting the horrors that they kept locked away in a box throughout their lives. Bringing it to court is not the answer for them. For those that do bring it to court, clearly expectations must be managed, particularly for claims that may be historic or partial, and the support must be there for claimants. That is clear. There may be potential for specialist judges or courts, something that was discussed during committee, and this decision is ultimately for the Lord President to decide. The committee also carefully considered the definition of abuse and decided that it is essentially non-exhaust of an inclusive, as survivors have suffered such a wide range of different forms of abuse. We also found a common thread through most of the testimonies, and that is that most survivors would not do that for the money. Many simply want the perpetrators brought to justice and an apology for the terrible injustice and violation that they suffered, which has blighted their lives, and it is only now that they feel strong enough to seek justice. Many survivors have been so emotionally damaged that they have been unable to force successful careers and attain a good standard of living. Their financial potential has not been realised and they have struggled to make ends meet. However, how can you put a price on what they have suffered? You simply cannot, and that is the reason that most survivors, for most survivors, it is not about money, it is about long-awaited justice. In conclusion, I would like to say that, of all the speeches that I have written for debates in this chamber over the past year, this has been the hardest to write. For this is about something so sensitive, so personal to those affected, that as someone who has never endured this suffering, I hardly feel qualified to comment on it. However, if this bill brings some light at the end of a long, dark tunnel for some survivors, then I am happy to commend the general principles of the bill to the Parliament. Can I say to everyone that time is a bit tight, so I would appreciate everybody doing as Ms Mackay did and sticking to below time, if possible? I called Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, at the start, welcome this bill, welcome this debate and welcome the work that the committee has done in getting the bill to the stage. As someone who is not a member of that committee, I have to say that it has been fairly harrowing reading through the reports. I, as someone who did not have to listen to it directly, want to pay credit to those who came and were brave enough to give the evidence that was required and also to the committee for dealing with it in such a sensitive way. As we are aware, the bill creates a special regime for a child who is abused cases in relation to the time period associated with personal and due actions, removing the three-year time limit that exists for certain types of claims. The practical consequences are immense. Survivors of child abuse will no longer have the difficult job—in fact, almost impossible—of persuading the court to overrule the limitation period. They will have a right to raising action regardless of when a defined time has elapsed. As we have heard already from some of my colleagues, we as a party agree that cases of child abuse have unique characteristics that justify a special limitation regime. Those characteristics derive from the horrible nature of the act, the particular vulnerability of the victim and the effect that goes on through our lifetime because of the abuse. Abuse at a time when a person is vulnerable, perhaps in a dependent relationship, has been shown to have long-standing, severe adverse consequences. Mental health, incapacity, addiction, post-traumatic stress and self-harming behaviour often go hand in hand. Those supporting the removal of the limitation period emphasise the impact of childhood abuse on survivors and the length of time it could take for a survivor to be able to bring a civil action. It is common for adult survivors to suppress the abuse because of same guilt, fear and stigma, the so-called silencing effect. Furthermore, some survivors do not know and understand that they were subject to abuse until many years later. It is widely recognised that child abuse often causes victims to withhold telling others until well into their adult years. Those were views that were echoed by many witnesses, Police Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland and, perhaps most harrowing, the private testimonies that the committee heard of survivors of childhood abuse. I want to highlight two slight concerns that I would be interested for the Government to respond to. The first was raised by the Faculty of Advocates that litigation is inherently stressful and will perhaps add extra strain on the victims, add to their suffering and anxiety if the cases do not come to proof quickly. I appreciate that that may be an issue for the Lord President to look at, but it would be helpful for the Parliament to send out some methods to say that those cases should be dealt with as quickly as possible over going through the appropriate judicial process, as well as the appropriate support and advice for the victims and survivors of child abuse must be there. Will there be extra funding for third sector organisations that provide that or for local authorities that provide that? We need to make sure that that is in place. The second issue that I would be interested in hearing from the Government's view on is perhaps an unforeseen circumstance. Because we have gone back decades, some of the organisations that will face litigation may have been organisations that have taken over an organisation in that period of time. If a claim is successful, it could cause them real financial hardship and stop them doing what they are now doing in a very positive way. We have heard already from Douglas Ross the issue in regard to local authorities, but I also have concerns that some third sector organisations, through no thought of their own, but simply because they simply have taken over another organisation, end up. I would be interested to know whether there is any protection that can be given to that. Having said that, we are supportive of the bill and its aims. I look forward to the legislation coming forward and being passed in due course. I hope that those who are victims of it will feel that due process has now been done. I call Stewart Stevenson to be followed by Johann Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like others, I welcome this bill having been brought forward, but it takes no pleasure in the necessity that it should have to have come to this legislative solution to a problem. It is worth making the point that we had this from some survivors whom we spoke to. First of all, not all are looking for a court solution, and there are those for whom there is no resolution. It is not simply about institutional abuse. The bill covers abuse by individuals on individual children. There are cases where the abuser simply is no longer around, they have died. That kind of closure for some survivors simply cannot be given. I am very grateful for one person in that position coming and telling their story. It is very emotional for the person concerned, and it is very emotional for those of us who heard it simply because we cannot provide by legislation any way forward for that, and I am sure other individuals. The courts are one way of getting peace after abuse. The jersey process that went further back in the calendar in 1964, but in very limited and very different circumstances, did have interest for the committee in that it provided perhaps a quicker way of dealing with some things and a way that was less stressful. I think that there is scope for looking at whether there are ways in which we can, as we move forward, find ways of assisting people by pre-action protocols and perhaps other non-court ways of helping people. We should not yet discount that. I want to raise one particular thing. I made brief reference to the committee consideration, but I thought a little bit more about it subsequently. That is the limitation of childhood abuse Scotland bill that we are debating, and the introduction talks about childhood abuse. I just think that there is perhaps further scope for our thinking about what a child is, because it is someone who has not reached the capacity of someone of more than 18 years old, but it may also be reasonably held to apply to people whose calendar age is in excess of 18 years old, but they have not got the capacity of an adult. I simply wonder whether there is the opportunity to make sure that we capture people of a greater age but a more limited capacity, who have suffered exactly the same kind of abuse. One point two defines a child simply as someone under the age of 18, and there may be scope for looking at that again. Not something that the committee is considering in detail, so I will understand if we cannot see where that goes forward. The discussion that the committee had and the way that the bill is structured makes it clear that we have to look at the circumstances of the abuse in the light of what the legal and practical position was at the point that abuse took place. That is, of course, a difficult issue, because it almost means that we are endorsing abuse that we would now castigate in law, in practice and in moral code, which we might not have done at the point that abuse post-1964 is covered by the act, but I see no resolution as to how we can properly do that. The issue 2 of a new good tree financial settlement may be made perhaps for £1, although it is fair to say that there seemed to be no evidence that any such settlements were of a new good tree nature, so perhaps it is only an academic issue. The principal point is that, once you start to include where there has been a financial settlement and reopen that, there are real risks to the bill's legitimacy as a whole. I think that I have ultimately, not initially, ultimately been convinced that it is cast in the right way. It is, of course, a very simple bill in the sense that it covers two sides of paper, but the complexities of the legal issues that are contained within it are much more substantial than the limited number of words that are. There has been a little bit of reference already to the financial memorandum and to the uncertainty as to the number of people involved. I think that the minister's response to the committee has simply said that there are other views, and that is correct, but all the views that can be expressed by various people are no more than that. No one actually knows. I think that we have got a step above a rather pointless debate about numbers and say that this is a principled matter where we wish to support people who have suffered childhood abuse. We simply have to deal with the practical effects of that when we come to them while making a proper initial provision to cover what we think is a middle-point estimate, but do not let us imagine that we can keep looking at this and find some magic certain answer. I am convinced, and others are, that there is not one to find. We do this as a matter of principle, not as a matter of money. I call Johann Lamont to be followed by Mary Evans. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I want to add my thanks to all those for their role in getting to this stage, such as the ministerial team, the committee and others for providing such a thorough report. It is an important stage in a long journey of confronting the reality of child abuse, addressing the needs of those who have suffered in the past and reaffirming our wish to do all that we can to eradicate child abuse, to protect young people and to secure justice for all those who have been abused in the past. In recognising progress, we should of course be alive to the continuing hurt of those who remain excluded because the abuse happened before 1964. In recognising progress, we should also salute to those survivors, and indeed some of them are in the gallery today, who, despite the trauma of their own experience, have spoken up and spoken out, giving voice to those who were silenced in the past, demanding justice for the past and action to protect those who may be at risk right now and in the future. This is a day to reflect on the progress that has been made and to resolve to continue in the search for justice, to bring out into the light of day a scourge of our society too long without even the words to describe it and people silenced in their suffering. This bill does reflect progress, and we should be optimistic about that. It represents a change in the attitudes and understanding about the causes and consequences of child sexual abuse. We know that this is an abuse in which the survivor experience was of not being heard, was of not being believed, and that was all too common. An experience compounded by the reality that justice was not possible because of a time bar, a rule that seemed willfully designed to reinforce that message, that response that people had experienced all too often as children, that their abuse did not count, that had disregard for their experiences and a time bar that silenced people were not recognising that people were silenced, often into adulthood by a suffering that they could not talk about and with a massive impact on their health and wellbeing. It does seem that we live in times where revelations of abuse seem by the day to emerge, abuse in football, abuse in sports clubs, abuse by celebrities, abuse in youth clubs, abuse in churches. Of course, we currently see the progress stumbling as it is of the national inquiry into child abuse, revealing evidence of the absolute betrayal of young people abused while in the care of the state, brought in to be protected and abused more. Of course, young people were abused as they were educated. There are some who say that they are shocked by what is reported about football, but the truth is that a survivor will tell you that, while the individual experience reported by people of their abuse is shocking, it is not ultimately surprising. Abuse is not defined by category or by location, but by the opportunity for abusers to abuse to use their power against those without power. That is why active child protection measures are of such importance wherever our young people are. I think that it is particularly welcome that the Government that has in this bill recognised and provides rights for all survivors of abuse. Given that, I think that we should take the opportunity to reflect on how we tackle the abuse. Underpinning the development of the strategy on domestic abuse and, more broadly, violence against women was underpinned by the position of three P's—prevention, provision and protection. I ask the minister to confirm the commitment of the Scottish Government to take this approach to child abuse. It is essential that work on prevention is given a high priority, ensuring that we are educating young people and adults to be vigilant, to know that it can happen and to find a way of speaking out if it does. Of course, this preventative work needs investment. It is essential that there is effective provision for those survivors of abuse and awareness of how the trauma is experienced and can be tackled. Again, I urge the Government to resist the temptation to see support in only medical terms and to give proper recognition to those groups and organisations with a proven record in providing support shaped by the needs and wishes of survivors themselves. There are not only clinical solutions, but solutions that have been developed over time alongside survivors, and those must not be lost to us. In the bill, we recognise the steps taken to protect young people from abuse in the future by giving a strong message that such abuse is a crime and that there will be criminal and civil remedies. It is a powerful message that is unacceptable. The bill and the concentration time of the Parliament speak powerfully to the importance of using that power to protect people and to understand that there are consequences for those who seek to perpetrate abuse. In conclusion, I urge the Scottish Government, particularly to work with survivors, to recognise the achievement and progress that they have already secured, no matter how difficult that has been. I ask them to work with the cross-party group on adult survivors of child sexual abuse, whose work, whose campaigning work, brought the first successful survivor strategy and a focus on that important issue. Make a commitment to an effective survivor strategy with a ministerial focus on that work would be very welcome. I acknowledge, too, that the journey continues to be a difficult one. A survivor of abuse in the film Hidden in Silence, which was screened last night in the Parliament, said this, and I apologise if I paraphrase. She said, I do not see myself as a victim. If I say that I am a victim, I continue to blame myself.  I believe that Bill seeks to support survivors who got on with their lives, certain that they are being heard and their right to justice confirmed. I am grateful to the Government for bringing this bill forward. I welcome the work that we have done as it continues to support the needs of survivors. Can I ask those in the public gallery not to show pleasure or otherwise while they are sitting there? You have got me all mixed up now. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The limitation child abuse bill is a strong and necessary step towards achieving justice for the survivors of child abuse in Scotland. That is where I would agree with Johann Lamont's point about the language that we use around victim and survivors. This afternoon, I would like to demonstrate why the removal of the limitation period or the time bar in civil action cases relating to child abuse is such a vital and important step and what is needed in that legislation. I would like to start by echoing what we have heard around the chamber this afternoon, because what the current law does not recognise are the innumerable reasons that someone may not come forward about childhood abuse by the age of 19. Victim support Scotland and the evidence to the committee outlined some of those reasons why survivors may not come forward. It takes some years to realise that experiences were actually abuse and many have not come to terms with it. Abusers use silence and tactics to keep their victims from talking about what happened. Tactics that are effective years into the future, even when that person is no longer under the direct influence of the abuser. Shame, fear of authority, the stigma associated with the events—all of those are reasons that a survivor of childhood abuse may not come forward and take civil action and the period of limitation currently set out. The limitation punishes those who have survived this trauma by effectively not allowing them the time to come to terms with what they have experienced. That was the experience that, as a committee, we heard direct evidence of when we met with a survivor of childhood abuse who shared her experience with us, and it was just harrowing. She had spent most of her early life in foster care, she had been systematically abused by her own family, by her foster family in a children's home and by a professional who worked with children. She carried a constant guilt with her and only started the incredibly long journey towards addressing what had happened to her years later when she sought help for depression, and it was actually a health professional who had that she spoke to that identified a potential cause of the feelings that she was experiencing. Her brother, who had been in care with her, had committed suicide, and that was something that she said may not have happened had he known that this remedy was coming along. In a note to the committee, she wrote, abuse of power is a mental trap for the victim. It can take many years if not a lifetime to find our true being, and that is why this bill is so vitally important. The current law allows for the court to use discretion and permit a case to proceed even if it would normally be limited, but, as we have heard, in 44 years, this discretionary ability has only been used once since the law was enacted in 1973. The Government's policy memorandum on this bill noted that the method in which judges have used this discretionary ability has created an insurmountable barrier to justice for victims of childhood abuse. A number of organisations commented on this in their written and oral evidence to the committee. The Scottish Human Rights Commission highlighted one judgment in particular where it was commented that the legislation and the strict way that the courts have interpreted it has failed a generation of children who have been abused, with no cognisance of the legitimate reasons why those cases simply could not have been brought forward within the three years. There is no confidence in the use of discretion, and this has borne itself out in the cases presented since 1973. That is why this legislation is essential, so that survivors have the confidence in bringing those cases forward. One area in the proposed bill that I hope the Government will take into consideration from the committee's report is the definition of the word abuse, what constitutes abuse and how broad or restrictive this definition should be, and I would like to focus specifically on the inclusion of neglect. As the proposed bill is currently written, childhood abuse covers sexual abuse, physical abuse and emotional abuse, with neglect emitted on the grounds that it could, as outlined again in the policy memorandum, become problematic by broadening the scope of the bill beyond what was intended. The Government noted that some types of neglect could equal abuse, arguing that that would fall under the label of emotional abuse. While I fully agree that we should not attempt to create an exhaustive list of actions that could constitute abuse, I think that neglect is a category of abuse separate from the current definition. During one of our evidence sessions, the representative for the Scottish Human Rights Commission strongly encouraged the explicit addition of neglect into the definition of abuse to bring the bill into line with international human rights standards, which clearly less neglect as a separate category. The inclusion of neglect in the definition would not change the substantive law regarding the proof that is required by the victim or pursuer to win the case, but, as COSLA 2 noted, it could give more certainty to victims of an abusive form of neglect wishing to come forward. I would urge the Scottish Government to consider including neglect in the definition of abuse. It can manifest itself differently than a form of emotional abuse and, not explicitly including it, could add more doubt to victims struggling to come to terms with what they went through. Disposing of the limitations on childhood abuse civil cases is a huge step to help the generations of survivors of child abuse on their journey to recovery, justice and perhaps for some form of closure. I commend the Scottish Government for taking that step and for bringing the legislation forward. The bill has the general support of the committee, support from a number of key organisations and, most importantly, from the survivors whom it will most affect. The bill will not be able to right all the wrongs for all those who have suffered child abuse and it certainly will not be the answer for everyone. From here on in, it is vitally important that the survivors receive the support that they need if they are looking to take an action forward and that the survivors of abuse, which took place prior to 1964, currently inhabited by the law of prescription, are also provided with adequate paths to justice. Members are beginning to stray over the six minutes, which affects later speakers. Can you watch that, please? Liam McArthur, to be followed by John Finnie. I start with an apology to you, to the minister and to MSP colleagues, as I need to catch a flight back to Orkney this evening and therefore will not be able to state the conclusion of the debate. I also start by confirming that the Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly support and will be voting in favour of the general principles of the limitations bill this evening. Having consistently with others made the case for such a measure, we warmly welcome the Government's decision to bring forward this very short but crucially important piece of legislation. It does not, of course, stand in isolation in the Scottish Human Rights Commission's right to remind us of how this bill fits within a wider context of efforts to ensure survivors of historic childhood abuse have effective access to justice and effective remedies, including through the Apology Law, National Inquiry and the Survivor Support Fund. Nevertheless, the limitations bill represents an important milestone, one that will have both practical but also symbolic significance. Before touching on the detail of the bill in some of the areas where I think improvements may still be needed, I thank colleagues on the committee, Clark, Spice and, of course, all those who gave evidence to our committee. This is not an easy or a comfortable subject to address, but we were fortunate in the candour and the sensitivity with which the evidence was presented. Much of it has been compelling but without doubt the evidence that has hit home the hardest has been that from survivors themselves, so I would like to offer special thanks, as others have done, to them for showing the strength and the courage to share with us their experience, their insights and what this bill means to them. It does not take long in the company of a survivor to understand very clearly why those changes to the law are essential. It is estimated to take on average 22 years for a survivor of childhood abuse to be in a position to feel able to talk openly about what they have suffered for some that point never arrives. This silencing effect goes to the heart of why a new approach is needed. Of course, the courts already have discretion to set aside legal limitations in such cases. In practice, as we heard repeatedly and we have heard this afternoon, this discretion has scarcely been used. What the bill offers is greater clarity and certainty for those who take the difficult step to bring a civil case about what they can expect. As the committee concluded, simply providing further guidance to the courts on how discretion should be applied would not achieve that. Taking forward a civil action, of course, is not an easy option. The testimony that we heard in public and in private sessions underscored the imperative of ensuring that survivors have access to the widest possible support and advice. I am pleased that the minister recognises this in her written response, although, as Clare Baker said, it would be helpful to have a bit more detail around the types of support that is likely to be available. Turning to some of the other issues considered by the committee, let me start with the issue of definitions. I very much welcome the decision to broaden out the scope of the bill to cover not simply those who suffered abuse in a care setting. Under human rights law, the vulnerability of the pursuer who was a child at the time of the abuse is the critical determining factor, not where the abuse took place. Helpful, too, is the fact that the definition of abuse has been expanded to include not just physical and sexual but emotional abuse. However, like Mary Evans, the bill needs to go further still, with explicit reference to neglect, to bring it into line with international human rights law standards. Clearly, the retrospective application of the legislation is fundamental to achieving its objectives. By and large, I think that the right balance has been struck, including the difficult decision not to overturn the substantive law on prescription. However, as I said to the minister earlier, I have some misgivings about permitting cases disposed of by the creative absorvator to be re-raised. I entirely accept and support that we must ensure fair treatment for those who have tried to bring actions in the past but were time barred. In cases disposed of by the creative dismissal, that seems relatively straightforward. However, by also opening up cases disposed of by the creative absorvator, I do worry that we may be setting a dangerous precedent, albeit with the best of intentions. The minister suggested in a written response that, given the uniqueness of the category, it will not set a precedent for future categories of claims, the basis on which such an assertion can be made to me is difficult to understand. Finally, let me offer a few thoughts on the financial aspects of the bill, which raised concerns with those that we took evidence from. In truth, as Rona Mackay rightly pointed out, no-one can know for certain the number of cases that are likely to be brought or, indeed, the nature and extent of the support that survivors might require in pursuing claims. Some, of course, will not go down the legal route, but many will. Police Scotland's evidence pointed to a number much higher than the 2000 or so projected in the bill's financial memo. Meanwhile, we heard suggestions that one law firm already has a thousand clients on its books. Knowing as we do the pressure that our court-servant staff are already under, I feel that we should not underestimate the potential risks here. Likewise, we hear evidence, as Jeremy Balfour reminded us, about the risk that some organisations vital to providing support and care to vulnerable young people today could themselves be liable for large claims, in turn putting at risk the services that they provide. None of this is easy, nor an argument against the approach that is laid out in the bill. However, in addressing the failures of the past, we must also guard against creating the conditions whereby they can be repeated in future. Let me give the final word to one of the survivors that we have. For Mr Aitken said, it will have a dramatic effect on the lives of the thousands of survivors in this country who have suffered the most terrible and horrific abuse. They are still suffering from that abuse to this day. As they grow older, every survivor loses resilience and resource and the effects of the trauma that they have suffered in childhoods surface. In many cases, they end up in hospital, the criminal justice system or prison. Worst of all, there are friends of ours who have suffered so badly that they have taken their own lives. It may not be a pranaceia, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I look forward to Parliament agreeing with the general principles of this bill this evening. I say at the outset that the Scottish Green Party will be supporting the general principles of the bill at decision time tonight. Unlike others, as a member of the Justice Committee, I would like to convey thanks to the many people in and without Parliament that brought us to this point, at this particular discussion and reference to the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the action plan that they drafted. A lot of people have touched on the points. I think that there was a repetition about the importance of removal of the limitation period, the time bar, and generally that requires that civil actions must be raised within three years. Everyone has rightly said that the policy is about improving access to justice and addressing barriers, and I think that it is fair to say that this is part of a package and that not all barriers to justice are legal or have a legal remedy. I think that there has often been discussion in the chamber about the law changing for a single category, potentially having unintended consequences. The minister addressed that right at the outside by saying that it is about striking a balance, and I think that the balance has been properly struck here. It will have retrospective application and that will address, hopefully, the silencing effect that has not been appreciated. We know that the Scottish Government considered the wider rights aspects and had to find a special justification for bringing that forward. My view is that the childhood sexual abuse has unique characteristics, and they have been touched on by other speakers. Those characteristics justify a special limitation regime, the abhorrence of the acts of vulnerability, the effect, and also references that have been made to some of the consequences of mental health issues and the effect of incapacity post-traumatic stress. It is also important to say that all survivors are individuals and think that people are affected in a different way. We did hear very powerful evidence about the insurmountable barrier that is faced at the moment. We also did hear about section 19A of the Prescription of Limitations Act 1973 and the discretion that is possible. Others have talked about that. That would retain a discretion to an action to proceed, quote, if it seems that it's equitable to do so. However, I've also heard from the statistics that it hasn't ever bar one occasion being the case that that's been a course that's been followed, and indeed the onus is on the pursuer to show that justice requires action to be taken. There's also been suggestions that we've had that, and I stress small, that the judiciary has been conservative in that aspect. I'd like to touch on the private evidence that we heard, and I think that people will understand that there's a large measure of confidentiality that attaches itself to that, both for respecting the individual privacy. However, the experiences did inform us greatly, particularly the views on the bill. I heard from the same gentleman as Stuart Stevenson did. The gentleman was abused by individuals, but he was also abused by a public system by various groups. He was passed around carelessly, and I would say callously, and indeed abandoned in a system. It was a humbling experience to listen, and I have great respect and gratitude for the individuals who came forward to speak to us, not least because many, indeed some, we know will not necessarily benefit from this particular route. I'm always concerned about human rights, and if rights are extinguished, I'm concerned about them. We know that the Scottish Government states that it gave serious consideration to whether anything could be done to revive the rights that were extinguished in respect of abuse prior to 1964. The committee has asked the Government to look at what other options there are for redress that should be made available to this group. Something else that's been touched on, of course, is the expectations that have been raised on the impact on our courts and tribunal services. It's something else that the committee reports picked up on, and the potential adverse impact on third sector support. The Government again has been asked by the committee for input on that. I think that we don't know as regards to the numbers, and I think that it's not necessarily helpful to speculate. We did also hear of, indeed, that, due to the passage of time—that was the phrase—and the poor quality and potentially missing evidence, it was argued that that could lead to unfair trials. I'll roundly reject that suggestion. It certainly is the case that witnesses may be dead and incapacitated or untraceable. Key documents might have been lost or destroyed, and some of us will know from our constituency what the challenge of getting information. We also know that criminal offences have not subject to any limitation period, and the passage of time—that phrase—certainly hasn't stopped the excellent work that Police Scotland has done with support of the statute agencies, with support of third sector support groups in a dedicated unit within the Crown Office Procretive Fiscal Service, to successfully prosecute historic cases. Each case, of course, in its individual merits, but it's important to point out that there's a higher degree of proof that a prize in criminal cases, beyond all reasonable doubt, civil litigation is a lower threshold balance of probabilities. In the short time I've left, I would like to reiterate comments that others have made about consideration of the term neglect. That relates to the consistency of terminology. We've heard that domestic international and human rights of the child were a factor that applied to the definition of trial. I learnt a phrase, decree absolvator. I didn't know about that before. This route isn't for everyone. I also learnt the term legal certainty. What we want to leave survivors with is that there's a certainty that their position has been recognised, and that may be an avenue of redress for some of them. Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Justice Committee, I support this bill and agree with others that it will improve access to justice for survivors of historical childhood abuse. I'd like to thank the Minister of Government for bringing the bill forward and the convener of the Justice Committee and all the members for agreeing to the general principles in such a consensual and sensitive way. In committee, we dealt with many of the technicalities, as others have mentioned, of the bill and scrutinised it fully. We heard evidence from a number of people and others have said the most powerful from those survivors. I can't thank them highly enough for coming to committee and doing that. Although there are undoubtedly some shortfalls, for me as a social worker and a socialist, the bill represents our continuing progression as a nation. It represents that as a country, we treat this issue with the utmost seriousness. We acknowledge that we have got things wrong for victims in the past and that we are on the right path to truly tackle this issue. It is absolutely right that the time bill should be removed for those types of horrible offences. Just earlier this week, the chamber engaged in a debate on the rape clause, and many who spoke, including Kezia Dugdale, when she read out that letter, spoke about the difficulties people have in coming forward, often staying silent for many, many years, such as the case with those sort of offences. Indeed, in my experience in social work and through speaking to people from the fabulous charity, the Moira Anderson Foundation, many people do not speak out about child abuse until they themselves are parents. It is not uncommon, as another speaker has said for social workers, health professionals and others, to often have a parent or a family disclose for the first time after many years when the reason for actual engagement with that family may be something totally different altogether. Also, as John Lamont raised, just last night I was with other members in the chamber viewing the film Hidden in Silence, a very powerful film documenting the trauma of two women from an ethnic minority background who were sexually abused in their childhood, one choosing to speak out to authorities and the other not, but both coming back to the issue after many years and demonstrating through the contrasting approaches the difficulties that they faced in doing so. I would like to thank Margaret Mitchell, the convener of the cross-party group, for arranging the screening, and I would take us over to Tuneity to encourage all members to view it when they get the chance. I do believe that the bill takes the correct steps that are needed to ensure access to justice is available to survivors of historical abuse. It is vital that we continue to explore measures in which survivors of historical abuse have the support and means to deal with the effects felt from that childhood abuse. At present, individuals are not able to bring cases to civil court for personal injuries after three years, including for side effects such as PTSD, anxiety or depression. Survivors commonly face barriers that are attempting to access the civil justice system and bring civil action against the abusers. Although it is impossible to ever remove the damage and hurt caused by abuse, I think that everybody has recognised that removing the time limit means that those who suffered historical abuse, while in care and outwith, can now have access to a means of further justice and may take some degree of comfort from that and be able to have their voices heard. The bill is not designed to be a solution for all survivors, and we heard that quite clearly through the committee. We must ensure that support is always available in varying forms. Fit civil action will not be for everyone, but I believe that it should be still an option, and we should have measures in place to ensure that it is accessible to those who choose that route. I am glad that the bill is also encompassing the regardless of where the abuse took place. That may include those affected in football, for example, as was mentioned by John Lamont. Just yesterday, the local media in my area reported in a fairly high-profile case of an individual originally from my constituency, who has now been convicted of sexual abusing several different victims over 40 years ago. Previously, that case had failed to result in prosecution in the 1970s, due to a lack of evidence.  Those individuals now have more options open to them, if they so wish. Presiding Officer, does the bill go far enough? Maybe not, but it is a start and puts us ahead of many other countries on this issue. Should there be any reason for the bill not to pass? Of course not. The purpose of the legislation is to bring justice to some of those who were abused and give them a voice. I do believe that we should make further provisions for those who were affected pre-1964. However, as I said at the start, it is even more than that. It is a statement from a bold and progressive Government. It is part of a journey that I am confident that there will be further developments as we move forward. I am delighted that the committee has agreed to the principles, and I urge us, all on the chamber, to agree with the minister's motion in passing the bill. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. For the avoidance of doubt, I refer members to my registered interests as a practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. Deputy Presiding Officer, I welcome the Scottish Government seeking to address the unfortunate and continuing issue of childhood abuse past, present and future. As the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill makes clear, and has already been referred to in debate, one of the reasons for pursuing this legislation is that the social taboo which is long attached to childhood abuse has added to the reluctance of survivors to come forward. It is important that the law and the legal system should be a facilitator and not a barrier to justice for survivors. As evidence before the justice committee has indicated, and as is set out in its report, the limitation period can pose a particular difficulty for victims of childhood abuse. The discretion set out in section 19a of the prescription and limitation Scotland Act 1973 is not often exercised, and it is against that background that the new provisions for the 1973 act are proposed. The committee's support for clarification and improvement of that law is to be welcomed. At the same time, the committee has rightly raised a number of matters which require further consideration and attention. Although those might be thought at first sight simply to be matters of mere detail, on closer examination, they merit closer scrutiny. As someone who is not a member of the justice committee, may I commend the committee on its thorough and thoughtful approach to the matter and the fairly comprehensive report that it has prepared. I say comprehensive, knowing as a lawyer that, inevitably, something will not have been covered, but may I say that certainly every issue which arose to my mind has been covered. However, I would encourage the Government to respond in detail to the points raised in the report for further consideration. Some of those have already been referred to here today, and I will seek to focus on one aspect in particular. That issue is the potential cost that may arise and appear to be wholly uncertain according to the justice report. Those take on a number of aspects. The Government has sought to estimate the number of survivors that may seek to raise a civil action. However, the report details a number of factors that could see the number rise significantly. An example is the role played by claims management companies or personal injury lawyers. A larger number of claimants than anticipated could see court costs rise, especially for complex cases. It is essential that this possibility is taken into account at this stage in order that any required changes are made so that the bill is effective in ensuring justice in a timely manner. Resources are key to this, as is a more accurate picture of the number of cases likely to be brought. My colleague Jeremy Balfour raised the issue of successor organisations in the third sector. I would add to that that voluntary organisations that provide essential support services in society today may find themselves having to shoulder responsibility, financial and otherwise, for unauthorised and unacceptable actions of individuals who worked for or with those organisations sometimes decades previously. Such an organisation may not have had insurance at the time or an insurance policy that does not indemnify them against the claim or one whose insurance provider no longer exists. It could face dissolution in order to meet the claim. In such circumstances, and I pose the question, how can we ensure that essential work done by the third sector is not lost as a result of unintended consequences? What have local authorities raised already today? How will all that further impact their ability to deliver services? They are likely to face similar issues. This was raised before the Justice Committee by COSLA in that a number of concerns raised in the justice report relate to a higher percentage of claims being potentially possible against local authorities as a result of the majority of children's services being delivered by them. There is no estimate available at present as to the cost that these local authorities could face. The main insurance provider for local authorities between 1975 and 1992 ceased operations in the 90s. Insurance premiums covering such matters now could rise significantly as a result of the legislation. I emphasise that these are not reasons against the bill and its purposes, but rather to emphasise that we need to ensure that the bill will not have unintended consequences that are desired by no one. Assistance clearly must be given to all survivors so that they can assess for themselves which solution they want to follow, whether through a court process or by other means. The bill has support across the chamber. I look forward to a detailed response from the Government to the areas of concern identified by the Justice Committee and particularly in relation to resolution of potential unintended consequences and undesired consequences of the bill, which I have briefly sketched. The last of the open speakers is Ben Macpherson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like Gordon Lindhurst, I would also like to refer members to my voluntary register of interests as a non-practising member of the Lost Society of Scotland. I would like to first of all commend the Government for bringing this important bill forward. I would also like others to commend fellow members of the Justice Committee and the stewardship of Margaret Mitchell through reviewing the bill through the committee process. I think that the way that the committee worked collaboratively and constructively on this piece of legislation demonstrated the strength of the committee system in the Scottish Parliament when members and parties work together on matters of importance. Like others, I would also like to thank all the witnesses from organisations who came and gave evidence, particularly to the survivors who gave evidence in private. The experience of taking evidence from the survivors was incredibly moving and upsetting for all of us. What struck me, as well as the powerful evidence that they gave us around their determination to seek justice and the harrowing experiences that they had gone through and explaining them to us, there was also a sense among the survivors that I spoke to that this bill already started to give an important recognition to their suffering. While we should absolutely focus on the technicalities and the practicalities of the bill, we should also recognise that point that there is already a process of justice that has begun by the fact that it is being discussed here in the Scottish Parliament. I, like all other members of the committee, welcome the aims of the bill to improve access to justice for survivors of this horrific historical abuse and, like others, endorse the general principles of the bill. By removing the three-year time limit in which victims of childhood abuse can bring a civil action against the abuser, we are creating an important choice, not a panacea, but an important choice for survivors. The system that is in place at the moment, as Kim Leslie from the Law Society made clear, does not square that there is no such time limit for a criminal prosecution, but the situation is that an individual cannot prosecute after a lengthy passage of time when it comes to a civil matter. The bill will rightly address that injustice. There are two points that I would like to pick up on, in particular. One is cases where abuse occurred before 1964 and the other is around the definition of emotional abuse. The serious consideration was given by the Government to the matter of prescription and cases before 1964. I am glad that that was the case. In all the oral evidence that we took in the committee, it was clear that the Government, in the view of the witnesses, had struck the right balance. The Faculty of Advocates commented that a potential challenge could be made against the bill if the prescription was sought to be extinguished. However, like others, Margaret Mitchell and Mary Evans, I would urge the minister to address what other redress measures can be made available to those who were abused in cases that occurred before 1964. In terms of emotional abuse, much of the points have already been covered by other speakers. I support the inclusive and non-exhaustive definition of abuse. However, in oral evidence, Laura Dunlop QC, representing the Faculty of Advocates, suggested that it should be open to the courts to develop the concept of emotional abuse. Abuse generally, but particularly emotional abuse. I wondered if the Government could comment whether any guidance would be useful with regard to that specific definition of emotional abuse, particularly considering that the committee has concluded that asking the Scottish Government to respond to uncertainties around that term, particularly with regard to spiritual and psychological abuse, were two matters that were raised. I support what other members have said about neglect and the interests of time that I will not expand on just now. As others have said, it was emphasised to the committee that the bill is not a panacea, and I share that point. However, I would like to finish by quoting Harry Aitken, who gave us evidence in one of our first sessions, representing the former boys and girls abused in quarrier's homes. He said, "...the significance of the bill is that, at long last, survivors will have the choice. That element of choice has been denied to them until now. They will already have heard that it will be a difficult task for them to go to court. They will have heard that they will have to have a robust case, and that case will be cross-examined and it will have to stand up to the normal practices of the legal system." However, having made that choice and found the courage to go forward, I believe that that will fortify them. We should support and pass this bill to help to fortify survivors, and, as Mary Evans said, to do the so on their journey of recovery, in the interests of justice, and to seek the closure that the so rightly desire.  Thank you, Presiding Officer. In closing for Scottish Labour and, as our member on the Justice Committee, I would like to thank all the individuals and organisations who assisted the committee in producing the stage 1 report for the Limitations, Childhood Abuse, Scotland Bill. I would also like to praise the outstanding bravery of the survivors of Childhood Abuse, who gave the committee a very powerful insight into why the bill is needed. I commend everyone in the chamber today who has taken part in this debate for maintaining a respectful and calm atmosphere as we discuss what are highly sensitive and emotive issues. Contributions from members across the chamber today indicate that this legislation is rightly a priority that all of us share. The Limitations, Childhood Abuse, Scotland Bill will enable many survivors of Childhood Abuse to make the choices that they need to seek appropriate reparations for the abuse that they have suffered. The reasons for bringing in this bill are sound, and I support the Government in their aims. The Justice Committee report supports the general principles of the bill, and, like the committee, I have a few reservations about some of the small technical details of the bill. The recommendations of the report are well researched and well thought out, and I will touch on some of those in order to raise with the Government how we can work together to find the right outcomes for survivors of Childhood Abuse. The current three-year limitation period is as we have heard a barrier to seeking justice and one that will be overcome with the bill. That was agreed by the committee and the majority of those who presented evidence to the committee. By removing the current time bar, survivors will be able to take appropriate means to take their civil rights to court and bring action against offenders. That may not be the right option for all survivors, as we have heard in evidence sessions in the chamber today. However, very important, it will give survivors further choices. During one of our evidence sessions, Loredynlop QC pointed out that the process of bringing in action could in some cases do more harm than good because of the significant emotional impact of speaking about their abuse and reliving the trauma. That is why I believe that we must ensure that support is available for survivors to make the right decision. The Scottish Human Rights Commission has also highlighted that there would remain a necessary or significant evidential burden for survivors in raising this through the court and identifying their offender. In supporting the survivors, we help them to make the right individual choice and, as the committee report states, that could help to manage survivors' expectations about what can be achieved. The minister has advised the committee that steps would be taken to ensure that support is available. As others have raised in the chamber today, I look to the minister for further detail of that support. On the definition of abuse in the setting, the committee rightly welcomed the decision to allow action against abuse, regardless of the setting. It would have been a further injustice to survivors by creating a two-tier system to prevent them from seeking redress if they had been abused in one protected place where others were open to action. As we have heard on cases where the abuse started before 1964, Scottish Labour are happy to work with the Government and those across the chamber to find some form of restitution. During the evidence sessions, we heard evidence proposing other options. However, we would like to see a model that fits Scotland's needs, but far more importantly, it fits survivors' needs. The Scottish Government must work with survivors and listen to their needs and find the most suitable solution for them. I recognise that there were mixed views on the inclusion of neglect within the definition of abuse. However, the inclusion of neglect would mean consistency with other domestic and international laws and would be a deterrent to such behaviour, as argued by Detective Chief Superintendent Leslie Bowme. I support the inclusion of neglect and I welcome the commitment from the minister to look further into the issue. On the financial implications highlighted by COSLA and third sector organisations, there are serious concerns that the backroom costs would impact the resources of current services. While we wholly support the Government's aim of widening access to justice for survivors, we need more information on how the Government will deal with those financial implications. I welcome the minister's response to the report where she acknowledges that there is great uncertainty for local authorities, charities and third sector groups, and we look to the Scottish Government for information on how it plans to support those organisations. Finally, we welcome the bill and praise the courage of the survivors, some in the gallery today, for their input into the justice committee's report. They are campaigning to end the current time bar that has denied access to justice for too long. I confirm our support for the aims and provisions of the Limitations, Childhood, Abuse Scotland Bill. I call Annie Wells. Around seven minutes, please, Ms Wells. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and to all those speakers today. I would also like to pay a special thanks to those who gave evidence at the justice committee, especially the survivors, who spoke on such sensitive and personal issues. I would like to start off by reaffirming my own support and my party's support for the bill. Widening access for justice for survivors of historical childhood abuse is the right thing to do. By the very nature of the crime, it is absolutely right to expect that it can take survivors many, many years to come to terms with what they have been through and to seek the justice that they deserve. Of course, the current law does provide judges with discretion to allow a case out with three-year limitation period to proceed, but, as my colleague Margaret Mitchell, the convener of the Justice Committee and many others have stated, the discretion has virtually never been used. We all understand the practical rationale behind the three-year time limitation on civil court claims, the longer the delay, the less concrete the evidence, the wider the window for potential legal cases, the more difficult it becomes for organisations to have the certainty and finality needed for day-to-day business, as well as the security of knowing that there are no pending legal claims. Those are the reasons why similar time bar periods for personal injury claims exist in nearly all similar developed legal systems in the world. However, despite those practical concerns, we are in unanimous agreement today that the time limitation for survivors of historical sexual abuse, whether that be sexual, physical or emotional, should be lifted so that survivors get the justice that they deserve. Underpinning that bill is a unanimous recognition of the unique experiences survivors of childhood sexual abuse face. Victim support Scotland supports this idea, highlighting the length of time that it may take for someone to realise that they have been abused because of the silencing tactics used by abusers, the feelings of shame, embarrassment and trauma that may prevent someone from coming forward for many years. NSPCC Scotland, carrying out a piece of research with 60 adults, found that it took on average of eight years to tell someone about it. Therefore, not only am I pleased to see the lifting of the three-year time limitation, but also that the law will be applied retrospectively, meaning that the bill applies to the abuse occurred before, as far back as 1964. In line with what has already been raised in the chamber today, as well as previously to the Justice Committee, there are, of course, considerations to be made as we look beyond our agreement on the bill's general principles. While it is undoubtedly the right and moral thing to do, the committee highlighted what it saw as a conservative estimate by the Government with regard to the number of survivors that could potentially come forward. My colleague Gordon Lindhurst touched on some of that in more detail, citing the difficulty in predicting such numbers and therefore cost implications. Local authorities and third sector organisations will be affected as we saw when COSLA came before the Justice Committee. Although they very much support the bill, concerns were raised about the financial implications of that on local authorities and how such costs would be met with current identified insurance policies. Furthermore, there are also practical considerations to be made for such bodies when it comes to giving evidence. How will such organisations answer questions on behalf of a defender, perhaps an ex-employee, who has either passed away or long since left? Douglas Ross also spoke on the broader impact that that will have on the court in terms of resource. What is the capacity of the courts in terms of taking on a number of new cases, an estimate for which we do not have, and how do we ensure that survivors are not deterred from pursuing cases because of lengthy and potentially avoidable delays? I would also like to touch on the more human aspects of the bill, as my colleague Jeremy Balfour touched upon. Pursuing a civil action will not always be the right solution for all survivors, and at times the court process could do more harm than good, a point raised by many across this chamber. Jeremy also said that we need to look at the vulnerability of survivors and some of the long-standing effects that go hand in hand, such as alcohol misuse and drugs misuse. We need to make sure that there is support there for the survivors. In further more, what potential action could be taken by the Scottish Government to ensure justice for those cases that occurred prior to 1964? In terms of service provision, as Margaret Mitchell highlighted, given the overall financial resource implications of the bill, we need to ensure that current support services for survivors are not adversely affected. As mentioned by others in the chamber today, last night, the CPG for Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse screened an extremely insightful documentary on the experiences of victims of childhood abuse from the BME community. In cases such as those in which vast social, cultural barriers already face survivors and are coming forward, we would seek to reaffirm support for existing services. Finally, in closing for the Scottish Conservatives today, I would like to again reaffirm my party's support for this bill. In rightfully acknowledging the unique case of childhood abuse victims, the three-year time limitation in place for civil claims should of course be lifted. Concerns over its implementation do of course exist, and as long as we are realistic about what those are and what measures should be put in place early on, they will be manageable. I hope for further scrutiny in the later debates, but I do very much welcome the bill at the first stage. I now call Annabelle Ewing to close the debate on behalf of the Government. Can you take us to just before decision time, please, minister? Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been a valuable and an important debate, and I would like to thank members for their contributions today. Mary Fee was absolutely right that the tenor of the debate has been excellent and fitting in terms of the subject that we are all addressing. I am pleased that members share the aim of widening access to justice for survivors of childhood abuse. Ben Macpherson was absolutely right to say that we should ensure that the key objective of ensuring justice for the group of people who have been through so much should not become obscured when we have discussions on the more technical provisions of the bill, as important as those discussions are. I am also pleased to note that there is support for the general principles of the bill across the chamber. I have, I can assure members, also listen carefully to a number of points that were raised, and I will, of course, give them full consideration. I would now like to touch on some of the issues that are referred to, and if I do not get time to address all of them, please do not hesitate to corner me and seek further clarification. I am grateful to Mary Fee and Claire Baker and others for raising the issue of support for survivors. I absolutely agree that it is important to ensure that survivors are given the right support in making decisions, whether it is a decision about whether or not to raise a civil action or a decision about what sort of support is best for them. I would point out to the chamber that, since 2007, over £10 million has been distributed through the survivor support innovation and development fund to third and voluntary sector organisations. The fund has a budget of £1.8 million for this financial year, with regard to in-care survivors in May 2015. We also announced investment of £13.5 million over five years to expand and enhance support for survivors of in-care childhood abuse. Through a dedicated support fund, we relaunched this year as the future pathways fund. Decisions regarding civil actions are, as we have heard, complex at a point well-made by Rona Mackay and anyone who faces such a decision needs quality, impartial advice and guidance. I would say to members that we are currently in active discussions with the Law Society of Scotland on how we can best raise awareness among solicitors about the very particular issues that are involved in those cases and how they can become better equipped to support survivors. We are also currently planning an event in conjunction with the Law Society, which will bring together the legal profession and professionals in survivor support organisations to ensure that there is mutual understanding and a sharing of knowledge. We, of course, remain committed to exploring what other forms of support can be made available. With regard to the issue of the definition of abuse, I am grateful in particular to Mary Evans and Liam McArthur, who I note has had to leave us for his flight to Orkney, and to John Finnie and others, who raised the issue about the definition of abuse in the bill. I think that it is important to keep in mind when looking at how abuse has been defined elsewhere that each definition is designed for its own purpose. What works best in one context may not be the best approach in another. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it is important that the definition sends the right signal while, as much as possible, avoiding unintended consequences. I have listened carefully to the evidence presented to the committee and to the arguments that have been put forward here today. As I said in my opening remarks, I will carefully reflect on those. I would now like to turn to the issue of the estimation of numbers. I note concerns about the impact of the bill and the estimations that we have carried out in relation to the number of survivors likely to come forward. As members will have seen, we estimate that between 400,000 and 4,000 survivors may come forward with the midpoint of 2,200 being considered most likely. I absolutely recognise that this is not an exact science. We simply do not know, and that is the actual position. We have used a variety of methods and looked at a range of sources, but it is of course possible that more actions will be raised or fewer actions could be raised. It is clear that, at this stage, we do not know if those estimates will be right or wrong. All witnesses in the Justice Committee sessions have recognised that this is very difficult to predict. Nothing in the evidence indicates that there is a better estimate that should be used instead—a point well made by Stuart Stevenson. It may interest the members to note that, further to a law society briefing for this very debate, the law society stated that it believes that the likely impact of the bill has been adequately captured in the financial memorandum. Reference was made to Police Scotland data. Of course, it is helpful to hear about on-going work from Police Scotland among others, but it is also important to keep in mind that the number of victims identified within police files is not the same as the number of survivors who will come forward to raise an action. In deciding whether to go ahead with an action, factors that will need to be considered include whether there is a solvent defender, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the case and whether the survivor, perhaps key above all, is prepared to go through the often challenging court process. Not all cases identified by the police will translate into civil actions. Witnesses giving evidence to the committee recognise the difficult task of estimating numbers and the great uncertainties involved. On the potential impact for financial and resource implications for local authorities, third sector organisations and their insurers—a point made by several members this afternoon—I do absolutely recognise that the costs that arise may go beyond the costs directly associated with defending any actions that are raised. However, as we have set out in the financial memorandum, it is not possible to estimate what this impact will be at this point in time. The bill's general principles are supported by COSLA and by many third sector organisations. I will continue my engagement with COSLA. In fact, I would mention to the chamber that I recently met with councillor Stephanie Primrose, spokesperson for education, children and young people in COSLA. We did agree at that meeting that the best way forward is to continue our dialogue. We should not rush ahead and draw conclusions before the facts of the matter are known, and we will carefully consider evidence of the impact of the bill. With regard to the issue of the impact on courts, what I would say is that, further to a point made by Annie Wells that no estimate had been made, I would refer Annie Wells in case she has not had time to read the financial memorandum that we provide a figure in terms of a gross estimate for the costs here. That is £288,000. Excuse me, minister. I ask members to please have a bit of courtesy and be quiet. This is an important discussion that is going on with the minister. I think that it is important to keep in mind that, again, of those actions, not all people will pursue an action that is absolutely a decision for the survivor themselves. If they decide that that is the route that they decide, they want to go down, it is important to bear in mind that not all those actions that get raised in court not all will be raised at exactly the same time, not all will be of exactly the same length. Of course, it is important to remember that many actions do settle out of court. I will continue to have discussions with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service and the situation will be reviewed on an on-going basis. Reference was made to the fact that there might be a significant number of cases with one particular law firm. That example was raised in committee as well. Excuse me again, minister. Can I please ask members to be courteous and be quiet? The reference was made to a law firm having a thousand potential cases on its books. Of course, it is again important to recognise that maybe not all of those cases will be re-raised. Again, it goes back to the choice of the survivor and we should not seek in any way to usurp that choice. That is entirely a matter for each survivor to determine for themselves. We cannot predict, therefore, exactly how many will be re-raised. It is likely to be the case that not all of those cases will end up in the courts. I would also wish to clarify again the issue of the section 17D matter in terms of the position of that in the bill and the other section 17C provision. In relation to section 17C, I would again come back to the issue of the decree of absolvator, which some members have raised. I think that they will be surprised to find that they are becoming, as John Finnie alluded to, legal experts in our civil procedures. However, it is important to recall that whether or not absolvator was the most appropriate disposal for those actions would have been in fact a matter for the parties who agreed the settlement at the time. However, the fundamental point is that those cases did not receive an adjudication on the merits. Just for the sake of completeness, I think that it should be noted that the decree of absolvator in terms of current Scots law is not an absolute in any event. There is actually the possibility of new evidence being brought forward under the res novator procedure, albeit that that is extremely rare. I think that some members during the month also referred to wider issues in terms of survivors. Of course, raising a civil action as we have heard is not the solution for all survivors and there are a number of transit activity under way, including the work that is going on with Celsus, engaged directly with the survivors in terms of framing the further engagement and consultation on financial redress. That, of course, will look at the position of those in-care survivors pre-September 1964. The process, as I say, is being led by Celsus and the interaction action plan review group. It will fully explore the issues around redress and gather a wider range of views. I am not sure of my time, but I think that I should probably start concluding. I would like to thank once again all the members who have contributed to today's debate. It has been a very engaging and meaningful debate that has raised a number of important issues. I am pleased to reiterate again the fact that there is support across the chamber for the principles of the bill. I think that that is a very important signal to send, that this Parliament can send to the survivors who have been through so much and whom we have paid tribute to this afternoon for their bravery and determination to ensure that their voices were listened to and acknowledged and that they can now get the justice that they have been seeking. In conclusion, I would like to say that that has been a very important and useful debate. I will carefully reflect on the issues that members have raised and I look forward to further progressing the bill. That concludes our debate on stage 1 of the Limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 3812, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution for the Limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill. I call on Michael Matheson to move the motion. Thank you very much. There are two questions to be put today. The first question is that motion 5290, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on Limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill, at stage 1, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. And the final question is that motion 3812, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution for the Limitation Childhood Abuse Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed and that concludes decision time. I close this meeting.