At the moment the acquittal rate in rape is very high, seven out of 10 men walk away

Dr Lynn Jamieson

The issue came to a head a year ago at the High Court in Perth when John Anderson was allowed to question a 13-year-old girl and her mother, whom he was accused of raping. He was later acquitted.

At the time ministers said they were determined to act to stop the practice, dubbing it "unreasonable, unnecessary and offensive".

However, there were concerns that such a move might infringe European law which guarantees anyone accused of a crime the right to defend themselves.

John Scott, chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, said the measures should not encounter any problems with the European Convention of Human Rights.

John Scott: "Redress the balance"

He said that the bill should protect the human rights of those who bring rape allegations and "redress the balance".

But defence lawyer George More said the new laws were "not necessary".

He said: "I think that the way that the system works at present is adequate.

"Judges are there to ensure fairness. That way witnesses are not bullied and not upset by a question which is unfair."

Dr Lynn Jamieson, a sociologist from Edinburgh University who has conducted research on sexual offence trials, welcomed the bill, saying it removed "an obvious wrong" while protecting the rights of the accused.

Sexual character

She particularly welcomed the moves to tighten up the procedures that have to be gone through if a defence advocate wants to introduce something about a woman's past sexual history or her sexual character.

Under the change the accused will still be able to apply to bring in such evidence but in deciding whether to admit it, the court will need to ensure that the victim's dignity and privacy are protected.

She added: "At the moment the acquittal rate in rape is very high, seven out of 10 men walk away.

"I doubt if prohibiting a man from defending himself will make any difference to that."

The Bill contains a series of procedural provisions: