I want to move on quickly, so take your seats quickly please. The next item of business is a stage 3 debate on motion 118 to 9 in the name of Annabelle Ewing on civil litigation expenses in group preceding Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Annabelle Ewing to speak and move the motion. Minister, seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to open the stage 3 debate on the civil litigation expenses in group preceding Scotland Bill and at the outset. I would like to express my thanks to all the members of the Justice Committee for their careful consideration of the bill. What I have noted is that they have all become quite expert in conversant and dealing with a number of very technical civil law provisions, so I commend them for their determination to get to groups with the intricacies of Scotland's civil law. I would also like to thank the committee clerks for their extreme hard work. It was a very large bill in one sense in terms of dealing with a number of different technical issues. I would also like to thank all those stakeholders who contributed views and opinions, and above all, I would like to thank Sheriff Principal James Taylor not only for conducting a most thorough and detailed review of expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland, but also for his continued involvement with the bill during its progress through this parliament. I hope that Sheriff Principal Taylor will now enjoy his retirement and feel very proud of the significant contribution that he has made to improving access to justice and civil litigation in Scotland. As I pointed out at the stage 1 debate, the context of the review was that there has been a continuing 41 per cent decrease in civil litigation in Scotland since 2008-9. That should be a cause for concern for all those with an interest in the health and wellbeing of Scotland's civil law as an independent jurisdiction and the ability of our fellow Scots to exercise their legal rights in an affordable way. We know, as a result of Sheriff Principal Taylor's review, that the potential costs involved in civil court action can deter many people from pursuing legal action, even where they have a meritorious claim. The fundamental aspiration of this bill is that those contemplating litigation in the civil court should have more certainty about what it will cost them and that it will be indeed possible for them to access justice. Litigants will be able to take a claim forward on a no-win-no-free basis under damages-based agreements that solicitors will now be able to offer for the first time, as opposed to via claims management companies. Success-based agreements, including damages-based agreements that are all types of no-win-no-free cases, are already very popular since people can understand how they work and, of course, they have a route to remedy that otherwise may be unaffordable. Litigants do not pay anything in advance and the provider of the legal service will pay for all the outlays of raising the action, including court fees in personal injury cases. In returning, the provider of the legal service is entitled to a success fee to be deducted from the damages awarded or agreed, as well as the judicial expenses recoverable from the defender. The level of the success fee will, however, be capped by regulations, as recommended by Sheriff Principal Taylor, and those will be brought forward for scrutiny by the Parliament under the affirmative procedure. Success-free agreements are offered by claims management companies at present, as I alluded to a moment ago. Though many such companies offer a service that prospective litigants can trust, there has been some concern about the operating practices of some of the other companies. There was therefore widespread consensus that claims management companies should be fully regulated. In parallel to scrutiny of this bill, by legislative consent motion, the Parliament has agreed that claims management companies operating in Scotland will be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. That has been provided for by the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, which had its comments report stage on 24 April last week. Also earlier this week, HM Treasury published the draft regulations that will provide for the details of claims management regulation. The chamber can therefore have confidence that any apparent regulatory gap between the implementation of this bill and full financial conduct authority regulation will be short. Whereas the first part of the bill is concerned with how much an individual may be liable to pay their own lawyer, part two is concerned with what a litigant might become liable to pay to the other side if the case is lost. This fear was identified in the most recent civil justice statistics for Scotland as being a possible reason for the reduction in litigation in Scotland to which I have already referred. Part two of the bill will therefore introduce qualified one-way cost shifting for personal injury cases. The vast majority of defenders in these actions are well resourced and the majority of pursuers are of limited means. Although, as a matter of practice, very few claimants are pursued for expenses by successful defenders, there is, of course, always a risk to a pursuer that they may be liable for considerable expenses and possibly bankruptcy if they lose. Chair Principle Taylor's review confirmed the real fear in the minds of potential pursuers, and therefore introduced the provision for qualified one-way cost shifting, which removes the risk so long as the pursuer and his or her legal team conduct the case appropriately. The test by which the benefit of COPs can be lost by pursuers oing to their behaviour has been the subject of much discussion and refinement at stages two and three. However, I am satisfied that the bill has now finalised faithfully implement Chair Principle Taylor's recommendations. Part two also makes provision for the potential payment of expenses by third-party funders. That is intended to ensure that venture capitalists whose only interest in a case is commercial will be liable to adverse awards of expenses. The Scottish Government, as well as John Finnie, brought amendments at stage two to ensure that trade unions and providers of successful agreements are excluded from the provision. The bill has also been amended to ensure full disclosure of Lysigant's funding as Chair Principle Taylor identified that as an aid to early settlement and thus to enhance the efficiency of the courts. Part three of the bill has been the subject of less focus, although I am sure that a lot of considerable interest on the part of members deals with the issue of auditors of courts and they are to be brought within the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Also, the final part of the bill has—I am very pleased to say—introduce group proceedings or multi-party class actions for the first time in Scotland. The proposition received broad support in the committee and, indeed, the view very much was that its introduction to the civil law of Scotland was long overdue. The Government, as members will recall, has accepted both opt-in and opt-out models and that the reference to both models is on the face of the bill. I pay tribute to the tenacity and, in particular, to Liam McArthur. Indeed, all committee members, whom I absolutely could see, were quite determined from fairly near the outset to ensure that that was indeed the case. Finally, the bill will provide for post-elections of scrutiny to take place in five years' time. Again, that suggestion was very much committee-driven. I would have to say that it is not always going to be the case that this would be the best use of resources. We do not want to see a situation in which we devote all our resources to post-elections of scrutiny of every single bill, but I think that this bill is the kind of bill that merits that attention. In conclusion, I am convinced that the review will show in due course that the bill has been effective and successful in its objective of making civil litigation in Scotland more accessible and the cost more predictable to those contemplating seeking to exert their legal rights. I move the motion in my name. At the outset, I declare an interest to the practice in litigation. Lawyer and Parliament should know that I hold current practice certificates with law societies of both Scotland and England and Wales. I am pleased to open for the Scottish Conservatives to speak in favour of passing the civil litigation bill. At the outset, like the minister, I thank the bills team for their assistance throughout the process, in particular for their drafting and support with the many and various amendments that are proposed. To the clerks for getting the bill to this stage, I found the evidence sessions genuinely fascinating, but they required a great deal of work behind the scenes to ensure that we all understood the background and the concepts being explained. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee. I felt that this was an example of a cross-party committee working really well together to achieve a result that was better than what we started with. Although, as I shall elaborate shortly, I was not in favour of some of the amendment decisions that were taken last Thursday, I am of the view that, for example, the debate on whether to ring fence future losses showed the best of Parliament and the best of the committee. Members heard the evidence, debated it, moved from an initial position, then in response to the evidence and the debate, moved again. Now, it has been a long journey from the 2013 Taylor review to this point, but I think that it is a worthwhile one. Back then, Sheriff Principal Taylor concluded that there would often be a David and Goliath relationship, which prejudiced the attractiveness and prospects of litigation for those with rights. Therefore, there was a denial of rights, a denial of the principle of access to justice. The Justice Committee agreed, recommending that the general principles of the bill be approved, because, as we said at the time, on balance, the committee considers that there are problems with access to justice in respect of civil litigation. Anything that ensures that those with rights are able to avail themselves of those rights must be a good thing. The bill aims to do that by introducing some of Taylor's recommendations, including the increase in funding options around regulating success for the agreements, the ability to enter damages-based agreements, the introduction of quacks, meaning that pursuers in personal injury cases will usually not have to pay legal costs if they lose, and the introduction of a class action procedure for the first time in Scotland. Will it achieve those aims? The Law Society of Scotland certainly thinks so, stating in its evidence that the bill had the potential to significantly increase access to justice. I hope that it does. In passing, I worry about whether there has been too easy, too quick a conflation between the phrase, access to justice and access to solicitors and the courts. I am not convinced that those are the same thing. I suggest, as I did during the committee, that the hiring of solicitors and litigating through the courts are a means to achieve whatever justice means to that particular pursuer. I know the member's point, but I think that Sheriff Principal Taylor dealt with that in his review where he or his evidence where he suggested that we should be perhaps considering the phrase access also to negotiation, and I think that perhaps that deals with the member's points. I do take the point that the minister makes. I put exactly the same question to Sheriff Principal Taylor, and he did indeed deal with it. I think that there is a wider philosophical discussion to be had, but this is perhaps not the time to do it. On that note, I listened to Daniel Johnson gently suggest at stage 2 that perhaps the insurance industry might have been too influential and insufficiently questioned in this process. I am paraphrasing, so you will forgive me. I understand that point, but I do not accept it as a fair reflection of the considerable scrutiny that I think we all individually and through the committee subjected the witnesses to. If that charge sticks, the same suggestion might plausibly be levied at those representations by some in the legal fraternity. For example, we heard last week a great deal about how we shouldn't ring fence future loss, because to do so might lead solicitors to wind back from offering damages-based agreements. We'll never know whether that would have been the case or not now, but, as I said last week, it does worry me that we reduce any element of what are ultimately future care costs and, thus, potentially, prejudice the amount available to the pursuer for care and support in order to incentivise pursuer solicitors. I do think that there's a risk that, over time, the courts will gently and, perhaps understandably, increase the award to ensure that the full costs of care are recovered after solicitors have taken their fee. I think that that is a realistic possibility, but if I am wrong, I will be prepared and happy to admit it to this chamber. On the flipside, I was pleased to see the Parliament at stage 2 vote to ensure that the benefit of coax should be lost where a pursuer has acted fraudulently in connection with the claim of proceedings or makes a fraudulent representation. That is important, because there could be unintended consequences arising from a significant increase in court action such as insurers picking up the cost of more court cases and thinking purely commercially that would presumably increase overheads, and I remain concerned that increased overheads could be loaded on to people's premiums. I feel therefore that the full protection against unmeritorious or fraudulent claims that went through at stage 2 should help prevent a rise in such claims. Finally, the implementation of the act must be closely reviewed to ensure that consumers, taxpayers and pursuers do not lose out. I flagged earlier in the process that witnesses from several NHS boards suggested that the anticipated increase in claims for clinical negligence would be difficult to cover with an attendant impact on healthcare delivery, as NHS resources will be taken up defending unsuccessful claims rather than on delivery of services to patients. I think that that is a concern, and for the second time referenced the Law Society's contribution, in which it noted that it is difficult to gauge the full impact of the bill as many of the details of the provisions will be made at a later stage through regulations. To this end, like the minister, I was pleased that Margaret Mitchell's amendments requiring a five-year report were passed last week. Again, a better outcome as a function of the process. The bill aims to increase access to justice, and through a comprehensive process in which all parties and viewpoints were engaged and debated, we have arrived at a bill that I hope will deliver just that. My colleagues and I shall vote for its passing this evening and look forward to the future that I am sure it will deliver. Thank you very much. I call on Daniel Johnson to be followed by John Finnie. Daniel Johnson, no more than five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I realised as I get to my feet that many members may be wondering after Thursday's lengthy and detailed stage 3 amendment debate whether there is anything left to say about the civil litigation will. Can I assure members that I have plenty left to say? I intend to use my full five minutes. I am just surprised that there are more members in the chamber here this afternoon. I am sure that they are all watching on their televisions. The minister said in her opening remarks that many of us seem to have become experts and very impassioned about this topic. Yes, civil litigation is dry and it is technical, but there is a reason why so many of us have become impassioners. None of us hope to use civil litigation proceedings and have to pursue compensation in this way, but when you do, you really have to. The reality is that those proposals will make it easier and more certain for people to bring forward cases. Those people who have experienced catastrophic life changes through injury will have a distinct and real improvement to their prospects of getting redress and compensation. Indeed, I hope that it addresses the decline in civil litigation cases that the minister mentioned in her opening remarks. Scottish Labour fully supports the bill and the positive reforms that it puts in place. I, too, would like to record my thanks to Sheriff Principal James Taylor, who is balanced and well thought through recommendations at the very heart of the bill. Indeed, that marks the concluding stage of what many years of work for him with the report that was first published in 2013. I, too, would like to add my thanks to the bill team and the clerks, because it is their work that has enabled the detailed and thorough debate and inquiry that has gone on. I know that I am in danger of repeating what other people have said, but it is worth just remarking on the three key propositions that the bill puts in place. First of all, one-way qualified cost-shifting quarks, which, for the uninitiated, can sound a little bizarre, but they are hugely important in increasing the uncertainty that many may have in terms of the costs that they may incur. It is also very important that we properly enshrine the already popular no-win, no-free agreements, so that solicitors can offer them as well as claims management companies. It is a mark of the balance in the bill that ministers will be able to bring forward secondary legislation to cap those success fees, along with a sliding scale, so that, if there are unintended consequences, they can be addressed. Finally, group proceedings are also a welcome step, especially for those who may have experienced a small loss, who individually may feel that it is not worth while bringing forward a case, but acting collectively makes that much more of a possibility. I think that it is a mark of the seriousness that this has been taken with the thoroughness of the stage 3 amendment debate that took place. Indeed, I think that it is a mark of that debate that I ended up being on opposing sides with just about every combination of different parties right the way through that process. I think that that is a mark of how thoroughly everyone approached that, but I could just briefly set out the ways that I think this bill has been genuinely improved. Others have mentioned those amendments. First of all, the opt-out from group action, which I think was spearheaded by Liam McArthur, is a very welcome addition. I think that it will hugely strengthen the possibility of taking forward group actions. I would also like to thank John Finnie for the collaboration that he and I participated in, in terms of making sure that there were protections for trade unions in the legislation, because it would have been an absurdity that, if those very bodies that seek to help people to bring forward litigation, support them when they experience injury in the workplace were prevented from doing so. I would also like to note that it was important that the amendments that we put through in stage 3 in terms of protecting the no win, no fee agreements. I think that Sheriff Principal Taylor's involvement right the way through this process and highlighting the potential dangers of leaving the bill as it had been left in stage 2 was extremely helpful indeed. I understand and I acknowledge the concerns that many have highlighted, but one of the important aspects of the bill is that there is the possibility of bringing forward instruments to improve and amend the claims against future losses that solicitors can make. The five-year review that was brought forward and instituted by Margaret Mitchell is an incredibly important improvement to the bill. I note that the minister's caution about overuse of the bill in the future. We should look at where it is a right and proper way to consider legislation in the future, to ensure that legislation does not have unintended consequences and has the effect that people propose. I will conclude there. I think that this is a strong bill and I look forward to supporting it this evening. John Ferrie, to be followed by Tavish Scott, in four minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Obviously, the legislation is the important document, but I often look to the policy memorandum for more perhaps lay guidance and the policy objectives of the bill. If I just may read that out, the principle policy objective of this bill is to increase access to justice—I hear what my colleague Liam Kerr says about that—I think that that is a debate for another day, by creating a more accessible, affordable and equitable civil justice system. The Scottish Government aims to make the cost of court action more predictable, increase the funding options for pursuers of civil actions and introduce a greater level of equality to the funding relationship between pursuers and defenders and the personal actions. That is to satisfy a number of national outcomes, not least national outcome 11, on resilient communities. That is by increasing public confidence in our justice and institutions and processes. I think that that is very important. It is referred to as being long-awaited legislation, and I am certainly grateful, as many others are, to Sheriff Taylor for not only his work on the report, but, as the minister said, his continuing involvement in his wise counsel, which had us all reflect at stage 3. I think that that was a maturity of how we go about dealing with this legislation. As Daniel Johnson and other colleagues have said, there was a lot of collaborative working. There was a genuine effort and the committee's part to make things better. I am grateful, as others are, to the witnesses, staff and the bull team, and the minister for how we went about that. The minister said that she understood that justice members got to grips with the terms. I will open up and say that I did my very best. When I look at the policy memorandum and I find three pages of a glossary of terms, well, the one that jumps out is one-way cost-shifting, and that is, as we all know now, a regime under which the defender pays the pursuer's expenses if the action is successful, but the pursuer does not pay the opponent's expense if the action is unsuccessful. Of course, that became clocks, and anyone casually dropping in on a rebate must have found that very peculiar. There has been a lot of support for the bill. There has been support from the legal profession out with the legal profession. At the outset, the law society said that the basic terms are good and will provide certainty, which is the priority for solicitors. Since then, with the combined efforts of the committee, improvements were made. As is the way, a lot of effort was made to persuade colleagues of some things that were not successful. For instance, the issue on the STUC and staff associations on fees, the deferment of that. That was about whether there would be a frustration on what was referred to as difficult but nonetheless meritorious cases. The bill is improved, and it is important that it is improved for a number of reasons, not least the one that the minister again alluded to and rightly flagging up concerns. That was the 41 per cent drop in the level of civil litigation. Civil litigation is absolutely vital. Daniel Johnson remarked about the importance of the trade union movement and staff associations. From the official report, Patrick Maguire of Thomson Solicitor said, I have absolutely no doubt that the provisions that are in the bill will enhance access to justice. Equally important, it will also do what Sheriff Terrible Principal said was his prime focus. That was redressing the imbalance in the asymmetrical relationship between pursuers of personal injury claims and the extremely large, powerful and wealthy insurers. That is the level of playing field that we are all keen to hearing about. I could say a lot more, but I will stop there and say that the Scottish Green Party will be supporting the bill at decision time tonight. Thank you very much, Mr Finlay. Tavish Scott, followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start with an apology on behalf of Liam McArthur. His tenacity did not extend to being here today. It says here that he is in an important engagement in his constituency, which means that he is opening something, but I cannot remember what it was or is. He is unable to get down the afternoon logonair schedules that achieve many things but not whisking one to Edinburgh in time for four o'clock on a Tuesday afternoon. He would certainly wish me to pass on his thanks to committee colleagues, the Clarke Spice and, of course, those who gave evidence to the Justice Committee and the minister and her colleagues for the work that has been taken forward in this bill. May I also pay particular tribute to Sheriff Principal James Taylor for his work in laying the foundations for this legislation, as he made clear to the committee the recommendations in his report back in 2013 were about improving access to justice through addressing the expense and funding of civil litigation in Scotland. That bill does that in a number of important ways, and that is why our benches will be happy to support the bill at decision time this evening. I wanted to brief observations. Unlike colleagues in this committee, I have not the benefit of having lived and breathed qualified one-way cost shifting over recent months. I am taken with Daniel Johnson's masterful pronunciation of the short hand of that, which I am certainly not going to attempt, but I recognise that that indeed is the centrepiece of the changes that are set to be introduced through this bill and most of the heart of the problem, identified by Sheriff Principal Taylor, namely that a lack of certainty about the likely costs involved in bringing a case and the prospect of having to bear the legal costs of a defendant can be a sufficient deterrent. That is one of the few occasions when I have read my own speech and actually learnt something during the course of the last couple of minutes. I also recognise that the concerns have arisen in relation to the risk of creating a so-called compensation culture. However, the regulation of claims management companies in Scotland being taken forward through regulation elsewhere will help to address some of those fears. Meanwhile, perhaps the issue that arised most debate last week—I certainly recognise this from last week's stage 2—was the question of whether or not damages for future loss should be ring-fenced from any success fee. I appreciate the inherent sensitivities. No one would wish to see those individuals who have suffered the most grievous loss or harm facing a prospect or not receiving the full amount of compensation awarded to them. However, on balance, the Scottish Liberal Democrats are persuaded that, in ring-fencing any lump sum damages, we run the risk of diminishing the chances of cases being taken on. As a consequence, we would reduce the prospect of individuals accessing the justice that they so desperately need and richly deserve. Finally, let me make mention of the bill's proposals in relation to group proceedings. As with damage-based agreements, the bill's introduction of group proceedings into ScotLaw is welcome and reinforces its overarching objective of improving access to justice. Although the Government was initially only minded to allow for an opt-in approach, I am pleased that the committee backed Liam McArthur's amendment to put opt-out on the face of the bill. I am grateful for colleagues' observations on Liam's work in this area. Obviously, that will take a little longer to introduce, but having this option available is essential if we were to deal with breaches of consumer law. Invariably, the bill will have a relatively small impact on a large number of people, so the cumulative impact is high, but the incentive for any individual to participate in court action is low. Thanks to the efforts of which and the amendments that were successfully brought forward by Liam McArthur at the earlier stage, we now have been that offers the prospect of access to justice in those cases as well. There is a lot more that I could obviously say about QOCS, but the interests of brevity and lack of knowledge—I will leave it there—save to confirm that we will be very happy to support the bill at decision time shortly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Access to justice is the hallmark of a civilised society and is at the heart of the civil litigation expenses in group proceedings Scotland Bill. Last Thursday, the stage 3 amendments were, for the most part, passed consensually, and I believe that the changes made since stage 2 have strengthened the bill and eradicated possible loopholes. As deputy convener of the justice committee, I, too, would like to thank all our stakeholders who gave evidence and the excellent work of the clerks who did a great job of simplifying the key points of the bill to help the committee's understanding. Presiding Officer, this bill will create a more affordable and equitable civil justice system. How many times have we heard of people being put off bringing an action because they say that they cannot afford it? As the minister said, there has been a 41 per cent decrease in civil litigation cases since 2008. Despite the Justice Committee hearing conflicting views from witnesses on this, I believe that this proves that there has been a problem. Now the costs involved in civil litigation will be more predictable and therefore provide that crucial access to justice. The bill provides the legal framework to implement a number of key recommendations of Sheriff Principal Taylor's Balanced Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation, which was published in 2013. Although it might seem a little technical and, as Daniel Johnson said, dry, the bill will have significant impact on the public and anyone getting involved in civil litigation, the background to which is usually a stressful situation. Approximately half of the recommendations do not require primary legislation and will mostly be implemented by rules of court to be drafted by the Scottish Civil Justice Council, while those regarding sanctions for counsel and personal injury actions were provided for in the Courts Reform Scotland Act. The other recommendations require primary legislation and most will be implemented through the bill. The main exceptions are, as we heard, the regulation of the claims management industry and referral fees, which will be subject to forthcoming legislation. Specifically, the bill includes provisions for Scottish ministers to introduce caps for success fee agreements, commonly known as no-win-no fee, speculative fee agreements and damage-based agreements in personal injury and other civil actions, and will allow solicitors to use DBAs in Scotland. It also introduces quacks, as we have heard, when a pursuer is not liable for the defender's expenses if they lose but can still claim their own expenses from the defender if they win. That would apply in personal injury cases and appeals, including clinical negligence, for example. It will also allow for new court rules in respect of third party and pro bono funded litigation and for legal representatives to bear the costs where their conduct and civil action has caused needless costs. It also enables the Auditor of the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Auditors to become salaried posts within the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service and to allow for the introduction of a group procedure in Scotland. The group procedure element is the most important part of the bill, being introduced for the first time in Scotland, and the Justice Committee welcomes it. The Scottish Government has persuaded that both an opt-in and opt-out style—an opt-in and opt-out system—is the best way forward. I believe that that is an improvement on the stage 2 position. It is also a clear example of how consensual the bill has been and, as all factors have been carefully considered, as my colleague Liam Kerr stressed. One of the other aspects of the bill is that litigants will now be aware of every funding option in as clear, as comprehensive a way as possible, which again will improve access to justice. In conclusion, I believe that the bill will facilitate access to justice, create a more affordable and equitable civil justice system, and, for these very important reasons, I am happy to support the passing of stage 3 on to the statute books. Presiding Officer, I would open by referring to my entry in the register of interests as a practicing advocate. The stated aim of this legislation is greater access to justice in civil cases. Who could disagree with such a proposition? Quax is the tool through which that access is to be opened up, but getting the balance right—perhaps a bit like getting the pronunciation of that right—is slightly more difficult. We want to see that unmeratories claims do not spiral out of control, and I think that that is one of the main concerns of the possible effects of this bill. Indeed, it is questionable whether allowing actions to be brought without a party having to weigh up that most important factor in litigation, court expenses, is even in principle a good idea. As those involved in litigation know all too well, cases may sometimes be settled on grounds little related to their merit simply due to spiralling costs of an action. The wording of the bill that was debated in the chamber last week is important, but at least the fraud test has been strengthened rather than diluted. Equally important, however, is that an assessment of the number of unmeratorious claims is made in the future to enable an accurate assessment on the impact on justice for everyone that follows as a result of this bill. For this to happen, a variety of accurate information will require to be gathered and collated. I would suggest that some of the things that need to be looked at, the number of cases settled without proof, the number taken to full hearing but unsuccessful, and so on. For it is critical that justice should be properly served. If damages for future loss are not to be ring fence, then this will require a particularly careful review in due course. Strong evidence-based arguments were made on both sides during the consideration of the bill. There are real concerns from insurers that high value claims could lead to significant sums for critical care and support later in life being lost. We heard from my colleague Margaret Mitchell that a simple comparison with what has gone before in other parts of the UK does not take into account differences from the Scottish system. Measuring the success or failure of the decisions taken in the chamber should be an important part of the policy-making process. We are meant to be here to make people's lives better, and that must include ensuring that unintended consequences do not produce a different result than expected. That is why the part of the bill that allows for review is so important, so that this bill can be assessed in future as to whether it has increased access to justice for the people who need it, and whether, indeed, they have been fairly compensated when they have done so. Finally, the financial guidance and claims bill from the UK Parliament will, as members will be aware, regulate claims management companies, including the use of cold calling, which everyone here will be familiar with, and the frustrating practices carried out by certain companies. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has finally agreed to the UK Government's standards on the issue. However, as colleagues will know from stage 2, I would like to have seen the civil litigation bill delayed until that legislation comes into force. Concluding on that point, I hope that regulatory void created by the other parties in this Parliament does not lead to negative consequences for the most vulnerable in our society. I call on Mary Fee to be followed by Mary Gougeon. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the civil litigation expenses and group preceding Scotland bill. During the early stages of the legislation, I was a member of the Justice Committee and heard evidence from a range of individuals during the early evidence sessions. I would like to take that opportunity to commend the current members of the Justice Committee and the committee clerks for all their work with the bill throughout the legislative process. The bill will remove the considerable uncertainty around the legal costs of civil litigation and will work to redress the notable imbalance that has existed between individual litigants, including those supported by their trade unions and large insurance firms. Scottish Labour supports both the core principle of the civil litigation bill to widen access to justice and is supportive of the numerous detailed sections of the bill that have been strengthened by amendments both at stage 2 and at stage 3. At stage 2, the most significant amendments dealt with section 10 of the bill. The amendments to section 10 were crucial in clarifying the wording of the section to make it explicitly clear that the power to award expenses against third-party funders does not apply to trade union-funded litigation. In addition to the stage 2 amendments, further amendments to the bill were agreed last week in the chamber at stage 3. I was pleased that there was cross-party support from the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP for the Scottish Labour amendments in the name of my colleague Daniel Johnson, which served to provide a guarantee and a protection for no-win, no-fee, legal cases. It is important to note that without the Scottish Labour amendments, the civil litigation bill potentially could have severely limited access to damage-based agreements for accident victims, including in high-value cases that regularly involve individuals who have suffered very serious injury at work. In the bill, in its current amended forum, protects the legal rights of individuals who have experienced serious injury in the workplace to pursue a fair and adjust compensation settlement without any concern or fear of being burdened with sometimes quite significant financial debt. The Scottish Labour amendments to the civil litigation bill both at stage 2 and at stage 3 have been vitally important in ensuring that the bill upholds its fundamental principle of improving and widening access to justice. I think that the civil litigation bill is a vitally important piece of legislation, and it serves a strategic purpose and will have a positive impact on thousands of individuals in Scotland annually who become involved in civil litigation by firstly helping to redress the imbalance between individual litigants and secondly by providing a cast iron guarantee and a protection for the status of no-win, no-fee, legal cases. I, along with my colleagues in these benches, will be happy to support the bill at decision time tonight. I think that the minister was being very kind to us earlier, claiming that we are all experts on this now, because it has been a very difficult subject matter to get our heads around. I know that Tavish Scott passed on Liam McArthur's thanks to the committee clerks and other members on the committee. I am sure that Tavish passed on his own thanks to Liam McArthur for allowing him to take part in the debate, although he can tell that he is relatively new to it since he hasn't quite got his head around the fancy acronyms that we have and how to articulate them. However, the bill is vitally important. Daniel Johnson highlighted some of the reasons as to why that is, because at its heart it is about widening access to justice. Today I intend to focus on two elements of the bill that I believe have done that. That is the introduction of qualified one-way cost shifting, or coax, as we have heard a lot about already this afternoon, and group proceedings. In terms of coax, it essentially removes any financial risk to the pursuer bringing forward a claim even if they are unsuccessful. That was an area that I find particularly interesting in committee. I think that what initially had concerned me were the cases that were brought forward where a defender was an individual as opposed to a large-insured firm or organisation. I suppose that I initially thought that it was fair to expect them to foot the cost of litigation even if they were successful in defending a claim brought against them. There was also a fear that, if that was introduced, it would lead to a rise in spurious claims. At stage 2, we considered amendments that would impose certain restrictions on who should be able to benefit from coax, such as an amendment that would provide protection for defenders who are uninsured but remove protection for third-party funders. However, there was concern—as was rightly pointed out by Liam McArthur during the committee consideration—that that would provide an incentive for people not to take out insurance so that they could then escape that liability. That concern was also raised by Sheriff Principal Taylor during our evidence sessions when he stated that he could end up with parties not bothering to insure themselves when they ought to or with parties taking on a much higher excess in order to pay a much lower premium and thereby making themselves insured. It is also important to note that coax is an operation elsewhere. Sheriff Principal Taylor also went on to say during our committee session that we can look to England and Wales, where the rules of court are the same as what is proposed here to find out what has happened there. We have heard of no difficulties with qualified one-way cost shifting being operated as it is proposed to be operated here. It is important that a balance is struck that ensures that there is fairness and that access to justice is delivered. I believe that with the current amended proposals relating to coax from stage 3, I believe that we now have that in place. The bill also will see group proceedings being introduced for the first time, a move that has been widely welcomed by insurers, unions and law firms. The main contention in the debate has been whether the system should be an opt-out system as originally proposed by the Scottish Government or an opt-out system. The consumer group which would in favour of an opt-out system where, after the claim has been won and the defender has been ordered to pay compensation, affected consumers can come forward and claim the proportion of the compensation that is rightfully theirs. That, they felt, removed the administrative burden of gathering together affected consumers before proceedings are commenced, when the incentive is low for consumers to get involved because the outcome of the action is uncertain. During our discussions at the committee, one concern raised was that the opt-out mechanism may take a considerable time to put into practice. Paul Brown from the legal services agency stated that it has taken an inordinate amount of time to get where we are and it would be a pity if one went for the most ambitious arrangement and that resulted in further delay. Again, at stage 3, we have managed to strike the correct balance when it is at the discretion of the court which system will be used, whether that is opt-in, opt-out or the choice of either. Now, as I said at the beginning, this bill is about increasing access to justice and I believe that through the committee's consideration and all the different stages of the bill and the consequent amendments made, I think that we have got the balance just about right and I would gladly support this today. Thank you. Thank you very much. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Daniel Johnson to conclude for the legal party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that this debate has continued very much the theme that the whole of this bill has proceeded with, in which there is a degree of engaged discussion around items that are very technical and potentially dry in nature. I would like to begin with Mary Fee and others in terms of just acknowledging the broad sweep of the committee's work. I think that the committee has done an excellent job. I would like to thank my fellow members. I very much took up on this half-way through after they concluded their stage 1 consideration of the bill at stage 2, so I thank everyone for doing that. Indeed, I thought in some ways that the debate was best summed up by Mary Gougeon in her speech just there while she opened up by pretending that none of us are experts. I think that she gave the game away by giving out a very comprehensive speech going through not just some of the technical details on why they were imported, but expressing a degree of the balance that the original proposal sought to strike. The balance that we sought to strike right the way through this process as a committee. I would like to thank her for her contribution. I would like to touch on Liam Kerr's contribution, because he brought up some on-going concerns in terms of the specifics of the bill and some of the general points. I think that the point around access to justice not being the same thing as access to courts and solicitors is a point that is well made. Sometimes we can lead to a conclusion where we blur the distinctions between those two things, and they are not one and the same. The bill broadly gets that balance. The minister pointed out some proposals from chef James Taylor, who sought to strike that balance. However, it is a point and a principle that we should continue to uphold, examine and challenge ourselves with. Indeed, I would go further. I think that this is a step forward in terms of access to justice. It will improve people's ability to bring forward cases. It is certainly not the last word in access to justice. We have been able to strike a balance between the awards that people might be able to achieve through courts and offset the costs against them. There is a broad range of different actions that one might be able to bring to courts or, indeed, one might be involved at a court, but simply that sort of mechanism is not available. It is an on-going concern, certainly of mine and more broadly of the Scottish Labour benches, that justice is increasingly becoming an issue or something that you can access if you can afford it. I think that that is something that we must continue to examine thoroughly and challenge robustly. I would also like to deal with some of Gordon Lindhurst's points. I think that we have an important opportunity, an important mechanism in terms of the five-year review. I think that he very fairly identified some of the things that need to be tested and challenged at that point. We need a very clear assessment about what is happening in terms of the numbers of cases and how they are concluding and how the bill is operating once it is an act. There may well be unintended consequences. It is important that we capture them. I would include future losses. I recognise that that is not uncontroversial in terms of the changes that were made at stage 3, and it is important that we challenge that there are not unintended consequences. However, there are also other things that I would like to suggest that we get examined at stage 3, including the fraud arrangements. It is obvious that we must prevent fraudulent actions from receiving the benefit of quarks, but I think that the arguments that are made by the STUC and others about overregging and the possibility that that could lead to people losing quarks unfairly, I think that again that is something that needs to be looked at whether or not that is happening and whether that is an unintended consequence. Likewise, I made amendments both at stage 2 and stage 3 about pay-as-you-go arrangements and the issues that are faced by trade unions in terms of funding court actions as they proceed. Again, I would very much like that to be examined at the five-year review. Finally, I have raised it before the question of whether environmental cases could be included within those actions, especially group actions. I think that there are good reasons why that should be examined. In closing, I think that this has been a very good debate. I think that it has been proceeded in the manner in which this bill has proceeded right the way through this place. I think that we should all feel very pleased with the end result. I think that this is a good bit of legislation. I look forward to voting on it. I think that I am very disappointed to be concluding this debate without hearing Tavish Scott say the word quacks, but that is my only regret this afternoon. Civil litigation, expenses and group proceeding Scotland bill is complex and, as Daniel Johnson stated, is very technical. Based on the Taylor review and the previous Gill review recommendations, the bill seeks to address a David and Goliath scenario, whereby there is an imbalance in the relationship between pursuer and defenders. The former tend to be individuals with little experience of the legal system who have limited resources. The latter tend to be insurance bodies or large companies who have substantial resources. The legislation therefore makes provision to reges this imbalance by introducing qualified one-way cost shifting, which overturns the established principle of looser pays, the expenses of the winning side. The bill also allows group proceedings or multi-party actions to be brought in Scotland for the first time through an opt-in process, and prompted by evidence from the UK's largest consumer organisation, which argued for the introduction of an opt-out mechanism to be included alongside the opt-in provision. An amendment to that effect was lodged by Liam McArthur and passed at stage 2. Stage 2 amendments were lodged to permit the Scottish Civil Justice Council to develop the rules for both opt-in and opt-out procedures, and, crucially, both of those procedures are now in the face of the bill. The legislation allows for the damage-based agreements to be enforced as part of a success fee agreement. That means that solicitors can claim a percentage of the compensation awarded to their client if the case is won. As Liam Kerr pointed out, the future loss provision has been one of the most contentious in the bill and has raised concerns from the outset, but let's be clear that future loss can include money awarded to an injured pursuer specifically to cover, for example, essential and expensive medical equipment and the cost of future care. Here, witnesses' evidence was diametrically opposed. Personal injury lawyers argued for future loss to be included as part of lawyers' fees, and the insurance company representatives, as well as the EHRC, argued for it to be protected by ring ffencing. The committee considered both sides of the argument and alteredly decided at stage 2 to ring fence the future loss element so that it cannot be claimed as part of the lawyers' fees. However, following the stage 2 decision, Sheriff Principal Taylor wrote to the committee outlining his personal concerns and opposition to the approach, and, consequently, the decision to ring face was reversed at stage 3. Having carefully considered Sheriff Principal's letter, I remain unconvinced by his arguments, for example, he cites the effect of ring ffencing future loss in England and Wales meant that it was not worth the solicitors taking on those cases. However, that feels to recognise that the situation in Scotland is very different. Scottish solicitors, unlike the counterparts in England and Wales, can enter into DBAs, claim a percentage of their fees from a lump sum settlement and can, in addition, also be awarded judicial expenses for all their outlays and costs, with the possibility of an additional uplift for complex cases. In other words, I still maintain that the comparison is not analogous. Amendments at stage 2 to require lawyers to be open and transparent about the future loss element in settled claims were lodged, and I am disappointed that those amendments were rejected. Finally, the post-legislative scrutiny of the bill, which may have as yet unintended consequences, is crucial, given some of the controversial provisions. I thank the minister for improving my stage 2 amendment. I also thank all those who gave evidence, either written or oral, and, in particular, I thank my fellow committee members who built in and paid tribute to the stalwork work of the Justice Committee clerks in helping the committee to scrutinise legislation that seeks to increase access to justice for individual consumers and the general public in pursuing civil litigation cases. The Scottish Conservatives will be pleased to support the bill this evening. I refer members to my reference to the legislative interest that I made at the beginning of the stage 3 amendment stage, so I hope that that carries forth to this part of the debate. I have listened to the various contributions that were made during the last part of the consideration of the bill this afternoon, and I welcome the support that is expressed right across the chamber for the bill. In closing my remarks on the bill, I would like to make a few comments picking up a few issues on a bill that will indeed improve access to civil justice in Scotland, including, therefore, access to the possibility of negotiating a settlement. Section 4 on the issue of caps and success fees is an important one, and it is important to remind the chamber that the Government will be bringing forward draft regulations on caps on success fees under the affirmative procedure. The current intention is to follow the cats recommended by Sheriff Principal Taylor, which he felt permitted solicitors and claims management companies a reasonable return further to the work and outlets involved in the pursuit of individual claims under success fee agreements. He felt that his proposals represented a carefully considered balance of the needs of the individuals and the incentivisation of their legal advisers. As he indicated, an individual was much more likely to welcome 80 to 85 per cent of their damages rather than 100 per cent of nothing if they cannot pursue the claim because they have no other means of funding. It should be borne in mind with regard to the sliding cap on success fees that the caps are maxima, and there will be competition among providers to drive down deductions in practice. In terms of the issue of having to pay more than one success fee, although practitioners were quite clear that that could not be the case, amendments to the bill at stage 2 have made this clear and put it beyond doubt. On the very important issue of the future loss element of damages, we, of course, had a very good debate on that subject at the stage 3 amendment stage just last Thursday, and in light of the concerns raised at stage 2, I and other members were happy to support Daniel Johnson's stage 3 amendment, which means that future loss in cases where the award is paid as a lump sum is not ring-fen subject, of course, to certain very important safeguards set forth in the bill itself. As I said on intervention to Liam Kerr, during the earliest stages of the consideration of this bill, there is no evidence that leads to suggest that this will lead to inflationary damages awards. Judges make awards according to the law as it actually stands. I think that Taylor suggested that the chance of this direct correlation was zero. The issue of quocks, which I still think that we should hear Tavish Scott pronounce at some stage, you can always interview me, but on the important issue of quocks, I do not believe that this will lead to unmeritorious claims, as has been suggested by some. There are a number of important factors that will act to discourage spurious court actions first, as identified by Sheriff Prince Will Taylor. Solicitors are unlikely to run cases that have little chance of success. On a no-win-no-free basis, they are unlikely to be paid. Second, we will see the regulation of claims management companies in Scotland, which will discourage unscrupulous claims management companies operating north of the border. Third, the compulsory pre-action protocol, which was introduced in the Sheriff Court for personal injury actions involving claims of under £25,000, will act to identify, at an early stage, claims that have no merit. Finally, the provision in section 8 subsection 4 of the bill that the benefit of quocks may be lost if the pursuer behaves inappropriately, will also discourage vexatious claims being raised. The Scottish Civil Justice Council has confirmed in its plan of work for the coming year that it will prioritise implementation of the bill, therefore looking at important issues of what happens in circumstances where the case is summarily dismissed, abandoned or where a pursuer fails to be to tender all the issues that were raised during the consideration of the bill. On the important issue of third-party funding, it was never the intention to see trade unions facing an award of expenses against them when they acted as funders, and we have seen amendments to absolutely put that beyond doubt. On the important issue of auditors of court, we will see changes to the system, but we will anticipate also transitional arrangements to deal with those who are currently in post. The Government's amendments on the group proceeding procedure at stage 3 will permit the Scottish Civil Justice Council to prioritise, if it so wishes, rules on opt-in procedure, and in so doing, it may wish to look at the draft act of sederant produced by the Scottish Law Commission some time ago. The Government will also provide the council with the policy note in what it considers is required for rules on opt-in, and that hopefully will facilitate expeditious action. In summary, the bill will directly enhance the ability of people in Scotland who have a meritorious civil claim to pursue that case in the courts. It seeks to remove some of the barriers that, in the past, have deterred individuals from accessing justice in the civil courts. It extends the funding options for individuals and clarifies how much it will cost to enter into a success fee agreement. It makes clear that a pursuer will not become liable for the costs of the defender if a personal injury case is lost. The bill also addresses the concerns about transparency of the work of auditors of courts who currently derive a private income from what is, in effect, a public office. Finally, the bill will indeed lead to the introduction of group proceedings in Scotland for the first time. I repeat my thanks to all those who gave evidence to help to improve the bill during its parliamentary process, and I commend the motion in my name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you that concludes our stage 3 proceedings. We turn straight to decision time. The first question is amendment S6M-1967.2, in the name of Brian Whittle, which seeks to amend motion S6M-1967, in the name of Aileen Campbell, on success of the Commonwealth Games, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is amendment S6M-1967.1, in the name of David Stewart, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Aileen Campbell, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion S6M-1967, in the name of Aileen Campbell, as amended, on the success of the Commonwealth Games, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The fourth question is on stage 3 of a bill, so we will formally cast our votes. The question is that motion S6M-1829, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on stage 3 of the Civil Litigation, Expenses and Group Proceedings, Scotland Bill, be agreed, and members should cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion S6M-1829, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, is that there are 115 yes votes that are unanimous, the motion is therefore agreed and the Civil Litigation, Expenses and Group Proceedings, Scotland Bill is passed. We will now move on to members' business, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on support for rape crisis centres. We will just take a few moments for the members and the officers to take their seats.


At Ellis Brigham we take ski testing really seriously and this involves two different ski tests. The first one is done early in the season. Everything's put through its paces and compared we make the decisions what we're going to stock. Later on in the season we bring staff out to Austria. Here the staff test all the skis that we've decided to go in the range. This means we can make sure we've made all the correct decisions but it also means that when you come into any of our stores the staff there can give you personal advice. They know exactly how the ski skis because they've been on them. Every women ski is falling under bleed there as a specific project behind. So what we are having is a project called women to women that is led by a girl that is staying in our right quarter that is traveling all around the world. We have a focus group made by only women that they are discussing. See the really initial development of the product about what they would like to have, what is the target consumer and what are the performance that they are needed on this case. So the result is a specific construction, specific side cut and also specific positioning of the binding. For us it's falling under the all mountain free ride segments so it's a reduced tip and tail rocker to give also a good experience on piste. In terms instead of construction what we are giving differently from for example his brother, her brother that is the Brahma is that we are having much more carbon and a bidirectional fiberglass inside. This is because we want to be a little bit lighter but still with a big focus on the performance because with all the bleeders skis the main focus is the performance. Of course we are looking for lightness but we don't want to be the lightest one we want to have the focus still on the performance. This is told to for a skier that is looking for something that is really versatile that she can use both on piste and off piste. So this is the best ski if you want to have a single ski. The feedback are amazing because for example this one is the single most sold in the US because of these features and right now also in Europe they demand it's really growing and also sometimes they're also substituting the standard on piste ski. What they are saying is they are really helping you when you are also tired but when you're putting power they are following you at the best. Hi I'm Kat. I work in the castle of the store as a ski tech. I skied on the block filly yesterday. I found it was really good fun to ski. It was really easy to turn on the soft even in the ice. I found that even when it did get a bit icy it still gripped really well for myself. I'm not a very good skier but on this ski I do feel really confident and feel like it's helping me to improve my skiing a lot and it doesn't make me feel shaky on the steeper slopes. I even did black runs on it which I've never done before and I felt super safe on it. Overall after skiing this I think this ski would be really good for somebody that's not too confident in this skiing but also somebody that is quite aggressive like it's a good overall ski for everyone and everyone can have fun on it.


Today we will be talking about open access to publication specifically for Horizon 2020 project. This is an open-air webinar, tomorrow there will be another one on open access to research data. So, let's start. Where did it all start with the EC and open access and started with the FP7 project where there was a pilot for seven areas in the framework which were requested to make their publication open access. This was a success and in Horizon 2020, open access became the default option for all projects, for all peer-reviewed publications stemming from the results of their projects. So you will find all the information in your grant agreement. But why did the European Commission promote open access and open science? There are some very good reasons for that. First of all, it's good for science. Science should be transparent and open access to publication means that scientists can access publication sooner and more easily so they can build on previous results without unnecessary duplication of efforts. Also remember that subscriptions are often very expensive and that's all libraries and universities have the means to pay for all subscription. So open access to publication helps with the quality and the efficiency of research. It's also good for the economy, it can speed up innovation. Business camos can easily find scientific publication and they can adapt their businesses to the findings and so the market can progress. It's good for society. Remember that Horizon 2020 is European money, so it's taxpayer's money. So research paid by the people should be visible to the people. Think about citizens, but also for example, citizen science. People who like to do their own experiments can now access publication more easily. Also policy can access publication and adapt their policy to findings. So all in all, it's good for society, economy and for science. So there are very good reasons that the EC is promoting open science and open access for publications. So in your grant agreement, if you're part of a Horizon 2020 project, it states that you have to ensure open access to peer reviewed publications. As soon as possible and at the latest on publication, you should deposit a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or final peer reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in a repository for scientific publication, together with bibliographic metadata providing the name of the action, acronym and grant number. Now this does sound a little bit complicated and it surely is some jargon. So in today's webinar, we will see how you can easily provide open access to your publication and make sure that you're in line with all the requirements of the EC. Afterwards, I will talk a little bit about open air and what we do and why we do this webinar. The plot starts with open access. How to make your publication open access? One of the misconceptions about open access publication is that the only way to do it is to publish in an open access journal. This is not the case. There are two non-exclusive ways to make publications open access. You can of course choose for an open access journal, but the traditional subscription-based journal or closed journal is also fine. In the first case with a subscription-based traditional journal, you need to deposit a version of your publication in a repository and provide access to the repository. But also if you publish in an open access journal, you should deposit in a repository and provide access. Why may you ask? You already provided access to the open access journal because repositories are very good at archiving and it's a sustainable way of providing access to your publication. So even if something happens to the open access journal, it will still be searchable by search engines and will be easy to find. So you should always deposit a version in a repository and then add information in metadata. This is data about your publication and you should definitely include the funder, so the EC, and your grant ID number or acronym so your publication can be linked to your project. So which way to choose a subscription-based journal and depositing in a repository or an open access journal? Well both have their pros and cons. If you self-acquire, which means subscription-based and then deposit a version in a repository, you can choose from any subscription-based journal, so the journals you already know. And there are no fees included for the author. Of course there's a subscription to pay, but most of the time this is paid by your library or your institutions, but there are no fees for the researchers. A con is that sometimes publishers put up an embargo to protect their exclusive rights to the publication. They will ask you to wait to provide open access to your publication through a repository. If you go for an open access journal, of course you have direct open access, so there's no embargo involved. And in some cases you can retain your copyright in the case of subscription-based journal. Most of the time you sign over your copyright to the publisher in open access journal. This is sometimes the case, but not always. There's a con because open access journals do not have an income from subscription. They sometimes, not always, ask authors to pay for the publication costs. So there are possible costs involved in open access publishing. So first talk about the open access journals, how to find one. And then I'll talk about depositing. So open access journals. There are a lot of open access journals, some of them very new, some of them established. If you do not know where to start looking for an open access journal in your field of study, you can consult the directory of open access journal. It's a list with high quality and peer-reviewed open access journals. You can look by subjects or anything else. You can also find information about article process charges, this publication feed that I talked about, that open access journals sometimes require from the authors. So what about this article process charges? How do you pay for them? Well, they are supported by Horizon 2020 for open access journals, but also for subscription based journals that offer the possibility of making your individual article open access. These are called hybrid journals, they're traditional journals with a subscription, but they also allow certain articles to read open access. This is sometimes debated, because of course they have income from both sources, both from article process charges and from subscriptions, but the EC for now doesn't make any distinction between those two types of open access publishing. But there's a but. These costs are eligible for reimbursement, but only during the duration of the action. And as most researchers know, publication often only appear after the project is finished, because the peer review takes some time or because there's still some writing up to do. So how do you budget for these article process charges? You can take the average APC multiple, it's by the number of publications you plan to publish. These costs are part of the dissemination costs, but APC is very widely. So it is sometimes difficult to know what to budget for APCs. You can look for specific journals, sometimes they have information on the publisher's website, you can ask librarians if they have any information, or you can base your average on the average APC. But even then, average APCs are hard to estimate because they can vary widely. I looked up some information on that. The 1,400 euros are numbers from 2012 and almost 2,000 as an average of APC is a number from 2016. As you can see, APCs are under rise. It's a new model. So publishers are still figuring out what they can ask and what the cost is. So there is a distinction between open access journals and hybrid journals, so journals that ask for subscription. Hybrid journals are on average more expensive. But it depends on the type of journal publisher and the fields you're publishing. So if you want more information on that APC, there's a very good project called Open APCs where you can find information for publisher and journal and they try to make the APC model a bit more transparent because at this moment it is sometimes hard to find out what it covers. So to conclude, both types of publication costs can be reimbursed in Horizon 2020 and as of now there's no cap for APCs. Some issues to consider when you choose open access publishing or open access journal based on APCs. I have to say not all open access journals ask for APCs, so I definitely journals out there to do not ask the authors to pay a fee, but they have other business models and get funding for example. But publishing all articles in APC based open access journal is probably expensive and you have to consider what amount of the project budget you want to spend on APCs. So a mix of depositing articles and publishing in open access journal is recommended. Another issue to consider is the open access journal market is growing and there are some questionable journals out there, people think it's easy money but don't do any quality or do not have quality peer review process in place. So use your common sense, look at the website, look at the peer review process and consult a wide list such as DOHA. So if you publish in an open access journal or a subscription based journal, you should always deposit a version in a repository. A repository is an archive for research publication. So where can you find one? Those institutions, big institutions such as university or research centers, have their own repository. There are some disciplinary repositories such as your PubMed center. You also have Synodo which is an easy co-founded repository not only for publication but also for data. That accepts publication also not only for an easy funded project, that's all scientific outputs. If you do not know where to start looking for a repository, there are some directories for open access repository as well with information on disciplines and countries, stuff like that, open door, war, e-print and open air has a list of open air-compliant repositories and I'll explain what an open air-compliant repository is and why it is useful later in the slides. What are the deposits? It should be a peer-reviewed version, so not the pre-print and this can be the published version. This is often not allowed by publisher or the final peer-reviewed manuscripts. Then you can add metadata from the quantity number, acronym, publication, things like that. The open access requirements of the EC apply to all kind of publications, so also monographs, book chapters and also great literature such as conference papers, but the emphasis is on peer-reviewed journal articles. One to deposit is also an easy one as soon as possible and at the latest on publication this is one to deposit. So first you deposit and then you can provide open access. You can either do this immediately if you have published in an open access journal, this is not a problem. If you published in a subscription-based journal there is sometimes an embargo. So the EC allows an embargo of six months before providing open access and 12 months in case of social science and humanities. Now some publishers have an embargo that is longer than six months and the EC provides a model amendment to publisher agreements. So the publisher agreements which you sign with your publisher, you can ask to change it to be in line with the policy of the EC. So they have an example which you can use, it's not mandatory, but it has all the elements that make your publication in line with the EC requirements. The slides will be available, so the link is there. What can I deposit is this legal just uploading my publication in a repository? Yes, but as said before, publishers sometimes limit what version you can upload. You can check policy on what version you can upload and if there is an embargo on the publisher's website most of the time, but you can also consult Chef Paruomio, which gives an overview of copyright policies and self-agiving permission. So these are the different versions that you're often allowed to upload. You have the pre-print, pre-review, post-print publisher version, this is the one with the layouts and all the images, and you can find in bulk updates. So the ones that are peer-reviewed are the ones that the EC asks you to upload in a repository. When you look at the policies, you should, in Chef Paruomio, look for the green and the blue one. These are the peer-reviewed versions. So in short, as researchers, if you're part of a Horizon 2020 project, first of all, you can decide where to publish. This can either be an open access journal. If you want to check the quality of an open access journal or looking for one, you can consult DOIJ or you can use a subscription-based journal to publish your articles. Both ways are fine. You should, however, always self-acquire in a repository to know what you're allowed to do, check the publisher policies on possible embargos and possible limits to versions on Chef Paruomio. It's a really good website for you. If you choose for an open access journal, keep in mind that sometimes they will ask for an article process charge from the author. Make sure you have budget for that. In case of open access publishing, you can provide immediately open access in a repository for a subscription-based journal. Sometimes that's allowed too, and sometimes there's an embargo. Make sure that embargo is not longer than six months or 12 months for social science. So all in all, this is it. This is what you need to do to make your publications open access. So Horizon 2020 started with not only open access to publications, but also open access to data. There's an open research data pilot, and some projects are involved in this as well. So what about research data? I will talk about that tomorrow. There's another webinar. Maybe somebody can post a link, but if you go to openair.eu, on the event you will surely find it. So if you want to know more about data, do more at the same time, and hopefully we will have less problems with putting the presentation online. So I wanted to talk about open air. This webinar is hosted by open air, and open air is an EC-funded project as well. So we're not a commercial player or anything. And what open air is, is it's both an infrastructure and it's also a network of people. They provide information and access to research outputs, and they facilitate the open access policy of the European Commission. So they are an infrastructure. They want to connect the dots. Imagine you're a big European project with people in different countries depositing in different repositories, how to make sure that your project and all your publications are compliant with the EC demands for open access publication. Well, that's where open air can help and tries to help with infrastructure. The aim is to only have to deposit once.  And open air works together with repositories, with data archives, with open access journals, and gathers information on publication, their access level, and which projects your model. Because we have all this information and we get it in one place, we duplicate it in cleaning, we can build, open air can build services on top of it to simplify Horizon 2020 reporting. So this is why open air compliant repositories come in handy. We work together with more than a thousand data providers. These are also open access journals and repositories. And those data providers provide us with information, so we can gather all the information from all the different data providers in one place. You can look up if your repository is part of the open air network. For example, Ghent University, the university I'm part of, is open air compliant. Or if you do not find a repository that's open air compliant, you can use Zanodo. I talked about Zanodo before, that's the EC funded repository. And I'll shortly explain what it is. Zanodo is what we call a catch all repository. That means it's not part of an institution. It's not part of any discipline. All research outputs and data is welcome in Zanodo. So it's also not only publications, also reports, data sets, even software is welcome. So you can all share, upload it and share it on Zanodo. Teams that are uploaded in Zanodo get a DIY. This is a digital object identified. A unique code attached to your publication or your data, which makes it easy and uniquely citable. In Zanodo, you can also start a community. So if you're a project with different partners, you can have one place for all your publications or all your data sets, even video or audio from conferences you did uploaded and saved in one place. It's in line with reporting for the European Commission. So it's in line with funding. Information that is in Zanodo will be transferred to the EC to open air. There's a flexible licensing system. Zanodo is very much in favor of open access publishing, open access depositing. But it's not the only option. It's very safe. There's use of the certain infrastructure and there are multiple copies of Zanodo elsewhere. And it has a GIPPAD integration for software and a 12 box integration. So it makes it easy to upload, describe and publish. When you upload in Zanodo, you can just choose a file or use 12 box. And then you can describe. So this is the metadata I talked about before. So definitely make sure you add your funder, the EC or the other funder and your project. You can upload all types of files and you can choose your access level. You can see that you can also go for an embargoed access. So if your publisher sets an embargo, you can put the embargo date in Zanodo and you do not have to worry about it anymore. It will become available after the embargo is finished. Now you can just publish, upload and it will show your article if there's no embargo. It will show article level metrics which show you the amount that your article is shared and viewed. It's siteful with this unique code DOI and there's a link with the funder information. So this is Zanodo, Zanodo.org. If you're looking for a repository or data repository, it's really easy to use and it's in line with all the requirements of the EC. So OpenAir has different services. I said before we're in infrastructure so we work with data providers but also with funders. We started with the EC but there are more and more funders interested in our services to track if the open access requirements are being followed. And we have services for researchers and research administrations, which is what I'm going to talk about now because I think most of you are either researchers or project coordinators. So what can OpenAir do? Because we have this information from different repositories and from different places, from different access journals but also from the information. We integrate all this information in one place. So all the publications and data from the information are in one place and we then build services on top of them, which can help you with reporting, generating publications and disseminating your project. Reporting every European project has a project page with publication. So OpenAir is not a repository. We get this information from other repositories and link it to your project page. There's also an automatically communication between the EC project portal, corded, and the participants portal for reporting. You can generate your publication list and you can disseminate your projects by embedding information in your website or using the information and statistics providing that. This is a web site. If you want to look at your project page, you can find it on the publication data project by search. You can also find various other things. If you're looking for other funders, for your organization, for example, you can find it on OpenAir.edu, that's the mistake, so let's search. This is an example of a project page. You can see the detailed information about a project there, there's a link to Cordes. There's this epochs, then the list of publications and data, if there's any data sets attached to your publication or to your project, and some statistics about what you publish and whether it's open access or not. So you can share this project page on our research communication website and social media. The epochs, what I find interesting about it is that you can have an HTML code which you can incorporate in your project website. That way you do not have to update your publication list every time you have a new publication. Again, it will be automated, like you see here, an example of it. Your list of publications, this is collected from our data providers, and you can also look at some statistics, see what your publication or edits to repositories, and how much percentage of your publications are open access. If you click on one of the articles, there's also some information here, like how much has been tweeted, and references related data and similar publications. So it's a lot of information about your project in one page, which would otherwise be spread across different repositories or different journals. So what if something is missing? What if you do not find a publication that is part of your project? You can use our services, our linking service, to associate your research results. So it will still appear on open air and also in the participants' portal of the EC. So there's an automatic list generated of your publications in Cordes. This is the front-end of the European project. As you can see, it is still the old logo, but all the publication lists there are provided through open air because we harvest information from the public service. And very interesting, this list will also be sent to the back-end of reporting, the participants' portal for reporting. So if you have to report your publications and they're in open air, compliant with repositories, they will already be there. So the only thing you have to do is check the reference, and if the publication is indeed part of your project, and if it's not, you can delete it. If it's all in order, you can just use this list. So it makes reporting a lot more easy. So this is a quick overview. Open Air provides open access depositing and storing of research data through Zanodo. That's Zanodo.org. You can claim publication and data sets that are missing in open air. It helps you report your research output, linking your research outputs to the EC portal or using our app box for compiling a report. It can help you monitor if all publications are open access and help you discover and access other publications. So this is part of the infrastructure. Now, behind open air is also a big network of people that provide information on open science in general. So not only open access to publication, but also open access to journal or, for example, open peer review. There's a lot of information and material that can help you on the open access website. We have guides and fact sheets. Fact sheets are short and to the point guides that can help you with BC policy and open access. We do workshops and we do workshops in every country. So in the coming three years, there should be an open air workshop somewhere near you. We do webinars like this one. We have a help desk system and frequently asked questions. So behind the help desk system are regional experts, or NOAS, National Open Access Desk. We have one in every European country and beyond. Also Turkey, Switzerland, Norway, for example. And they cannot only support you with EC related questions, but also anything related to open science on a national level. If you would be interested in, for example, policy or information on open access in your country, there are also country pages for every country involved in open air with local information on open science. And that's it for me. I do not see the chat. So I'm going to close my presentation. Thank you for attending. And if there are any questions, I will answer it. OK, I'm closing the presentation. Thank you. Oh, thank you, Irina, for putting all the links there. OK, so. Hi, Emily. I'm going to maximize the chat window so that people have any questions. They can just type it in there, and maybe you can. I do not hear Gwen. Oh, I'm sorry. People can type. If you have any questions, please type them in the chat box. Where is it gone? I don't see the chat box anymore. Sorry, Gwen, I didn't see any questions. The slide will be shared, as well as recording. OK, if there's any questions, let me know. And otherwise, have a very nice afternoon. I hope the sun's shining there as well. OK, thank you very much, Emily. Again, oh, there's a question. If a paper is in the humanities but published in a non-humanities journal, what is the envelope? Can you answer that, Gwen? Yes, I think embargoes, Irina, feel pretty chipped in if you disagree, but embargoes are journal or publisher-related, not related to the topic of the paper. But I think what you mean is that because of the conditions that the European Commission allows, so they allow a 12-month embargo for. So that would make it 6 months. Yes, allows. I'm sorry, I'm typing at the same time. Emily, I'm not aware of the commission who keeps any lists of certified humanities journals. So I think you can be pretty confident that if your work is in humanities and even if the paper appears in a non-humanities journal or in a general open access journal, I think you can be confident that you're in compliance with the rules. Yeah, exactly. That's what Irina says as well. So yeah, I hope that answers your question. Yeah. Okay, so if there are no more other questions, I would like again to apologize for the technical issues at the beginning of the webinar. Apparently there was something wrong with the fonts of the presentation and our system did not recognize them. So we'll try to have this talk for tomorrow when Emily at exactly the same time and in the same room we'll talk about the open data policies and requirements in Horizon 2020. So we'll have to see you then again. And as for this webinar, I've already pasted the link to the slide deck. So it's on our slide share group. And we will distribute the recording for this webinar as soon as it's available. So thank you very much for attending. I see why more person this is. Okay. Thank you very much. We will also send you an evaluation form about this webinar. We do realize we have some technical issues, but we would really appreciate if you could give us some feedback about the contents. We will send this evaluation form together with the recordings on the slide. See you tomorrow.


Whether you realize it or not real butter is under attack today Be there NJ route 22.com here with another public service announcement for the low carb keto carnivore People out there, and it's about real butter. Okay. Let's let's Establish what real butter is to us. It's to us real butter isn't the mainstream Breakstone or shop bright brand butters if you like salted butter the only butter you should buy is Butter that has sea salt in it because regular salt is not good for you. It's actually bad for you It's completely opposite of what Sea salt is but that's a story for another day. I have to bring a prop in When you go to supermarkets like shop, right or even organic Supermarkets like basil bandwagon or the healthier places like Whole Foods, and you want to find a good butter. You'll find organic butters Organic Valley make some and there's some other brands. I think even horizon makes Some organic butter, but it's it's really the organic label doesn't really matter too much and in my hand here I have something called. I'll see if it'll show up here. It's called trickling Springs Organic butter made from organic heavy cream and Celtic sea salt, but that's that's just for reference what What we used to get at shop, right? For instance was Kate's butter from Maine.  I don't care how organic it is. It comes from plants. They extract It's like the equivalent of eating a million Coconuts to get the butter out of it.  They're they're growing like a virus in In these supermarkets and I don't think like butter butter is ever gonna go away, you know from the mainstream Brands it's still probably at least half of the butter type selection available, but I Would never buy I mean I Avoid it as much as possible the the regular butters. I mean in a pinch. I'll do it It's not gonna kill me, but I don't want to eat regular table salt refined salt and it's stripped of the 80 plus Minerals that are in Celtic sea salt and the pH balance is different everything about regular You know traditional Process table salt is just bad bad for you, but if in a pinch I will buy unsalted like Regular butter you can get it for a dollar or two a pound now That butter I just showed you the trickling springs is a good thing to have but it's extremely expensive It's eight dollars for eight ounces. So that's sixteen dollars a pound Which is it's it's exorbitant. It's too much. I know at that point it becomes Just not good. We bought one just to try it and I'm sure it's good, but Kate's butter For example, you can get at stop and shop. I think it's six ninety nine or six sixty nine a pound Which is about the max. I'll pay for a good butter. You can also get the Amish butter Which I would rather have over the mainstream brands, but the Amish butter also just contains plain old salt So by if you could find unsalted Amish butter do that too, but watch out these plant-based Butters are going to to grow if it's 50 you know if it's 10 15 20% of the market today in a year from now it's gonna be 40% and five years from now It's probably gonna be a majority of the butters. They're trying to kill, you know natural cow-based dairy butters I Maybe the the mainstreams won't go away, but I just don't like them and like I said if you're gonna Eat regular old plain, you know mass market butter even though the cows aren't great and it's not it's probably GMO At least get the unsalted ones and salty your own taste, but that's it watch out It's something to keep an eye on it's 2019 now Probably by 2025 you're gonna see a majority of all butters You know fake and plant-based. That's it. Have a good week ahead


Mewiah Security Chiefs and Governor Darius Ishakou have held a crucial meeting over plans by ISAP to establish operation camps in Tarabah State. The governor who addressed traditional rulers at the end of the meeting warned them against harboring strangers in their domains. The governor told the traditional rulers not to lose their guard following an intelligence report. He warned that any traditional ruler flaunting the state government's directive would be removed. I want to also talk to the traditional rulers, while we have warned them separately not to allow non-indigenous to settle in the state, their persistent refusal to abide by this warning is given a lot of cause of concern to me. My delay of coming to address you today is because of security challenges in which the Boko Haram and other ISWAP are trying to set up a scale in this state. It is very sad that the traditional rulers are neck deep in encouraging this insecurity. Let me warn, I will not and I repeat, I will not tolerate it and I will not waste time to remove any traditional ruler that misbehaves.


How many of us in this hall had even assumed that Quran came down to the holy Prophet and there was no such thing as 27th of Rajab? As in if you went to many Muslim communities today, you asked them, 27th of Rajab, what do you do? They say we celebrate the Mi'raj, correct or no? 27th of Rajab in our mosques is the night of Mi'raj. If you were to ask someone, but why don't we celebrate the first day of the Prophet to the Prophet? Many will turn around and say, hold on a minute, I didn't really know it was the first day. If you were to tell them, okay, how about the first verses of the Quran? Is that all the first verses of the Quran and the month of Ramadhan? When Jibra'il told him, in the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, Iqra, on the 27th of Rajab, that's when he began. If it's the 27th of Rajab, then why do I read every year, the month of Ramadhan, which was revealed in the Quran? How many of us from a young age were brought up being told, the month of Ramadhan is the month of the Quran, correct or no? Because in the Quran, the month of Ramadhan, which is revealed in the Quran, is a clear verse. The month of Ramadhan, when the Quran was what? Was revealed, was descended. Another ayah, they say, hold on a minute, you're trying to tell me that the month of Ramadhan is not the month of the Quran. Then how about the verse? We sent it down on the night of Qad. Said, Amal, you're telling me 27th of Rajab, but it's saying, even further than that, what three Suras do we recite on the nights of Qad? Rum and Kaboot, and what's the third? Inna Anzalna Hu Fi Laylatin Mubarakat. Someone here who's giving me this court case, he's got a very good court case. He'll say to me that on the 27th of Rajab, you said to me, Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim, Iqra, Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim. But the Quran is saying, Inna Anzalna Hu Fi Laylatin Mubarakat. Inna Anzalna Hu Fi Laylatil Qad, shahroor Ramadhan, al-lady unzila fihi al-Quranu. Hudan lil nasi wa bayinati min al-luda wa al-faqan. Is there a contradiction or is there not? This debate is one of the most important debates concerning the Quran. The difference between the Inzal of the Quran and the Tanzil of the Quran. And whenever I mention the word Inzal, I want you to imagine something coming down. The debate between scholars about 27th Rajab and Laylatil Qadr is the horizontal-virtual debate. Why? Because that debate, people started saying what? They started saying that I think there's a contradiction. If the holy prophet became a prophet on the 27th of Rajab and Iqra came to him, then how is it the Quran says shahroor Ramadhan? What does that mean? Because now we agree. Something has definitely happened in shahroor Ramadhan. Do you agree or no? Something has definitely descended in shahroor Ramadhan. We can't reject that. There's no one who can turn around and say, No, you can't say that. No, the Quran says something in Zalnau Fi Laylatil Qadr. Something has come down. But what has come down is what I'd like to examine tonight. Because many have asked the question, what came down in Laylatil Qadr? That was different from what came down on the 27th of Rajab. Laylatil Qadr, the Quran didn't come down in the physical form to the prophet. The Quran came down to the heart of Rasulallah so that he could access it at any time he wants. That's the point. 27th of Rajab, Jibrail comes to me and gives me verses step by step. Shahar Ramadhan, Allah infuses the whole Quran into my heart. When we say shahroor Ramadhan, al-lady unzila fihi al-Quran, it doesn't mean the Quran I have physically. It means from bayt al-Azza, from Kitab maknoon, to bayt al-Azza, to who? To the bayt al-Ma'moor, which is the heart of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa alayhi wa sallam. On the night of Qadr, it wasn't a physical Quran. The night of Qadr, when it says Inna anzalnahu fi laylatil Qadr. Laylatil Qadr doesn't mean that the Quran came down on the night of Qadr. It means the whole of the Quran was revealed to his heart. Thank you.