 I'm not as eminent as our two other speakers, so I'm very interested to learn what you're going to say, but in light of the digital single market strategy and the commission's up and coming communication and copyright reform, hopefully we'll see some part of it by the end of the year. The reform of the infosock directives has been one of the focal points during this parliamentary term. I myself, as you said, I've been the rapporteur in the internal market committee on the reform of the infosock directive and I'm a permanent member of the copyright working group set up by the committee of legal affairs in the parliament which leads our debate on copyright reform. As you can imagine, and I think when you're just giving that description of what was in the original and then what we voted on, there are various views across the political spectrum and nationalities on a whole group of areas which is, whether it's on exceptions, limitations, text and day, to my name being one of them. And as you rightly said, in our parliament's resolution on the 9th of July on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related calls, the quotes you were right, the need to properly assess the enablement of automated analytical techniques for text and data mining for research purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired. It was the other part of it. Some would argue that the wording should have been stronger calling for a mandatory exception across the EU for TDM. So the European Parliament research service published a study this month on the review of the copyright framework acknowledging that lack of certainty over the text and data mining exception represents a potentially serious gap in the EU, a key. Based on a recent report for the European Commission, the study goes further to say on text and data mining that text and data mining lowers research costs and de facto removes barriers to market entry for innovative SMEs and micro enterprises, which are the key entities to drive our growth and employment across the European Union. When it comes to incorporating TDM into a state's copyright regime, the UK is currently the only EU member state whose copyright law includes the explicit exception for content mining, albeit with limitations. It allows researchers with lawful access to copyright works to make copies of these works for the purpose of text and data mining only for non-commercial research. It prohibits the sharing or sale of the copies. Obviously I'm quite for text and data mining without we're here to talk and debate it, so we want to explore the impact of any it's had on research and I particularly am interested in more about what's happening in the UK and in particularly my own constituency in Scotland. If you consider, if I take the example of Scotland, that in Scottish universities that European funds from the previous framework programme amounted to something like 636 million euros with 538 million going directly towards research and technological developments, that's a huge amount of resource and research going to certainly my own constituency of Scotland. So it's widely understood that research and innovation of the drivers in European competitiveness and text and data mining is a useful tool which speeds up data processing and analysis and could help study data in literally any sector ranging from agriculture to chemistry as well as all sciences including arts, humanities, social disciplines but legal uncertainties around TDM's use as well as practical difficulty of obtaining access and permission to text and data mining. I've seen factors slowing down the process of data handling and I thought the welcome trust when it estimated that a malaria researcher they fund would spend 62% of their year at a cost of almost 26,000 euros just to obtain the permission from the different journals and publishers involved was actually a way to illustrate some of the challenges. So in order to investigate further what researchers have to say about this, I wrote to all my higher education establishments in Scotland which are 19 in total, 16 of which are more focused on research than others. I've asked them to express their views on whether they seem necessary for them to be reviewed and to share their thoughts on the TDM exception. So far around half of them have replied and all the replies welcomed up on coming reform and copyright at an EU level and all of them welcomed the recent exemption in TDM for non-commercial purposes introduced in the UK. And several pointed out that they would support the TDM for non-commercial purposes exception to be included in the new copyright rules provided that it does not weaken already existing exemption at the UK level. It was interesting to note that the views were split on whether to extend the TDM exception to commercial purposes with some universities being strongly in favour and others showing more caution. It was highlighted that it's often difficult in a university context to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial. And this takes us back to the point about legal clarity. And I think a clear definition of what constitutes TDM for non-commercial and commercial purposes is needed in order for researchers to be able to distinguish between the two. Often universities together with industries and pharma companies and frequently medical innovation for cures, for example, to start from a computer analysis, will be implemented by commercial organisations. So the overall exchange of knowledge between universities and the public, private and third sectors is continuously increasing. In the UK, the growth rate in cash terms around 5% according to higher education council for England and over the longer term income has risen by about 45% since 2003. So it's clear that knowledge transfer from universities to industry, facility, scientific, environmental and health innovation and adopting a modern copyright reform fit for the digital age with certain mandatory exceptions that embrace innovation I think should be at the forefront of our thoughts and actions. So I think I've said enough because I would like to listen to the experts because I've got a lot to learn from you. It's been a real, really interesting moment to be involved in the copyright debate. And I think that many of my colleagues, I see many of the assistants from some of my colleagues who are here today, just shows the interest that many of us have to try and get it right when those proposals come forward. So thank you.