 Rydw i'r next item of business, which is a debate on motion 9894 in the name of Annabelle Ewing on the civil litigation expenses and group proceedings Scotland Bill at stage 1. I would invite all members who wish to contribute to this debate to press their request to speak buttons now and I call on Annabelle Ewing to speak to and to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to open this stage 1 debate on the civil litigation expenses and group proceedings Scotland Bill, and I would like to start by expressing my thanks to all the members of the Justice Committee for their careful consideration of the bill thus far, and of course also the very hardworking clerks in the Justice Committee and indeed to the many stakeholders that have contributed to the proceedings. Above all, however, Presiding Officer, I would wish to express my sincere thanks to Sheriff Principal Taylor for his diligent and thorough review lasting over two years of the issues surrounding the expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland. Sheriff Principal Taylor was kind enough to give very comprehensive evidence to the committee in spite of on-going health problems, and I am sure that we all wish him well. The context of this review is that there has been a 41 per cent decrease in civil litigation in Scotland since 2008-9. We know further to the 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. Sheriff Principal Taylor commented when the bill was introduced, and I quote, "...the proposals address some concerns which may cause people not to exercise their legal rights and ultimately their right to go to court." He went on to say, and I quote, "...the fear of having to pay their own solicitor and also the legal costs of their opponents can be a significant deterrent." The bill provides for the setting of a straightforward formula in personal injury and other civil cases to enable a client to work out what his or her own law is can charge. It also removes the risk of having to pay their opponents' costs in personal injury cases, provided that they have acted properly. Those contemplating civil litigation need to have more certainty as to how they will be able to afford to exercise their rights, and the provisions contained in the bill will make the cost of civil litigation in Scotland more predictable and, hence, increase access to justice. The three major reforms proposed in the bill that will bring this about are the introduction of sliding caps on success fees, allowing solicitors to offer damages-based agreements and qualified one-way costs shifting. The first of those, the introduction of sliding caps on success fees, has been generally welcomed, and when the time comes to provide the caps in regulations to be made under the bill, I can confirm that I am minded to set the levels at those suggested by Sheriff Principal Taylor in his report. That is, up to 20 per cent on the first £100,000, up to 10 per cent on the next £400,000 and up to 2.5 per cent on any amount over £500,000. The second major reform proposed will widen the availability of damages-based agreements by allowing solicitors to offer damages-based agreements directly. Currently, damages-based agreements are not enforceable by solicitors but are offered through claims management companies. They have proved very popular for those contemplating pursuing a claim, as they are simple to understand. Basically, the client pays nothing up front, but agrees to pay a percentage of the damages awarded or agreed to the provider of the legal services. The solicitor will be responsible for all outlays and personal injury actions, for example including court fees. Sheriff Principal Taylor stated in his evidence that one solicitor-owned claims management company has entered into some 17,600 new damages-based agreements in the last three years and 23,800 in the last five years. That, he argued, would go some way to explaining the rise in the number of claims in Scotland over the last five years, about which some giving evidence to the committee have expressed concern. The Government believes that the enforcement however of legal rights by individuals is rather something to encourage. On the subject of claims management companies, there has also been concern that the bill does not make expressed provision for the regulation. We have however been in discussions with the UK Government over the extension to Scotland of the regulation of claims management companies by the Financial Conduct Authority, as proposed in the UK Financial Guidance and Claims Bill. I am pleased to be able to say that appropriate amendments were accepted during the third reading of that bill in the House of Lords. Claims management companies will therefore be regulated in Scotland more quickly than would have been the case in terms of our initial approach, which would have involved relying exclusively on the work of the Esther Robertson review of legal services regulation. I cannot however at this stage give a definite date when the Westminster legislation will be implemented. The third major proposed reform is the introduction of qualified one-way costs shifting in personal injury cases. The vast majority of defenders in personal injury actions are well resourced and the majority of pursuers are of comparatively limited means. Although very few claimants are in fact pursued for expenses by successful defenders, there is always a risk to a pursuer that they may be liable for considerable expenses and possibly bankruptcy if they lose. Sheriff Principal Taylor's review confirmed that there is a real fear in the minds of potential pursuers, which stops too many meritorious claims from getting off the ground. Qualified one-way cost shifting removes that risk so long as the pursuer and his or her legal team conduct the case appropriately. The test by which the benefit of qualified one-way cost shifting can be lost by pursuers due to their behaviour has been the subject of varying views from witnesses before the committee. Broadly, representative of insurers have suggested that the bar is too high, while representatives of claimant groups have suggested that it is too low. We are therefore considering amendments at stage 2 to make it clearer that it is the witness-free test of reasonableness recommended by Sheriff Principal Taylor that is to be applied to determine whether the benefit of qualified one-way cost shifting may be lost. The bill 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. There have been concerns that awards of expenses will be made against trade unions and providers of success-feet agreements. That is not the Government's intention. Trade unions do not have a financial interest in the proceeding, so they will not be subject to such awards as the bill was drafted. We will, however, consider amendments at stage 2 to make it clear that trade unions and providers of success-feet agreements will not be liable for expenses. Sheriff Principal Taylor recommended that all funding of litigation should be disclosed and amendments will also be considered to broaden the requirement for disclosure. Part 3 of the bill relates to auditors of court to determine a successful party's expenses and litigation by order of the court or where there is a dispute with her opponent, a process referred to as taxation. The Scottish Civil Courts Review, headed by the former Lord President Lord Gill, expressed concern that the auditor of the court of session and the sheriff court auditors were able to make private profit out of a public office that provides a public service. The provisions in the bill will remedy that situation by providing that auditors will in future be employees of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Those auditors of court who are currently self-employed will remain so until they retire, if that is their wish. In future, auditors will, however, be appointed under the same civil service rules that apply to the appointment of other officers of court. Auditors will continue to have functional independence as part of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the auditing process will continue as it has in the past. As part of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, auditors will in future be independent of Scottish ministers in the same way as the rest of the Courts and Tribunals Service, which is an independent body corporate under the Judiciary and Courts Scotland Act 2008. Provision for an annual report on the activities of court auditors will make the system of taxation of judicial accounts more transparent. Finally, a word about group proceedings. I am pleased that the proposal to introduce class actions to the Scottish Courts has broad support. I am convinced that the best way forward at this time is to introduce an opt-in system as it is prudent when introducing a new procedure in the Scottish Courts to select the option that will be more straightforward to implement and which will therefore not cause undue delay in getting the issue off the ground. Opt-in means that individuals must have explicitly chosen to be part of the group, having weighed up the benefits and possible disbenefits of doing so. That approach has been supported by an overwhelming majority of stakeholders, including the faculty of advocates, the law society, the STUC, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Forum of Insurance Lawyers. We, of course, do not rule out considering an opt-out procedure at a later date once group proceedings have bedded in. In summary, the bill seeks to put in statute approximately half of Sheriff Principal Taylor's recommendations in his review. Some of his recommendations on sanction for counsel have already been implemented in the Courts Reform Scotland Act 2014, while the remainder will be considered for potential rules of court by the Scottish Civil Justice Council. As I mentioned earlier, according to the civil justice statistics for Scotland, there has been an overall and continuing decrease in civil litigation in Scotland of, as I said, not less than 41 per cent since 2008-09. That should be a source of concern for all those who care about the provision of access to justice in Scotland and, indeed, the health of our Scots civil law jurisdiction. The bill will therefore implement the major recommendations that are made by Sheriff Principal Taylor in order to begin to address the situation by making the cost of going to court more affordable, more predictable and more equitable. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee in this stage 1 debate on the Civil Litigation, Expenses and Group Proceedings Scotland Bill, and I begin by thanking all those witnesses who provided evidence to the committee. I also thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its report, which we endorsed. In particular, I pay tribute to the Justice Clerks, who have done a superb job in producing the stage 1 report on this technical and complicated bill, which will, by changing the rules on how they can fund their claim and the cost that they could be liable to pay the other side, directly affect many thousands of people in Scotland who bring a civil claim. The bill's principal policy objective is to improve access to justice. The committee considers that, despite conflicting evidence that unbalance, there are problems with access to justice in respect of civil litigation. However, it considers that more up-to-date research and consumer experience of legal services in Scotland is required to properly inform future policy. Turning now to the detailed aspects of the bill, it regulates success fee agreements, often known as no-win fee agreements, and allows solicitors in Scotland for the first time to enforce damage-based agreements where a solicitor will receive a percentage of the compensation awarded to their client if the case is won. One of the committee's key concerns was the approach that the bill takes to damages for future loss in personal injury cases. That can, for example, cover lost earnings while an injured person is off work recovering or in more serious personal injury cases. Damages may cover the loss of all future earnings, as well as care and medical costs. The bill allows the solicitor to include damages for future loss when calculating their success fee, subject to certain conditions. Here, the bill implements Sheriff Taylor's considered recommendations, but the committee remains concerned that failure to ring-fend damages for future loss could reduce the money available to a person to pay for their future care and medical support. It therefore asks the Scottish Government to reconsider that approach. The bill also introduced qualified one-way cost-shifting, known as coxie. That means that provided the pursuer has acted appropriately, they will not be liable for the defender's expenses if they lose their case. Witnesses had starkly opposing views on the introduction of qualified one-way cost-shifting. Pursuers representatives argued that coxie is necessary to address the David and Goliath relationship between pursuers who tend to be individuals with little experience of the legal system and defenders who tend to be insurance bodies. Meanwhile, defender and insurance representatives argued that coxie could have adverse and intended consequences and could facilitate a compensation culture in Scotland. The committee was persuaded that coxie could improve access to justice for pursuers but considered that that must be balanced by other safeguards to prevent any rise in fraudulent claims. For example, by introducing pre-action protocols in certain cases to safeguard against fraudulent claims without adversely affecting access to justice. Crucially, the committee has asked the Government to commit to post-legislate scrutiny of the bill. The regulation of claims management companies is a vital safeguard against the rise in fraudulent claims. In England and Wales, regulation was introduced in 2007, but there is no regulator for claims management companies in Scotland. Witnesses spoke about the negative impact the practices of some claims management companies were having on Scottish consumers, especially as a result of cold calling, which Sheriff's principle, Taylor stated, was the biggest mischief of claims management companies. Research from which reveals Scottish cities suffer the highest number of nuisance calls in the UK. The UK Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, which strengthens the regime in England and Wales by transferring responsibility for regulation to the Financial Conduct Authority, was being considered at the same time as this bill. Falling correspondence between the committee and the minister, the UK bill has been amended to extend regulation by the FCA to claims management companies in Scotland. Nonetheless, there remains a potential regulatory gap, which could have detrimental consequences for Scottish consumers if the civil litigation bill is implemented before such regulations are in place. Therefore, the committee recommends that the civil litigation bill should not be implemented until claims management companies in Scotland are regulated. Finally, the bill allows group proceedings or multi-party actions to be brought in Scotland for the first time. Although that is welcome to improve access to justice, the bill only allows group proceedings to be brought on an opt-out basis, hence a person must expressly consent to be part of the action. In an opt-out system, the court agrees that the definition of those affected and anyone covered is due to consent to court action on their behalf unless they expressly opt out. The committee recognises the Government's pragmatic reasons for stating or starting with an opt-out approach. However, given which is strong evidence on the benefits of an opt-out approach for low-value consumer claims, it considers that there could be advantages in the court deciding on whether those proceedings are to be on an opt-in or opt-out basis. In conclusion, the minister has made no commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, to commission more consumer research, to change policy and future damages, and on coaxes and uninsured defenders, to delay the bill's implementation until the claims management companies are regulated and to amend the bill to ensure that only regulated bodies can offer success, fee and arrangements. Although the committee unanimously agrees with the general principles of the bill, it asks the Scottish Government to give serious consideration to its above recommendations to ensure that access to justice is improved and that unintended consequences are avoided. I declare an interest at the outset as I have practised in litigation to the minister and as I hold current practice in certificates with the law societies of both Scotland and England and Wales. I am pleased to open for the Scottish Conservatives and speak in favour of the principles of the Civil Litigation Expenses and Group Proceeding Scotland Bill. The Scottish Conservatives are committed to the principle of access to justice. Anything that ensures that those with rights are more able to avail themselves of those rights must be a good thing. In the 2013 Taylor review, Sheriff Principle Taylor concluded that there would often be a David and Goliath relationship that prejudices the attractiveness and prospects of litigation for those with rights. He made 85 recommendations on funding civil litigation in Scotland and the bill seeks to introduce some of those. However, there are a number of areas where we think that the bill can be improved. First, like the Justice Committee, I am concerned about the lack of ring fencing for future loss and consequent potential for award erosion. As drafted, compensation intended to pay for the care of a seriously injured litigant will be reduced by a cut going to the solicitor. That could lead to injured parties being undercompensated and not receiving the full value of the damages of court awards. Those future losses bear in mind are an assessment of what might be required to pay for future care needs. It could lead to courts overcompensating claimants by increasing the damages award to negate that carve-out or perhaps inflation to the statement of valuation of claim to offset the deduction. Many have expressed their concerns over that, including the Forum for Insurance Lawyers, who argued that, quote, to apply a crude percentage deduction from such huge sums could result in an enormous windfall for the solicitor and a funding gap and significant anxiety for the injured pursuer. I therefore agree with the Justice Committee's recommendation that the future loss part of any award should be ring fenced and notwithstanding the Scottish Government's response to the report, I urge further consideration. The second area that merits further reflection is whether there are sufficient safeguards in place around quacks to prevent a rise in unmeritorious and or fraudulent claims. In Scotland, some evidence suggests that personal injury claims have ridden significantly over the past seven years without quacks. Now, logically, removing the financial risk in raising a claim will result in a further increase as access to justice is increased, but by extension there will be a rise in the number of fraudulent or unmeritorious claims. It is my view that the bill as drafted does not sufficiently define the circumstances in which a pursuer will lose quacks protection. Therefore, we support Sheriff Principal Taylor and the Justice Committee's proposal that section 8.4 make clear the benefit of quacks would be lost in fraudulent situations where the pursuer fails to beat a tender and where the pursuer's claim is summarily dismissed. Turning to claims management companies, I welcome the amendments to the financial guidance and claims bill, which will provide regulation of those in Scotland. This is a sensible move, which will provide Scottish consumers with the same level of protection against nuisance calls as other parts of the UK. However, reasonable concern has been raised that, if the bill comes into force before the UK-wide regulations, there will be a regulatory gap, whereby there are no rules governing the activities of claims management companies. According to which, that could lead to more claims management companies registering Scotland, leading to even more nuisance calls for Scottish consumers and leaving Scottish consumers open to harmful practices by rogue firms. I hope that the Justice Committee's recommendation that the bill is not brought into force until the UK-wide regulation of claims management companies is in place is looked upon favourably at the next stage. Finally, I am concerned at the lack of detail in the financial memorandum on the cost implications for public bodies and, in particular, the NHS. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde argued that a more comprehensive analysis of future costs is essential to quantify the financial impact. The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland argued that quacks, if introduced, would mean that NHS resources would be taken up in defending unsuccessful claims rather than on delivery of services to patients. The purpose of the memorandum is to assess the financial implications for public bodies. It is surely possible to calculate the total number of claims made against public bodies and to then calculate the increased cost to the taxpayer if there is, for example, a 5 or a 10 per cent uplifting claims. Like the Justice Committee, I urge the Scottish Government to undertake more detailed modelling on the likely impact of the bill. The general principles of the bill are sound, and I shall vote accordingly today. However, there are some flaws, and we hope that the Government will reflect on the debate and bring forward appropriate amendments. Before I begin, I would like to draw members' attention to the fact that my wife is a practicing solicitor. Justice that is open for those who can afford it is not justice at all. A critical component of any justice system is the ability to seek redress against third parties who have harmed you or your interests. That is a fundamental point of the civil justice system, and we must ensure that it is available to as many people as possible. As Sheriff Principal Taylor put it, court action is always going to be stressful for litigants. Much of the fear is a fear of the unknown. Will I win my case, and if I don't, what will it cost me? The Taylor proposals represent a sensible way of increasing certainty and rebalancing the risks, particularly through qualified one-way cost shifting. The civil litigation bill takes those proposals forward and has the potential to mark a significant improvement in the ability and confidence of individuals to seek justice. Labour will therefore be supporting the bill at stage 1 at decision time this evening. However, as it progresses, there are a number of issues that we would like to see improved. In particular, we feel that trade unions must be explicitly exempted from section 10, that more could be done around the predictability and affordability of court fees, and that improvements may be possible with regard to group litigation. For many people, pursuing a case involving their employment or workplace, seeking assistance from their trade union is the single most important step that they will take. Trade unions provide support to the individual and can help them to meet financial costs. The role of trade unions in the area is therefore complementary to the aims and objectives of the Government in bringing forward the legislation. It is right that the bill seeks to ensure that speculative involvement by third parties is limited or excluded from those changes, but trade unions are not a corporate interest. Therefore, this explicit exclusion in section 10 is vital. I welcome the minister's comments in her opening remarks, but I would like to see a firm commitment and welcome such a commitment in her summation at the close of this debate. Currently, court fees are incurred and payable on an on-going basis as a case proceeds. The pay-as-you-go model can prove to be an insurmountable barrier, even for those with a good chance of success. As they find this cash flow a hurdle that stops them from bringing their complaint to court. One way to address this could be by making fees only payable at the end of litigation, and the Government could consider whether or not they should be payable if successful, with fees being recovered from an unsuccessful defender. Provision for group proceedings on an opt-in basis are welcome, however, further consideration should be given to adopting an opt-out model, the consumer group which contends that, given the often low value to individuals and consumer claims and lack of awareness or knowledge about the claims process, individuals may not choose to opt in. The Government should therefore clarify its thoughts on this area and give these proposals serious consideration. However, there are two areas of very real concern, the financial memorandum and the provision for delegated powers. While nobody would wish for the NHSC to increase costs, the Parliament or any other public body, making it easier to pursue litigation clearly gives rise to the risk of increased court action being taken against the public sector. The financial memorandum must be improved to include actuarial projections and risk-based forecasting to assess the possible financial impact on the public purse. I agree with the point that I just made. As an extension of that, does the member recognise the evidence given in committee that the bill could increase insurance premiums and agree that this is an unintended consequence that the Government needs to reflect on before the next stage? I think that naturally any action that could increase the volume of civil litigation has that potential consequence. I was going to come on to my remarks, the fact that I think that there needs to be post-legislative discretionary on the impact in the general environment. However, I very much agree with the member on that point. Indeed, as I was just about to come on to, the DPLR committee concluded in their report that provision in section 7 and subsection 4 could enable the Government to amend part 1 of the bill, and is in that regard unusually wide. Parliament must protect its right to legislate and hold the executive to account, and this section must be amended to ensure that. That legislation is welcome, and we hope that it leads to greater access to justice. However, as I have just remarked, it is vital that Parliament reviews the impact of those changes as there may well be unintended consequences. For example, creating an increased compensation culture or leading to increased vexations or weak claims. For that reason, the Government should commit to review the legislation within five years, particularly of measures around qualified one-way cost-shifting and the damages-based agreements. In conclusion, we support the aims and objectives of the bill, and we will be voting for it. However, we ask that the Government consider our constructive comments so that it can improve it as it progresses through Parliament. I thank you very much when I move to the open part of the debate. I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Maurice Corry. I am supporting the general principles of the civil litigation expenses bill in group proceedings Scotland at stage 1, because the purpose of the bill, which can seem quite complex and is hard to bow down into a four-minute speech, is to increase access to justice. In my view, that can never be a bad thing. There is a need for civil litigation to be more accessible and affordable to everyone. How many times have we heard people being put off bringing in action because they say that they cannot afford it? There has been a decrease in civil litigation of 41 per cent since 2008 to 2009, and, in my view, and more important, the share of principal Taylor's view, that is based on a fear of the costs involved. I will outline briefly what to me seem the most relevant points in the bill. I am aware that other members will focus on one or two more specific issues. They are damage-based agreements, power-to-cap success fees, damages for future laws, qualified one-week cost shifting or coax, and the regulation of claims management systems in group proceedings. On damage-based agreements, the set-up of a law society of Scotland working group will work to protect against conflicts of interest. It is vital that the pursuer is aware of the full range of funding options open to them. The bill includes the power-to-cap success fees. That is that clients are not required to pay two success fees from damages obtained, and I am pleased that the Government has committed to considering whether legislation is required to ensure that caps would apply. On damages for future laws, much of the committee's evidence and questioning surrounded whether that should be ring-fence when calculating solicitors fees, particularly where someone has been injured so severely that they require lifelong care. As has been said, the committee is asking for that provision. The bill introduced qualified one-way costs shifting known as coax for personal injury claims. Under coax, a pursuer is not liable for the defender's expenses if they lose, but can still claim for their own expenses from the defender if they win. However, we heard opposing views on the introduction of coax. Those in support of the introduction argued that it is necessary to redress the David and Goliath relationship in personal injury cases, in which between pursuers who tend to be individuals with little or no experience of the legal system and defenders who tend to be insurance bodies. Those against the introduction of coax argued that it could have unintended consequences and in particular could facilitate a compensation culture or fraudulent claims in Scotland. I believe that coax will improve access to justice for pursuers, but the committee did hear concern over that. However, I agree with Sheriff Taylor's oral evidence that that would not happen, principally because a solicitor would not take on a case that had little prospects of recovery, among other reasons. I am pleased that the Government will consider amending section 10 of the bill to protect third-party funders such as trade unions or public bodies so that they are not affected by the introduction of coax. We are all aware of the prominence of claims management companies and the negative impact of cold calling on customers. I am encouraged that the regulation of claims management companies will be introduced in Scotland. Apart from deterring nuisance calls, that will also discourage spurious court actions. This year, £125,000 was provided to fund call blocking to people identified as vulnerable. The Government agrees that the law society should make it clear to solicitors that a case referred by a claims management company is not a result of cold calling. The bill will also allow one set of court proceedings to be brought on behalf of two or more people with similar claims referred to as group proceedings, which the committee welcomed. The bill would only allow group proceedings to be brought in on an opt-in basis where the pursuer must express the consent to be part of the action. That is opposed to an opt-out system where the court agrees that a definition of those affected by the proceedings is simpler in the first instance for it to be an opt-in system. I am sorry that you must conclude. In conclusion, I believe that the bill will facilitate access to justice, and I am happy to recommend the general principles to the chamber for that important reason. Thank you very much. The last set of the business programme overran. We are on tight former speeches. Maurice Corry, followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Ensuring that everyone has suitable access to justice is a principle that is vital to an open democracy. One that I in the Scottish Conservatives are deeply committed to maintaining. That is why I will be joining my Conservative colleagues in supporting the bill at stage 1, but only on the understanding that the Government will be bringing forward amendments during the committee stage to address the flaws that we are all aware of that exist in the bill in its current form. I think that everyone does accept that the aims and objectives of this bill are well intentioned. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers have argued that, I quote, the fear of swinging expenses of wars and currently results in cases not being brought or routine under settlement in our jurisdiction is a concern. Unions in Scotland have similarly stated that the risk of being exposed to that legal bill is a real barrier to access to justice, even to members supported by their trade union. As was pointed out by Ronnie Conway of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the number of personal injury claims in Scotland has increased in the past few years. However, he emphasised that it was from a very low base and that the rate of claims in Scotland per head of population remained well below that of England. That was a view shared by Cheryl Principal Taylor when he said that he had, and I quote, no doubt that the fear of adverse world costs inhibits people from exercising their legal rights. I think that there is a general consensus as well that this bill has a potential to improve access to justice. In its written submission, the Law Society of Scotland stated that the bill had the potential to significantly increase access to justice. Nevertheless, improvements are going to have to be required to be made to ensure that the bill does not cause issues while resolving others. One potential issue that exists in the bill, as is currently drafted into which I would be interested to hear from the minister during her summing up, is the potential increase in insurance premiums for the Scottish people. If there is a large increase in court action because there is no financial risk of going to court, insurers will pick up the cost of more court cases, which will increase their overheads and, I worry, lead to a price pressure on everyone's premiums in Scotland. Additionally, I would be interested to hear from the minister about what thought she has given to ensuring that proper resourcing follows group proceedings due to them possibly requiring correspondingly greater judicial preparation time and consistent management by a nominated judge who deals with that particular proceeding. In particular, the increase in court delays, which we have seen with only three courts—Portuary, Lyric, Loch Maddy—managing to meet the 26-week target for 100 per cent of cases in any month in 2017—is of particular note. I believe that it would be of comfort to us, to the professional person as well, working in the Scottish Court Service to know that the Government has started to think and plan for proper and effective resourcing. Deputy Presiding Officer, in conclusion, I welcome the bill and its intentions, but I would like to hear from the minister today on the issues that I have raised. I speak in this debate as a member of the Justice Committee, and I, like others, would like to put in record my thanks to those who provided evidence during the course of the scrutiny of this bill. I am pleased that the committee agreed to the general principles of the bill, and we have made some suggestions as to how that can be improved. The balance of evidence suggests that there is an access to justice issue in Scotland, and the bill, carrying out its principle Taylor's review, seeks to address that. Many people are put off pursuing legal action even when they have a genuine claim. As mentioned by the minister, civil justice statistics in Scotland from 2015-16 demonstrate a decrease in civil law cases initiated across the court of session of 41 per cent from 2008-2009 figures, and we should all be worried about that. Many people will fear that they have to pay to the solicitor and defender if they lose. I cannot help but think that the current issues around austerity, welfare and other financial factors are also at play here. On that basis, we need this bill, and I am glad that the committee has agreed to the principles. I want to concentrate on the bill introducing qualified one-way cost shifting for personal injury claims. Under that, the pursuer is not liable for the defender's legal expenses if they lose, but can still claim their expenses from the defender if they win. On balance, the committee is persuaded that the introduction of quarks could improve access to justice for pursuers, but note concerns could have unintended consequences. As mentioned by Daniel Johnson, for example, including a rise in unmeritorious and fraudulent claims, the arguments for quarks were much stronger and included rectifying that David and Goliath situation, which was argued for example by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and, of course, referenced by Sheriff Principal Taylor and Unison during the mixed session, said that it was a cornerstone of Sheriff Principal Taylor's report. There were arguments against such as those by the Glasgow Bar Association, who legitimately suggested concerns about weak claims because of a nothing-to-lose attitude. However, the main argument against, as I could tell, was that it would be a rise of spurious claims. However, we heard evidence from many who, like Patrick Maguire of Thomson's Solicitors and Paul Brown of the Legal Services Agency, for example, argue that it would be unlikely to be a rise in such claims. The bill would protect against that, and the majority would indeed be genuine. It is a further safeguard, as Daniel Johnson mentioned. The committee has asked the Government to consider post-legitim scrutiny of the bill, including quarks at the five-year mark. The David and Goliath argument— Liam Kerr. Okay, yep. Thank you, member, for taking the intervention. I will be very brief on that regard. Therefore, it supports the expansion of the test for fraud in section 84, as Sheriff Principal Taylor recommended. Fulton MacGregor. Well, I am not going to comment on that at this stage, but my point was around quarks in the David and Goliath situation. What was going on to say was that the David and Goliath argument really resonated with the committee, and I note that the member also resonated with that particular argument. I think that we were all agreed on that situation, and it was good to have the committee all in agreement on that one issue, that we should be united in trying to restore a balance to access to justice. I was going on to say as well what were the situations where David and Goliath was not a parm. I think that it was referred to at one stage as David versus David. The faculty of advocates argued, for example, that quarks should only be available in claims against public bodies and ensured defenders. The committee therefore asked the Government to consider that as an option, but I welcome the committee's response to that, highlighting why it is not minded to change some of the reasons it gave it. Some defenders may choose not to be ensured when they should be and may take a larger access than they should, or that they may breach the terms of their policy so that the insurance company will not act. I note those concerns, and I think that the argument for not being minded has been laid out well. I will finish on that. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking the Justice Committee and its clerks for the very informative stage 1 report produced for the Civil Litigation Expenses and Group Proceedings Scotland Bill. As a member of the committee, during the evidence sessions and drafting of the report, I heard from a wide range of voices supporting the bill. I am no longer a member of the committee, but can I take this opportunity to pass on my best wishes to the committee as they continue in their work? Scottish Labour welcomes this bill and its aim of improving access to justice. The Scottish Government's commitment to justice reform is commendable, and this bill shows that its intent is honourable. The review by Sheriff Principal Taylor is also welcome, and the detailed review shows that the challenge is facing Scots in accessing civil justice. During the committee sessions, there were conflicting views on whether there was a problem with access to justice, and I am glad that the majority opinion backed the position of Sheriff Principal Taylor and the Scottish Government and the bill. However, there are numerous areas where the bill must be improved, as highlighted by the committee and by previous speakers. It has been recognised by the minister and the Government's response to the stage 1 report. The most notable issue for me is in section 10. As a trade unionist, I deeply value the role played by unions in supporting members accessing justice. I would like to see section 10 amended in order to make it explicitly clear that the power to award expenses against third-party funders does not apply to trade union-funded litigation. I welcome the minister's consideration of amending section 10, as stated in the Government's response. I am grateful for the minister's comments on the issue in her opening comments today. However, I think that we need a very clear commitment that no trade union or trade union member will suffer any unintended consequence of the bill. Redressing the imbalance that currently exists between individuals and large insurance firms is commendable, and the regulation of success fee arrangements is a step in the right direction to tilt justice back in favour of the individual. The introduction of qualified one-way cost shifting, or coax, will also help to address the imbalance, and the committee has rightly raised concerns surrounding the possible unintended consequences such as a rise in unmeritorious and fraudulent claims. I have sympathy with the minister's position in her response to the committee's concerns. However, I believe that the Scottish Government must be vigilant after the act has come into force to ensure that the committee is not proved right and that pursuers are at a loss because of unmeritorious claims. I support the ambitions of the Government in improving access to justice for all, and I hope that the concerns that are raised today and in the committee report are properly considered and that the right safeguards are there for pursuers and solicitors against conflicts of interests. Thank you very much at this rate. We are making up time at an accelerated pace. Mary Gougeon, do not take that as a licence to go over your time. Mary Gougeon, followed by John Finnie. It is fair to say that this is definitely one of the more complex matters that is a committee that we have dealt with. It is probably also fair to say that it is not really an issue that tends to pick up a lot of traction or interest either in the press or with some of the general public. I think that sometimes you feel like you see civil litigation and people's eyes tend to glaze over. That is unfortunate because this is something that is vitally important because it is about access to justice, it is about fairness, and the legislation that we are looking at today could affect any one of us at any given time. The one element that I am going to focus on today, which we have heard from others in the chamber already, is section 8 and the proposed introduction of qualified one-way cost shifting or quacks for personal injury cases. Currently, in Scotland, we follow the principle that expenses follow success, where the unsuccessful party in a case bears the legal costs of the successful party. There are situations where that does not apply, such as when the unsuccessful party is in receipt of legal aid, has before the event insurance or is supported by a trade union. However, that is not always the case. After the event insurance is another option, which can be purchased by the pursuer before any significant legal costs are incurred. However, that is often prohibitively expensive and can cost as much as 60 per cent of the actual cover sought. People can therefore be prevented from bringing forward a claim because they are effectively being priced out of taking any action for fear of the legal expenses that they might incur. Because of that, along with the view that in personal injury cases, the pursuer tends to be an individual versus a large organisation or insurer, or the David versus Goliath scenario, the Sheriff Principal Taylor, in his review of expenses and funding of civil litigation in Scotland, argued for the introduction of quacks in relation to personal injury claims. The introduction of quacks will essentially mean that there will be no risk to the pursuer in bringing forward a claim. During our evidence sessions, we heard fears that that would result in a rise of spurious claims, although that was refuted by some such as Thomson solicitors, who stated that it was quite simply not within their interests to take forward a claim that had little chance of success or where the defender was an individual with therefore little chance of recovering expenses. I had a particular concern. For example, say that if I as an individual could be taken to court by someone, the court finds in my favour, yet I am still liable for the pursuer's legal fees. The Glasgow Bar Association had similar concerns and felt that quacks subvert the principle that expenses follow success, and as they put it, not every defender is a Goliath and not all defenders are insured or wish to rely on insurance, and section 8 would protect even wealthy pursuers and prejudice even poor defenders. Rather than a blanket application of quacks, it was suggested by Simon de Rolo of the Faculty of Advocates and oral evidence to the committee that, in order to create a balanced civil justice regime, quacks could be available only to somebody who is insured, a public authority, somebody who has the backing of the Motor Insurance Bureau, or somebody whose means and resources are such to enable them to make payment of expenses. However, all of those concerns were not shared by Sheriff Principal Taylor in response to the issue at committee. He said to us there 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. The system has been operating in England and Wales with no issues having been raised, certainly as far as we as a committee are aware, which makes that the point that he raised hard to argue with. To draw that to a conclusion, again, the civil litigation bill has been one of the most difficult pieces of work that we have undertaken because of the very polarising views on each side of the issues raised. Finding a compromise to all of that was never going to be an easy task. I really want to add my thanks to my other colleagues today, to all of those who took time to submit evidence to the committee and to the clerks for pulling all of that together. I think that the introduction of coax will be a positive step and I believe that this bill, if passed, will increase its access to justness for people in Scotland. Concludes. That is why I support the general principles of the bill. Thank you very much. I call John Finnie, to be followed by Ben Macpherson. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I took gratification from the convener saying earlier that it was technical and complicated and indeed we have heard that from others. It has also broadened the parliamentary vocabulary to coax, which we have heard an excellent explanation of from Marigou Jean just prior to me there. I note, and I am great to all the people who continue to give us briefings, including the Love Society of Scotland who said in relation to coax, the basic terms are good and will help provide certainty, which is the priority for solicitors. I think that we need to have a discussion too around what the purpose of our legal system is in the course of examining this, we did. It is to serve our citizens. We heard from the minister that there was a reduction of 41 per cent on the level of litigation. Clearly, there is a lot of interest to be served, not least those of David and Gliath, which are much mentioned in the debate thus far. Patan McGuire, representing Thomson Solicitor, told the committee, and I quote here, 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 Principal Taylor said was his prime focus on what I see as the mystery of the bill, which is redressing the imbalance in the asymmetrical relationship between the pursuers of personal injury claims and the extremely large, powerful and wealthy insurers. The Scottish Government made very clear that the principle of the bill was creating a more accessible, affordable and equitable justice system. At closer play, the Scottish Green Party will support the general principles of the bill. That is not to say that there are not things that we would like to see improve in relation to court fees. Again, Thomson Solicitor had a very clear view on that. He suggested that court fees should be treated the same way as expenses are under coax provisions in the bill. That would mean that pursuers' court fees would only be paid at the end of the case and then only when they could be recovered from an unsuccessful defender. Thus, the pursuer would always be protected from liability. If the case was not won, the defender would pay the pursuers' fees. If the case was lost, the pursuer would not have to pay court fees. Money is at the heart of a lot of what we did discuss in a particular concern about issues around future loss and the suggestion from the committee that that would be a ring fence. That is a very personal thing. That is something that considers someone's future career prospects, their loss of earnings, their health projections and, hopefully, that will be taken on board. Third-party funders, a number of my colleagues have mentioned them. Clearly, we have heard the assurance from the minister that that was not to include trade unions. I think that that should be expressly said. We welcome the issue of disclosure of funding and post-legislative scrutiny. That is very important, too. I want to touch to something that the minister would not be surprised if I seemed to mention at every piece of civil legislation. That is the Arhurst convention. The view that access to environmental justice in Scotland urgently requires a comprehensive response. It is certainly the view of Friends of the Earth and others that the Parliament should extend qualified one-way cost shifting to environmental cases in order to ensure that bringing those cases is not prohibitively expensive. We know that that is not a quality of arms that is applied thus far. That goes some way to addressing that. However, the criticism that has rightly been directed to the Scottish legal system and its failure to comply with the Arhurst convention was a manifesto commitment of the previous Government, and it said that it would consult in it. In absolute fairness to it, four years and fifty weeks into its five-year term, it did consult in it. I hope that that is something that you would take in board, minister. However, just to confirm again the Scottish Green Party support general principles of the bill. Thank you very much. I call Ben Macpherson, last speaker in the open debate. Mr Macpherson, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to declare an interest as a previous practising solicitor who is still registered on the role of Scottish solicitors, though of course not practising. I also thank all my colleagues on the Justice Committee, all the witnesses that gave evidence and the clerks for helping us through the process to this point. I highly commend the Scottish Government for bringing forward the civil litigation expenses in group proceedings, Scotland Bill, in order to enhance access to justice through a number of means, as we have already heard, and also to undertake the constant evolution of our independent legal system in order to make sure that it is keeping in touch with the needs of society and the development of our economy. As others have done, I would like to focus on a specific part of the bill, in my case, part 4, on group proceedings, which is the game out of Chef Principal Taylor's chapter 12 on multi-party actions. As the Scottish Government has put forward, the bringing forward of group proceedings in Scotland will help to broaden access to justice by allowing multi-party litigants the opportunity to bring an action at a lower cost than individual cases. It will also deliver a more streamlined and cost-effective outcome and reduce court time by enabling a number of related claims to be taken forward as one group procedure. That has support from many stakeholders. As the Scottish Government's response to her report says, the Scottish law commission supported that in the 1990s, and it supported it with the opt-in procedure, which is what the bill includes at present. That was also supported in written evidence that was received in August from the Lost Society of Scotland, in which it said that the basic proposals for group action seemed sensible and that it should be able to work for solicitors and practice a system that proceeds on the basis of opt-in rather than opt-out as a positive development and is welcomed by agents. However, that is something that I appreciate as a point of contention, the difference between opt-out procedure and opt-in. I listened attentively to the committee's evidence on the benefits of an opt-out procedure, and we received an interesting briefing from Friends of the Earth Scotland about the value of an opt-out procedure. I asked a number of questions about that in committee. However, I am convinced at the moment that the practical nature of that is a new part of the Scottish law that is being introduced, and there needs to be an opportunity for the legal system to build up the experience of group proceedings and that an opt-in is better for introducing something entirely new to the Scottish law and the practical considerations around that. The further consideration that I would like to highlight is that it is important that, while the committee and the assurances around legal aid, which are noted in our recommendation 396 of our report, are assuring from the Scottish Government, there is a need to keep looking at that question. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has committed to looking at that on an on-going basis. The opt-in is better in order to not cause undue delay now, but, as a Parliament and as a society, we need to keep looking at the value of perhaps utilising an opt-out system in the future for group proceedings. Perhaps, if there is a commitment to post-legitative scrutiny, as the convener of our committee suggested, an evaluation on an opt-out procedure could be undertaken then. I would also like to note one last point, convener, that the law society said in its briefing for the debate that the question of how issues of expenses in group actions will be dealt with has not been considered in the bill, and we believe that it would be helpful to address. For a fleeting moment, I thought that witches had given evidence, but I realised that it was witches that had given evidence. I was quite intriguing as a group action. I now call Daniel Johnson to close with Labour and to assess five minutes, Mr Johnson. I should have, at the beginning of my previous statement, pointed out that I am a trade union member of both community, trade union and us-daw. I think that it is notable that the high degree of consensus that there has been in this afternoon's debate is a huge common agreement that we must commit to those reforms, both in terms of specifics and general principles. Marie-Gougeon put it very well that, quite often, when we are discussing those matters, people's eyes glaze over and they wonder what on earth it means to them. The reality is that, when you need to redress, when you need to use the courts, it all becomes all too real. For too many people, the cost of taking court action and the complexity becomes prohibitive. That is why the key measures that the Government is bringing forward here will be helpful. I think that there is broad agreement about that, the sliding caps, the introduction of GBAs for solicitors, qualified one-way cost-shifting and group proceedings. What those will do is improve transparency of what costs people are likely to face while pursuing a court case, removal of downside uncertainty and providing more options for individuals in terms of getting access to legal services and more routes for justice in terms of the introduction of group proceedings. I think that those are all very welcome. There has obviously been a lot of talk of quarks and David and Goliath, but that is the central and key provision. I thought that Fulton MacGregor did an excellent job of outlining both the advantages of the introduction of quarks but also the pitfalls. Clearly, the removal of the awarding of cost to people pursuing a case removes that huge consideration that many people would contemplate. That is clearly of a considerable advantage, but it also comes with the possibility of some downsides. I think that Fulton MacGregor provided a very balanced analysis of that. I think that the Government will need to watch what may happen in terms of reducing the threshold of litigation. Indeed, the examples of David vs David actions are ones that will need to be considered. There were also three key concerns that I did not cover in my opening remarks, but they were well made through the debate. A number of members pointed out the issue around future losses. Clearly, one of the key reasons that individuals might pursue court action is that they are facing increased living costs or care costs because of personal injury. It is vital that those people are still able to achieve awards and enable them to support themselves. Any consequences of the bill that might lead them to finding it harder to achieve those costs would be of serious consideration. Ring fencing must be looked at. Likewise, a regulatory gap that might be introduced through the bill passing into law needs to be looked at. It would be absurd if claims management companies descended upon Scotland because they found a loophole as we were attempting to democratise the law. I think that those points were well made. Likewise, the points around the possibility or risks of increased insurance premiums need to be watched. I think that, overall, the point that I raised in my opening remarks about cost to the public sector is that the point about what might happen if increased volumes and value of claims needs to be looked at, whether that is insurance premiums or cost to the public sector. For those reasons, it is vital that the Government commits to review. I just remarked on John Finnie's remarks. I think that the points that he made regarding the possibility of quarks for environmental cases were well made. That is something that would be of real interest. Clearly, in environmental cases where communities are looking for redress, the cost can be prohibitive. If those principles could be extended to those cases, I think that that is very much worth looking at. In conclusion, those measures are welcome. I think that they make a positive step forward. We must ensure that the law is accessible and open to all. It is about one step, and I think that Ben Macpherson made in his comments. We must continually review the law and how it works and seek to improve it, whether it is about the specifics or in general. I would ask that the Government commits to excluding trade unions from section 10. I know that they said that they will look on amendments sympathetically, but I would welcome a further and more robust commitment to that. Finally, it is vital that we have a commitment to a five-year review of the legislation as a whole. Thank you very much, Mr Johnson. I call on Gordon Lindhurst, the Conservatives, six minutes please, Mr Lindhurst. I begin my speech by mentioning my register of interests as a practising advocate and member of the Faculty of Advocates. Perhaps I might simply provide an anecdote on this and mention a mythical creature who has hardly featured in this debate except in the minister's speech, and that is the auditor of the court of session. I do not know if anyone else, as I have, has appeared before the auditor of the court of session, but the auditor, of course, is someone who has a long history created by active sedearant of the Lords of Council in session in 1806 and confirmed by active Parliament in 1821. I note the minister's comments, and I am pleased to see that she confirms that the auditor will remain independent of the Scottish ministers. I have one or two points that I would like to raise with her just on that briefly. When I appeared before the auditor of the court of session, because the auditor can determine whether fees are fair or reasonable, I had acted in a case a number of years ago, so it was not the current auditor but rather one of his predecessors. The solicitor who had questioned the level of the fee that I had charged on the basis that it was too much, I myself thought that it was reasonable. We went into a room, the auditor sat on one side of the table. I explained to the auditor why I thought the fee was appropriate in detail, and the solicitor explained in detail why he thought it was not. Then the auditor basically made a decision, as a judge does in a court case, on that. The solicitor and I, it was a very professional hearing. It did not interfere with our relationship as professionals. However, I should say that the confidence in the process, or the office of auditor of the court of session, I think is probably not in question. Certainly, my confidence in it was boosted by the outcome of that when, to my surprise, the auditor's decision arrived and, although I had not asked for this, he decided that my fee was too low and increased it. I do not know if it was for that reason that I never had to appear in front of him again, but I should, of course, add to that that solicitors and I would, on occasion, discuss fees, because that is normally how one would adjust fees. In section 13, my question to the minister and she may want to give reassurances on this, section 134, talking about the appointment of an auditor of court. It is said that the appointment a last for such period and b is on such other terms and conditions as the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service may determine. My concern about that is, a, will we continue to have, as we have had in the last 13 auditors, someone who is legally qualified and entitled to litigate in the courts themselves and therefore in a position to judge these matters properly and fairly and appropriately? The second is the question of, because it is a quasi-judicial office that the auditor holds and I am pleased to see in the act the auditor's functions for the whole of Scotland in terms of the auditing of court fees and that is retained, the length of tenure, because that does not seem to be spelled out and, indeed, the security of conditions of the office. I wonder if the minister might give us some assurance on that, because it is an office which is an integral part of ensuring that the matter that we have before the Parliament day will be properly carried out. I think that most of the points have been covered in this fairly consensual debate on the purpose of this legislation, the primary purpose, which is said to be to resolve disparity between the position of pursuer and defender, in particular in personal injuries and litigations. The question, as always, is a bit like in a court of law. There has been evidence about the fear of swinging expenses awards, but my understanding from the committee's report is that the evidence was not entirely clear on this, but the committee has clearly come to a view on the value of the proposals based on, in particular, Sheriff Principal Taylor's view that was the fear of adverse awards of costs inhibit people from exercising their legal rights. I think that it is right that we should bear in mind the other side of the coin, and I know that that has been addressed by members of the committee, such as Rona Mackay and Fulton MacGregor, that we should avoid in Scotland creating the sort of compensation culture that we do see in some other jurisdictions, and that is not necessarily of benefit to those who have valid claims. I wonder about the test in terms of the one-way cost-shifting, which is based on Wednessbury unreasonableness, because fraud, of course, would be a very high standard to apply, but Wednessbury unreasonableness is equally hard if one does, as I have tried to argue that before a judge in the specifics of the case. I think that it might be helpful to have a bit more clarity on that particular test. I do welcome that the committee has proposed that the Government look at extending mandatory pre-action protocol for personal injuries claims, and that, as Daniel Johnson called for, and I think that Margaret Mitchell touched on this for the committee, that there needs to be consideration and definite proposals for post-legislative scrutiny. I would simply close by saying that we need to look at this very carefully, because, as Liam Kerr referred to David against Goliath cases, some of those are simply David against David cases, or indeed Goliath against Goliath cases. I just say that we will be moving shortly on to the next debate. I do not see any French bench members or any speakers in the next debate here. I hope that they are paying attention for wherever they are, because in eight minutes they better be on their feet. I now call the minister for the Government eight minutes, please. It is not clear if it is on the record that I would point members to my entry in the register of interests. We will find that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I hold a current practicing certificate, albeit that I am not practicing. I have listened with great interest to the debate this afternoon, and indeed the contributions from across the chamber. I welcome very much the general support expressed with the bill, although I appreciate that some members have concerns on some issues. I think that it would be helpful to stress at the outset of my closing remarks what the fundamental aspiration of the bill is, and that is to ensure that those contemplating litigation in our civil courts should have more certainty about what it will cost them, so that there is predictability as to cost, there are increased funding options, and, of course, we seek to address the inequality of arms and personal injury cases. That, in turn, will afford increased access to justice, which I am pleased to hear all members support. In general, the bill has received broad support not only from stakeholders representing pursuers, but also stakeholders representing defenders. I would like to turn to some of the issues raised in the time that I have available. Obviously, that is about several minutes, so I do not know if I will be able to deal with every single issue, but I will certainly do my best to deal with the section 10 issue. I had made it clear in committee, and I thought that I made it clear again in today's opening statement, that we absolutely do not intend to cover, to encompass within that obligation, trade unions. We will reflect, and the Parliamentary Jasmine will reflect very carefully. It will take the view that it is clear at the moment, but I recognise the concerns raised, and I undertake absolutely to make sure that we make it absolutely clear that trade unions are not covered nor legal services providers. On the important issue of future loss element of damages, that was raised by a number of members this afternoon. Of course, the Justice Committee has asked us to have another think about that. It is important to remember that Shared Principle Taylor made a very detailed and careful consideration of the issue in his recommendations, in his report, and that in relation to the future element of damages and whether the future element was prepared by where periodical payment order or by way of a lump sum payment. In fact, as regards periodical payment orders, those are currently a matter of practice in our courts, albeit that the court cannot impose a PPO without the consent of the parties. We proposed to bring legislation forward this year to amend that, but periodical payment orders can currently and are in fact imposed, and the future element of damages, therefore, to the extent that they will be dealt with by way of a PPO, are already ring-fenced under the proposals in the bill, because they may not, if there is a PPO, be included in any success fee calculation. Indeed, it is in these circumstances where a PPO is made that we tend to see cases in which we need to address the longer-term care needs of the individual pursuer concerned. Shared Principle Taylor concluded that any future loss, which is to be compensated rather by a lump sum, should not, however, be excluded, per se, from the ambit of a damages-based agreement and the calculation of the success fee under that agreement. He said, and I quote, that this has the considerable advantage of simplicity, and he made that conclusion on the basis that therefore it would not involve agreeing how a principal sum of lump sum damages should be divided as between past and future loss. Indeed, remarked that there was a real risk of incentivising delay in the proceedings such that people would seek to attribute more to past loss than to future loss. He also argued that requiring parties to stipulate how an agreed lump sum settlement figure should be divided into different heads of loss could be impractical and could pose a barrier to settlement, and that he indicated that protection for the pursuer could be achieved by other means. Those are set out in the bill, such that at section 65 and subsection 6, there is provision for independent assessment in circumstances where the lump sum exceeds £1 million of whether it is in the best interest of the pursuer to have the future element paid by a periodical payment order or lump sum. If the damages are awarded by a court, then this will be assessed by the court. If the damages are to be agreed by a settlement, then the question will be referred to an actuary. The bill has faithfully followed Chair of Principal Taylor's recommendations in that regard. The Scottish Government, taking that into account, and also Chair of Principal Taylor's very comprehensive evidence on this particular issue before the Justice Committee, is not persuaded that there is a need to change its policy on this matter. Reference has been made to what happens in England and Wales, but also reference was made by Chair of Principal Taylor to the fact that, in his view, Lord Justice Jackson, who had taken a different view in his work, had got cold feet further to making his conclusions some years ago. It is also important to point out that the amount, the percentage of the claim, is on a sliding scale. For example, a claim of £1 million if it was a fee of 15 per cent would be on the entire amount, so that would be £150,000. If, under the sliding scale cap, the proposal is accepted by the Parliament, that will be a claim of damages, a fee of £72,500, so it is important to bear that in mind. On the issue of qualified one-way cost shifting, I welcome the conclusion of the Justice Committee that the introduction of qualified one-way cost shifting will improve access to justice. I do not accept, nor does some key parts of the evidence accept, that that will need to arise in unmeritorious claims. Indeed, there will be a number of factors that would mitigate against that. Those include the fact that why would you, as a solicitor, take on a case if there is no chance of success, you do not get paid, you use up your time, you spend money in outlays that you cannot recover. Secondly, the regulation of claims management companies in Scotland will discourage unscrupulous claims management companies operating north of the border. Thirdly, the compulsory—I—Yes, I will, yes. Liam Kerr. Just very briefly, does that mean, therefore, that the minister would agree that we should wait for the regulation of claims management companies before bringing this bill in? Minister. To get on to that, but obviously time is short. No, because I think it is the case, firstly, that if there is to be a gap, it will be of very short order. Secondly, it is to be remembered that many claims management companies already operate subject to an entity that is already regulated, be it in terms of their solicitor ownership, be it in terms of the MOJ, and also it is clear that this is the direction of travel in Scotland. So the message is out there for any claims management company that wish to operate in a way that it was inconsistent with this legislation that in very short order this legislation had passed by this Parliament would apply to it. Also it is the case in regard to the unlikelihood of a huge surgeon on meritorious claims that the bill itself provides in section 8.4 for circumstances where the benefit of qualified one-way cost shifting may be lost. And I do understand and hear the comments made about section 8.4 and we are looking at that. However, I would say in terms of the issue raised about possible increases in insurance premiums that, on the basis that it is not founded that there will be an automatic rise in spurious claims, I do not see therefore that the consequential conclusion that there will be this significant rise in insurance premiums is founded either. Presiding Officer, I see that I am quickly running out of time, but I do thank very much the work of the Justice Committee and I look forward to further discussion on all those matters at stage 2. There were a number of issues that I just did not get time to deal with today but I am always happy to speak to members about particular issues of concern that they have and I would thank the members for their support and principle of this bill and I commend the motion in my name. Thank you Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate of the civil litigation expenses in group preceding Scotland Bill at stage 1. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. I will suspend briefly to allow the front benches to take their places. I apologise to Ms Hislock who was actually in the chamber when I made my comments and Mr Carlaw who is looking a bit