 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.