Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 03 March 2011

03 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Damages (Scotland) Bill

Aitken, Bill Con Glasgow Watch on SPTV

When someone is killed or dies as a result of an industrial accident or illness or in the short and fairly traumatic circumstances of a road traffic accident, and where there is negligence and liability, the settlement should be achieved firmly, fairly and expeditiously.

Bill Butler is right to say that the law is in need of clarity. It has become diluted over the years and is not as clear as it should be, and, as we know, some of the case law is confusing. It was perfectly appropriate for the Scottish Law Commission to begin a study of how matters were to be changed, and it was entirely appropriate that Bill Butler, with his customary commitment and energy, picked up the bill from the SLC and put it through the parliamentary process. The way in which that was done was an exemplar. Sometimes this Parliament behaves as it should, and the willingness on the part of the Government, the various parties and Bill Butler to compromise to get a result for those who have been bereaved in the most difficult circumstances reflects very well on all concerned, and all are worthy of congratulations.

There were issues that caused some concern. The first was the question of the 25 per cent deduction in respect of the deceased person’s personal outtake from the family budget. When someone dies, whether after a long illness or very suddenly, as in a road traffic or industrial accident, the last thing the family needs to do is carry out a tawdry accounting exercise, going through the household budgets and expenditure.

The 25 per cent figure seems to be pretty accurate. There will be occasions—very few in number, I suspect—on which that might not be the case. However, the rather subtle wording that has been agreed, which states that we should avoid

“a manifestly and materially unfair result”,

will to my mind, once it has been interpreted—very robustly, I hope—by the court, prevent defenders from seeking to procrastinate and delay the payments for those who seek them at a very difficult time in their lives.

Many of us have been, like Bill Butler, strongly influenced by our experience in dealing with the sufferers of mesothelioma. As I have said in debates in the chamber before, the industrial heritage of the west of Scotland and Glasgow in particular has left us with a tremendous cost. The vast majority of the cases in which people will benefit from this legislation will concern the families of mesothelioma sufferers.

We recognise that nothing can ever restore a relative to their family, but we can seek a fair and humane approach to dealing with the claims that arise. I am convinced that the bill that is before us, which I suspect will go through at decision time with acclamation, goes down that route. The Parliament should be grateful to Bill Butler for bringing the bill to the chamber, and I very much hope that when it is voted on at 5 o’clock, it will deservedly receive the support of every member in the chamber.

15:19