Committee
Justice Committee 10 June 2014
10 Jun 2014 · S4 · Justice Committee
Item of business
Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments that respond to a point raised by the dean of the Faculty of Advocates when he wrote to the committee on 16 April in relation to the application of the exclusive competence limit by section 39. The learned dean suggested that the present drafting leaves room for doubt as to whether the exclusive competence limit relates to the value of each individual order sought or the aggregate total value of such orders. Amendments 1 and 2 remove that doubt by providing that the aggregate total value applies. If someone seeks two orders, one for payment of £200,000 and another for payment of £6,000, the addition of the crave for £6,000 will not have the perverse effect of requiring that an action that clearly has a value in excess of the exclusive competence limit must be brought in the sheriff court. Section 89 permits the remit of cases from the Court of Session to the sheriff court where the judge assesses that the value of the order sought is likely to be less than the exclusive competence of £150,000. Therefore, it is necessary to amend section 89 to take into account the changes made to section 39 by amendments 1 and 2 in relation to how the value of an order, or the value of orders, is assessed, so that section 89 operates under the same principles. Amendments 19 and 20 make the appropriate amendments. Amendment 3 is a technical amendment that is consequential on amendments 19 and 20. As those amendments introduce the term “order of value” into section 89, the definition of that term in section 39(6) needs to apply also for the purposes of section 89. That is what amendment 3 achieves. Amendment 4 amends the existing power of the Court of Session in section 39(7) to ensure that it has the power to make acts of sederunt governing the way in which the value of an order, or the aggregate total value of orders, is to be determined. I move amendment 1.
In the same item of business
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Amendments 22 and 35, which are in the name of Liam McArthur, supported by Tavish Scott, would omit section 26, which abolishes the office of honorary sherif...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments that respond to a point raised by the dean of the Faculty of Advocates when he wrote to the committee on 16 April...
Elaine Murray
Lab
The committee’s stage 1 report considered that the proposed privative limit of £150,000 is too high. It would constitute a 3,000 per cent increase on the cur...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I am grateful to Rod Campbell for that information. The same point had been intimated to me in my discussions with the Lord President. With regard to Roderi...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
Like members who have spoken, the Government sees where John Pentland is coming from. We all have great sympathy there, and that is why we have taken action ...
Alison McInnes
LD
Amendments 41 and 42 would remove adoption and forced marriage proceedings from the list of civil proceedings in which a summary sheriff has competence, as s...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0. Amendment 41 disagreed to. Amendment 42 not moved. Schedule 1 agreed to. Sections 44 and ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I begin by addressing the amendments in the name of Elaine Murray. The purpose of amendment 29 is to ensure that an appeal in the sheriff appeal court is hea...
Elaine Murray
Lab
The amendments in my name in this group are probing amendments. They seek to address the concerns that the committee voiced about the fact that appeals again...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
In the debate on the previous group of amendments, members stressed the importance of having a sheriff appeal court constituted by three experienced judges. ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
This group of amendments is intended to assist with the successful establishment of the sheriff appeal court. Amendment 7 is required to introduce amendment ...
Alison McInnes
LD
I hear what the minister says and recognise the importance of ensuring that services throughout Scotland are of a piece, but it is important for the Parliame...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments. They deal well with the situation in which there might be multiple financial claims but where one of those clai...
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
SNP
I thank Roderick Campbell for his explanation of amendment 39. He started by saying that we might be confused by the amendment, but he has clarified for us e...
The Convener
SNP
John Finnie has made an important point about later sections in the bill; after all, we have to be able to bring all the provisions together. Christian Allar...
Roderick Campbell
SNP
I just want to clarify what I was saying about the change in England. In non-personal injury cases the limit is £100,000. In personal injury cases the limit ...
The Convener
SNP
Can you tell us how you will ease the test? I do not know whether the amendment that you mentioned has been lodged, but it would be helpful for us to know—or...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
Alison McInnes makes a compelling case. These cases are very complex and emotive, and it makes sense to remove them from the competence of the summary sherif...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
My initial point is that the summary sheriffs will be highly qualified; they will have at least 10 years’ professional standing. As the convener said, assign...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 29, 9, 10, 30, 11, 12, 15 to 18, 21 and 34. I understand this bit. If amendment...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
I have sympathy with amendment 29, in the name of Elaine Murray, which tries to improve the bill’s provisions by looking at the issue of a single sheriff hea...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
I regret that the cabinet secretary did not listen to my opening comments, because I made it quite clear that more sheriffs principal would be appointed and ...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 6 is in a group on its own.
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0. Amendment 11 agreed to. Amendment 12 moved—Kenny MacAskill.
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members: No.
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the amendments and I am also pleased to support them.
The Convener
SNP
This has been explained to me, but I knew that I would get it wrong. We will start again. I should have had a bigger breakfast. We understand the pre-emptio...
The Convener
SNP
Have you spoken to amendment 24 yet?
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
There is sometimes difficulty in looking at one section in splendid isolation. My intention is to support amendment 24, in the name of Sandra White—which is ...
Elaine Murray
Lab
They were provided to me by a Queen’s counsel.