Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 10 June 2014

10 Jun 2014 · S4 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

MacAskill, Kenny SNP Edinburgh Eastern Watch on SPTV

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 to assist all those who have been harmed by negligent exposure to asbestos. We have legislated to ensure that a person who is dying from mesothelioma can receive damages without preventing members of their family from making a future claim for damages, and we have supported legislation that clarifies Scots law as it relates to damages for fatal personal injuries, reducing requirements for potentially intrusive, protracted and costly investigations and making the settlement of claims quicker and fairer. The Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill will ensure that cases are heard in the appropriate court, reducing unnecessary delays and disproportionate costs to all litigants. This is an important and sensitive area. I listened carefully to the evidence on the subject that was given to the committee at stage 1, particularly what was said by Phyllis Craig of Clydeside Action on Asbestos and Sheriff Principal Taylor, and I have also met Phyllis Craig. Amendment 25 seeks to keep all asbestos cases in the Court of Session. In her evidence to the committee, Ms Craig said that she would prefer them to be heard in the Court of Session but she added: “However, if they had to be moved, we would want them to be moved into the sheriff court with all solicitors’ and advocates’ fees paid and with all the procedures that ensure efficiency in the Court of Session transferred to the sheriff court.”—Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 April 2014; c 4510-1. Let me address some of those points. On whether all asbestos-related disease cases should automatically be raised in the Court of Session, I agree with Sheriff Principal Taylor. He argued that a decision to grant sanction for counsel should be dependent on the merits of each case, and went on to say: “a complex asbestosis case will probably be remitted to the Court of Session. However, even if it were to remain in the sheriff court, it would almost certainly merit sanction for counsel.”—Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 April 2014; c 4527. That is my experience not only as a Government minister, but as a practising lawyer. Although there will not be automatic sanction for counsel in the specialist personal injury court or the sheriff courts, the Government believes that all cases that merit counsel will continue to benefit from the expertise of counsel. Most asbestos-related disease cases, even those of relatively low financial value, fall into that category. When those cases are heard in the sheriff courts or the specialist personal injury court, the sheriff, who will have all the facts before them, is best placed to decide whether sanction for counsel is appropriate. That takes us on to the issue of equality of arms, which will, as the convener mentioned, doubtless be raised in discussions next week. I agree with and have great sympathy for Sheriff Principal Taylor’s position in that regard. Complex cases, which I understand make up the majority of cases, will be able to be remitted to the Court of Session where the sheriff and the Court of Session agree that it is the most appropriate course of action. To add further comfort, we will lodge an amendment next week to ease the test for remit from the sheriff court to the Court of Session, which will address some of the changes to which John Finnie and others referred in respect of the STUC’s views. I meet Clydeside Action on Asbestos regularly, and I will continue to do so throughout the bill’s passage. The aim of the meetings is to ensure that all those who suffer from this distressing disease, and all those who have lost loved ones on account of it, are supported throughout the court process and receive the justice that they deserve. I believe that the committee shares that view, and I can give an assurance that the appropriate options with regard to remit, sanction and equality of arms will be put in place to ensure that the requirements for asbestos cases are met and the complexities in relation to other potential categories of victims are considered. I share the committee’s sympathies for those who are affected by asbestos-related conditions, and I think that we can provide a solution in the bill and through other changes. I oppose amendment 25.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 10 June 2014

In the same item of business