Meeting of the Parliament 21 May 2014
Thank you for allowing me to contribute this afternoon, Presiding Officer.
I am pleased that section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 has been mentioned on at least two occasions this afternoon. The onerous responsibilities placed on litigants in pursuing cases when they have been injured at work set a context for some for the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon, in terms of the changes proposed in the bill.
First and foremost, like the cabinet secretary I believe that reform of the courts is overdue. The Scottish Labour Party supports the principles that lie behind the bill.
Trade unions and many witnesses offered evidence that the bill’s proposals overlook the likelihood of an inequality of arms in relation to proofs heard in civil cases and personal injury cases at the Sheriff Court, where the bill’s criteria on privative jurisdiction prevent parties from accessing an advocate’s services in cases that fall short of the £150,000.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated that he is examining that approach and seemed, in his speech, to offer confirmation that no such inequality will occur after the act comes into force. It would be useful if the minister could confirm that when she sums up.
There is a recognition that there are complexities in the bill regarding decisions on where a case may be heard. What is absent is an acknowledgement that sums of much less than £150,000 can have a life-changing impact on many working families, who rely on an outcome from the court to give them some form of confidence in the future. In many cases, they would seek an advocate to represent their views. Organisations such as Which? suggested a much lower figure than £150,000, and it is obvious that flexibility to the approach at stage 2 will be essential.