Hansard

I begin by paying tribute to Bill Butler for bringing the bill before the Parliament. Without his intervention, the bill, following the excellent work by the Scottish Law Commission, would not have proceeded in the Parliament. That would not have been right, as someone who is facing death because of the actions or negligence of others or someone who is seeking damages for the loss of a loved one should not have to endure an unnecessarily protracted and demanding legal process in order to obtain damages to which they are entitled.

It is right to recognise the work that the Justice Committee did on the bill, and I entirely associate myself with the minister’s words in relation to the former convener. I also congratulate Thompsons Solicitors, which worked with Bill Butler in providing advice throughout the process. That dialogue has been all about securing legislation that will be effective and which can be passed today with cross-party support. Once again, the Scottish Parliament can take action to protect the rights of people seeking damages.

We must recognise two difficult issues that the minister spoke about. The first concerns the proposal for the standard 25 per cent deduction for living expenses. In the Labour Party, we were eager for that proposal to be adopted as it appeared in the bill as introduced. In particular, we believed that it would help to address undercompensation in instances in which, for example, a dying victim is unwilling or unable to extend negotiations or take the matter to court—in effect, when they are forced by circumstances to accept a larger deduction for living expenses than is fair or appropriate. Given that most fatal damages claims involve people suffering from mesothelioma, such situations are not, unfortunately, uncommon.

The Scottish Government was concerned that applying a rigid standard 25 per cent reduction might not produce an accurate or fair result in absolutely every case, and that it could result in undercompensation—in what I feel would be rare circumstances. However, that concern resulted in dialogue on the issue, from which came the proposal that the 25 per cent reduction should apply, but with an exception for cases where it would be “manifestly and materially unfair”.

We previously expressed concerns that such an exception could open the door to further delay in court, due to routine challenges to the 25 per cent figure, but we have been reassured by the minister that the term “manifestly and materially unfair” sets a high enough bar, ensuring that such cases will be exceptional. The great majority of cases will benefit from speedier progress through the courts with the application of a 25 per cent deduction. We are comforted on that point, which we believe is crucial for the victims in such cases.

The second key issue is that of disregarding spousal income when determining compensation. As we have discussed, concerns were expressed at committee that stage 2 amendments have made the provisions not quite as explicit as we might have hoped. For the avoidance of doubt, the minister has made it clear today that, in the vast majority of circumstances, spousal income will indeed be disregarded. We can be confident that we have been properly reassured on that point, too.

I hope that we can also be confident that, although the bill might have changed, the central ambition behind it remains intact. I hope that we will pass into law today provisions that ensure not only fairer damages for what victims have suffered due to the negligence of others, but an easier and less protracted legal process by which damages are awarded. Those who seek such damages deserve no less, and I congratulate Bill Butler once again on fighting their corner in our Parliament.

15:15