Hansard

When I was in professional practice, I dealt with cases of this type across the board, including injury cases and some death cases. We must remember, as Bill Butler said, that at the heart of all these cases lie not just legal principles and legal issues, but real people, relatives and families who are affected by the way in which the law and the legal system operate. That is the fundamental motivation behind the bill that Bill Butler has brought forward.

It is the law’s job to try to sort out contending legal issues and to give justice in individual cases. As a caveat, it is probably true to say that there is no single right answer to all the issues that emerge—a range of answers applies across the board and they change from time to time. The process for death cases has been the subject of piecemeal amendment, change and interpretation over several years in an attempt to get the system right. The bill is another stage in that process, which I hope will lead to some finality.

As we debate the bill, I am conscious of what we in the Parliament have looked at. Even today, I was involved in launching the Scotland Bill Committee’s report, which was highly political; chairing a cross-party group meeting at lunch time; and dealing with this all-party, non-party bill. In some ways, we do our most effective work in the Parliament when we take a consensual but—I hope—critiquing approach to matters on which we have no party line or political stance. The bill is an example of that.

Several disputes arose as we dealt with the bill. It is noteworthy that the bill has not been accompanied by the flurry of representations that we usually receive at stage 3—I have received two or possibly three representations on relatively small aspects of it. That suggests an acceptance out there that the committee, the minister and Bill Butler have got the bill right.

It is certainly true that the fixed deduction of 25 per cent was the most controversial issue. Deciding on the right approach to that gave me, the committee’s former convener, committee members and others considerable difficulties. In association with Bill Butler, the minister has produced a reasonably elegant solution that works to achieve the policy objective that Bill Butler and the rest of us sought. To that extent, the bill will do significantly more justice than has happened in the past.

It is true that many cases that involve death claims arise from the tragic circumstances of people who suffer and die from mesothelioma. Nevertheless, other cases can involve a different range of age groups or different family compositions. Road traffic accidents are no respecter of age or family distinction and do not reflect one’s previous industrial history. The same is true of industrial accidents in which people are killed or injured in their workplace or elsewhere. The bill must provide justice across the board in all the different cases, and it will do so successfully.

I pay considerable tribute to Bill Butler, who has done a good job as a parliamentarian—an occupation that is sometimes underrated. He has taken forward his bill with sensitivity and commitment, which are necessary if one wants significant changes, albeit in smallish parts of the legislative framework.

Against that background, I am delighted that we have reached the end of the bill process. I look forward to the motion to pass the bill being agreed to at 5 o’clock.

15:23