Hansard

This has been a good debate on an important area of the law of Scotland. The bill’s objective, as Mr Ewing succinctly put it in the stage 1 debate,

“is about trying to facilitate fair compensation”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; c 31545.]

It is indeed about fair compensation, delivered as speedily as possible for victims and their loved ones in cases of wrongful death, without the need for unnecessarily long procedures and distressing court cases.

I very much appreciated members’ thoughtful speeches and the positive tone of all the speeches. On the two interconnected provisions of the bill, on which I asked the minister to comment, I greatly appreciate Mr Ewing’s remarks with regard to fixed percentages and the precisely drawn rebuttable presumption, which was added to the bill at stage 2. Anyone who reads the minister’s words in the Parliament today and who applies their critical faculties objectively can be left in little doubt as to the intent of the bill. The minister has made it crystal clear that the flexibility to depart from fixed percentages is a high test, precisely drawn, which does not invite a challenge except in very rare—some people might say hypothetical—circumstances in which it could be claimed that the result would be “manifestly and materially unfair”.

I also thank the minister for his remarks on the requirement in the bill to disregard the income of the person who is making the claim for loss of support. It is clear to me and, I hope, any fair-minded observer that deletion of section 7(1)(b) does not, in the Government’s considered view, mean that the principle is undermined and that, in fact, it remains intact, other than in what I choose to call the hypothetical cases in which manifest and material unfairness can be claimed and substantiated.

Lest it be thought that stage 2 consisted of matters on which agreement was always difficult to achieve, I state for the record that many of the matters that were highlighted at stage 1 were disposed of by consensus at stage 2.

Instances of that include the reinstatement of the approach that is currently contained in the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 in relation to the categories of relatives. They also include the deletion of the term “grief and companionship award”, which followed the correct conclusion of paragraph 123 of the Justice Committee’s stage 1 report, which favoured

“retaining the established approach of not fixing a name in statute”.

A final example is the removal of a statement in the bill on the issue of mental disorder, which is wholly correct. Colleagues were right to decide that such a complex, weighty matter should wait until separate legislation on damages for psychiatric injury could be considered in a more measured, prolonged way.

Members have been kind in their remarks on the bill, for which I thank them. However, thanks should be extended to many other people: the Scottish Law Commission for its detailed work that formed the basis of the bill; those who made written submissions to the committee and those who gave oral evidence; the Scottish Parliament information centre for its sterling support; Dave Scott—the ubiquitous Mr Scott—in my constituency office; the Justice Committee clerking team for its usual high standard of work; my colleagues on the Justice Committee and its longstanding, inimitable convener, Bill Aitken; the non-Executive bills unit for its contribution; Tracey White and the Parliament’s legislation team; my advisers at Thompsons—Laura Blane, Frank Maguire, Patrick McGuire and lain Jamieson—without whose experience and expert advice I would have been left floundering, to tell the truth; and the minister, Fergus Ewing, and his officials. Mr Ewing’s constructive approach at all stages has proved that, where the subject demands it—where it is serious—party political differences can and must be set aside.

Above all, I record my appreciation and admiration for the members of groups that represent victims and their loved ones, including Clydeside Action on Asbestos and the Clydebank Asbestos Group, many of whom are in the public gallery. We would not be discussing the modernisation of damages legislation and justice for victims and their loved ones today if it were not for the commitment and dedication of those groups of devoted activists over many years.

At 5 o’clock, let us vote for a bill that will deliver fair and speedy compensation for victims of wrongful death and their loved ones. Let us change the law of Scotland and, in doing so, make our society a more just, more humane place in which to live and work.