Hansard

I am grateful to Rod Campbell for that information. The same point had been intimated to me in my discussions with the Lord President. With regard to Roderick Campbell’s amendment 39, there is a desire, which has been mentioned in the civil courts review, to ensure that specialisation can take place. Aberdeen, for example, is getting a new commercial and civil centre, and the bill will allow the Lord President to designate categories of specialism. That opportunity exists, and I am happy to make it clear that the Lord President and the Scottish Civil Justice Council will, I think, reflect on the matter. Amendment 39 seeks to ensure that personal injury cases of £150,000 or less may be raised only in the sheriff court, but for other cases, the limit would be £100,000. That would set the bar higher for personal injury cases than for other cases with regard to their ability to be raised in the Court of Session, so I do not support the amendment. Although it could be said that the amendment goes with the grain of our policy to return low-value personal injury cases to the sheriff court, including sending many cases to the new specialist personal injury court, we made it clear in our stage 1 response that we do not consider it appropriate to introduce different exclusive competence limits for different types of cases. Specialisation will be for the SCJC. According to Scottish Court Service figures for 2011-12, only 146 commercial cases were dealt with in the Court of Session. Given that relatively few cases would be affected, we do not think that there is a case for having different limits. Indeed, on 22 April, Sheriff Principal Taylor said in evidence that many actions for considerably more than £150,000 are raised in the commercial court of Glasgow sheriff court. Amendment 24, in the name of Sandra White, seeks to ensure that cases for £100,000 or higher may be raised only in the Court of Session. That would have the effect of lowering the exclusive competence limit in the bill from £150,000 to £100,000. As the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs pointed out when she gave evidence to the committee on 29 April, we have been listening to stakeholders on the issue. Although the committee has heard from organisations including Which? that support a £150,000 limit, many of those who have appeared in front of the committee think that £150,000 is too high for the exclusive competence. Indeed, the same point was highlighted, to a lesser degree, in the consultation on the bill. We have recently had further discussions with the STUC, which also voiced concerns about the appropriate limit. Taking all that on board, I think that amendment 24 strikes a balance between the original exclusive competence figure of £150,000 that was suggested by Lord Gill and the views of some stakeholders, while still being able to deliver the more efficient and affordable system that is intended in the Scottish civil courts review. I am therefore happy to support amendment 24. Amendment 40, in the name of Alison McInnes, would ensure that cases of £50,000 or above may be raised only in the Court of Session. Amendment 23, in the name of Elaine Murray, would ensure that cases of £30,000 or above may be raised only in the Court of Session. I do not support either amendment. I do not accept, as the convener alluded to, that cases would be given lower awards in the sheriff court; I do not think that there is any evidence of that. In any event, there is a specialist personal injury court, which would ensure that balance. Equally, it is important to point out that the whole purpose of Lord Gill’s review was to ensure access to justice, which he suggested is not being provided. The convener has given appropriate caveats on amendments to come on remit and sanction. I remind the committee that both Labour and the Conservatives signed up to the principle in the SCCR of delivering a justice system that has fewer delays and costs, which is what I believe has been delivered by the Lord President. Some stakeholders—the Faculty of Advocates, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland—have asked that there be a lower exclusive competence. The Faculty of Advocates referred to limits that are in place in other UK jurisdictions, but that does not compare like with like. Rod Campbell helpfully pointed out the recent changes in personal injury matters south of the border. One of the major issues that the SCCR pinpointed is that the sums that are sued for in claims are being inflated by about three times in order to bring claims to the Court of Session, which means that it is highly misleading for the APIL and others to quote the settlement figure in the context of setting an appropriate exclusive competence figure. In the current circumstances, applying the finding of the SCCR, settlement figures of £30,000 or £50,000 could likely be the result of claims being brought for £90,000 or £150,000. To put it another way, if we were to reduce the exclusive competence to £50,000, the likely settlement figure in a claim for that amount—the money that would be awarded at the end of the case—would be only around £17,000. We need to choose the level of the exclusive competence based on the sum that is being sued for, because that is what is used to decide in which court to raise the claim. If people’s cases are heard in the right court in a more efficient civil justice system, that will allow them to reach settlement and get their awards more swiftly. Lord Gill’s aim in proposing the reforms is to make justice more accessible to more people and to lower the cost of getting justice, and not to disadvantage people. An exclusive competence as low as £50,000 or even £30,000 would fundamentally fail to achieve that. I urge the committee to reject amendments 39, 40 and 43. I am happy to support amendment 29, in Sandra White’s name.