Meeting of the Parliament 18 December 2018
We have taken account of that. We recognise that there are many reasons why a PPO might not be suitable for a pursuer or a defender, but we think that the court would take that into account. Both parties would be entitled to put their views on whether they saw a PPO as acceptable, and the court would take those views into consideration before it made its judgment.
The bill also provides for the variation or suspension of PPOs and similar agreements. I note that the committee would like the Scottish Government to lodge amendments to attach more weight to the pursuer’s views when a court is asked to decide whether damages should take the form of periodical payments. I set out the Scottish Government’s thinking on that issue in my response to the stage 1 report, and I will continue to give it further consideration.
I also note that the committee asked the Scottish Government
“to outline how it will promote the use of PPOs beyond the public sector.”
The bill, of course, obliges the courts to consider the use of periodical payments in every case. Again, I have responded to the committee on that point, and I confirm that we intend to progress that matter with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and that we will look carefully at what the Ministry of Justice intends to do on the same issue and see whether anything can be learned from that information.
The report made a number of other recommendations that require action on the part of the Scottish Government. I intend to touch on them in my closing speech.
I very much look forward to listening to the debate.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Damages (Investment Returns and Periodical Payments) (Scotland) Bill.