Hansard

I will speak about the two orders together, as they are very much a package. The purpose of the orders is to increase the different financial limits, known as the jurisdiction limits, which apply to two of the three forms of civil court procedure in use in sheriff courts in Scotland. The increases are intended to improve local access to justice.The draft Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (Privative Jurisdiction and Summary Cause) Order 2001 will increase both the privative jurisdiction of the sheriff court—the financial limit up to which proceedings must be brought in the sheriff court—and the summary cause limit from £1,500 to £5,000. That will give litigants access to summary cause procedure for cases up to the new limit of £5,000.The draft Small Claims (Scotland) Amendment Order 2001 will increase the small claims limit from £750 to £1,500 and will exclude personal injury actions from the small claims procedure. That will benefit those who want to raise claims up to the new limit using that low-cost procedure, which is designed for litigants to use themselves. The removal of personal injury actions will further assist litigants by allowing access to appropriate procedures for those specific cases. In addition, the order will increase the present expenses limit for small claims in line with the increase in the value of the claims to which the procedure will apply.With the committee's forbearance, I shall provide some details of the effect that the increases will have on the business and procedures of the sheriff court.Ordinary cause procedure, which is a more formal procedure, would be available to litigants who wish to pursue claims for payment of money exceeding £5,000, and also for cases such as family actions, including actions of divorce and actions relating to parental rights and responsibilities, and for actions of interdict. Summary cause procedure, which is less formal and more closely timetabled, would be available to litigants who wish to pursue claims for sums exceeding £1,500 and up to £5,000, and also for certain non-monetary claims such as actions for recovery of possession of heritable property. Small claims procedure, which is informal, cheap and litigant-friendly, would be available to litigants who wish to pursue monetary claims up to £1,500.Summary cause procedure as we now know it was introduced in the sheriff court in 1976. Its origins were in the Grant report, a royal commission report published in 1967. Enabling legislation was introduced by the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The present summary cause and privative jurisdiction limits of £1,500 were fixed in 1988 when the small claims procedure was introduced.In 1980, the Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland recommended the small claims procedure as follows:"there should be a small claims procedure within the sheriff court which is sufficiently simple, cheap, quick and informal to encourage individual litigants to use it themselves without legal representation." The basis for that recommendation is also contained in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The present jurisdiction limit for small claims has remained unaltered since the procedure was introduced in 1988.The proposals to increase the jurisdiction limits in the sheriff court have been the subject of extensive consultation. In July 1998, the Lord Advocate, who at the time had policy responsibility for such matters, issued a consultation paper. The Lord Advocate sought views on a range of possible increases to jurisdiction limits; an option of forum for personal injury actions for sums that fell within the small claims limit; and the provision of an additional level of expenses for small claims that exceed £750.Two hundred and forty-four copies of the consultation paper were issued and 53 responses were received. Those who responded are listed in the Executive note, of which members have a copy. The responses demonstrate the substantial support that exists to increase the jurisdiction limits in accordance with the provisions in the order.A large majority of consultees favoured increasing the small claims limit to £1,500. A smaller number favoured an increase in line with inflation, which, at that time, would have produced a figure of approximately £1,200.When the small claims procedure was introduced in 1988, a decision was taken to include actions for personal injury. At that time, it was recognised that potential problems might arise from the relative complexity and expense of the claims and that, in the light of experience, changes might have to be made. Research was commissioned to monitor the impact of the small claims procedure on personal injury claimants and litigation. The research report recommended providing a right to opt in to the small claims procedure. In the course of the consultation, views on that proposition were canvassed. However, such an amendment would require primary legislation.The terms of the research and the nature of many of the responses suggested that it was necessary to take a decision about the future of small claims for personal injury. We took regard of those findings and of the position in England and Wales, where personal injury actions were excluded from recent increases in small claims jurisdiction. The small claims order that is before the committee today provides for the exclusion of personal injury actions from the small claims procedure. The exclusion addresses many of the criticisms in the research report. It also means that litigants who require to pursue such claims will benefit from having the right to apply for legal aid.At present, no expenses are payable for claims below £200 and expenses for claims up to £750 are limited to £75. The order proposes increasing the £75 limit to £100 for claims up to £1,000 and for an additional level of expenses to be introduced for claims that exceed £1,000. Consultees broadly supported those proposed increases in the expenses limits, although differing views were expressed as to how the limit should be applied.The views of consultees on the increase to the summary cause and privative jurisdiction limits ran across the range of values that were offered in the consultation paper. Some consultees favoured an increase to £3,000, while others suggested an increase as high as £50,000. It was also suggested that consideration be given to prescribing different limits for summary cause and privative jurisdiction limits, with the privative jurisdiction limits being increased to £50,000. That was the view of sheriff principals, who saw that that would remove more low-value cases from the Court of Session. That proposal would also require primary legislation. It seems to me that the passage of time alone justifies the changes proposed, when one bears in mind that the existing limit has been in place since 1988. Taking into account the mixed views of respondents, as shown in the consultation, and the position elsewhere, where the equivalent limits are much higher than those that are proposed today, I consider £5,000 to be the right level at which to set the limit. That is because that figure, being at the lower end of the range, is around the middle of the range set out in consultation responses, with the same number of consultees seeking increases above and below that figure.It seems to me that those increases in the jurisdiction limits are justified. Many people believe that the increases were warranted before now. The increases may not satisfy everyone, but they reflect accurately the views that were expressed by the consultees who responded to the consultation.The committee may know that the orders were first presented for consideration last year but, before the orders were debated, ministers were persuaded that the conditions for change were not right. In particular, the point was made that an on-going review of the procedure rules for summary cause and small claims should first be completed. That review is now complete and it is my intention to change the jurisdiction limits at the same time that the new rules come into force, which is likely to be April of next year. I am satisfied that the time is right to make the changes. They will benefit the large number of litigants who will, as a result, have access to the informal, quick and relatively inexpensive court procedures for summary causes and small claims.I appreciate that the committee has before it the GMB union's petition. When I come to close, I will be happy to deal with issues regarding the petition that may be raised in the debate.I conclude by re-emphasising that the purpose of the orders is to improve access to justice and to provide quick and inexpensive outcomes for claimants.I move,