HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1401-3

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 6, line 8, at beginning insert: ( ) This section applies to any action of damages where the damages claimed consist of, or include, damages or solatium in respect of personal injuries (including any disease, and any impairment of physical or mental condition) substained by the pursuer or any other person.

Mr. Buchan

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

I propose that we take, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 5 to 10.

Mr. Buchan

I had better briefly describe the purpose. Clause 9 deals with the general requirement of Scots law that the party on whom the onus of proof rests must produce corroborated evidence if he is to succeed. The Clause as it left this House abolished the requirement over a wide range of civil actions. These Amendments would limit the area of abolition at this stage to personal injuries actions until the Scottish Law Commission has completed its review of the law of evidence as a whole. The Report of the Commission and the Bill already reserve a group of civil actions, mainly consistorial proceedings, until that time.

The Government remain of the opinion that it is wrong for corroboration to be a sine qua non in civil proceedings.

This is not what we are discussing here since the Amendments accept the abolition of this requirement. All that is at issue here is how far at this stage the abolition should go. It has been accepted on all sides that if a civil action is covered by the original Clause it is only in the area of personal injuries actions that there is an urgent need for reform.

There was discussion earlier as to the practicality of this. We have had further discussion with the Chairman of the Law Commission and others on this question. Bearing in mind that the main practical problem that was outlined at earlier stages is to be remedied and also the feeling of unease in certain sections of the Scottish legal profession on this, difficulties might arise if we abolished corroboration in the wider field in advance of the general review. I ask the House to agree to these Amendments.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Wylie

I welcome the Government's change of heart on this matter. All along we have opposed the wide terms of the original proposals, which made a radical change in the law of evidence in Scotland, far beyond the range in which the alleged need for a change was stated to arise. In some ways, this is a narrower Amendment than the one we tried to promote in Committee but it is desirable that the application of this proposed change should be limited to the area in which it is said to be really necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Back to