Clause 1
Compensation Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
Angela Watkinson (Whip, Whips; Upminster, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted my later comments Clause 1 is designed to add greater clarity and certainty to the law. That is also the purpose of the amendment. There should be some readily understood clarity on what the clause seeks to do. The amendment accentuates the fact that clause 1 does not change the law but merely clarifies the existing law.
In another place, Baroness Ashton argued:
“The reason why we said "may" rather than "shall" is that when a court looks at a negligence claim it takes into account all the circumstances of an individual case; those circumstances, of course, vary dramatically from one case to another, as all those who are members of the legal profession will know far better than I.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2005; Vol. 676, c. 200.]
I understand that Ministers may be reluctant to fetter the discretion of the court, but the discretion remains in the overall provisions of clause 1, which enabled the court to consider all the circumstances of the case. The law should continue to develop. However, a clear statement is necessary for judges and the public. There should be some readily understood clarity on what it seeks to do.
What is wrong with the clause stating that the circumstances will be considered, if it does not amend the law? Why do Ministers not have the confidence to say that those matters are required, not optional? Greater clarity and certainty are necessary. I envisage, unless the Minister is willing to respond, endless satellite litigation on whether the judge should exercise the discretion, let alone on how the discretion is to be exercised.