Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl of Erroll (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Compensation Bill [HL].


Compensation Bill [HL]

If I had been a bit more organised a couple of days ago I would have added my name to all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, so in his absence I would be delighted to say a few words on them. This amendment is very important. The concept that it is at the discretion of the court to ignore the material in Clause 1 is not a very satisfactory one at all; it must take these things into account, or how can there be a defence? If the court decides not to take them into account, what do you do about it? I do not know enough about the legal procedure, but it would introduce a large degree of certainty if someone knew that the court would have to take these things into account and it was not at its discretion to ignore it. I shall say this briefly, as I shall speak about it further in the clause stand part debate, but I disagreed entirely with the question that noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, asked about whether we should have Clause 1. I shall really only be taking part in discussion of that clause, because to me that is the most important aspect. As for the rest of my remarks about why I believe that to be so, I shall wait until we have dealt with the amendments before making a very short speech in the clause stand part debate.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c199GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Complaints Children Compensation Courts Accidents Common law Liability Insurance Extracurricular activities Personal injury Negligence Outdoor education Schools Training Regulation Voluntary work Risk assessment Small claims
Legislation
Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk