Compensation Bill [HL]

The bit I do not understand in the Minister’s reply is that if it ““shall”” be taken into account and on looking at it the court decides that it is irrelevant, it has been taken into account and dismissed immediately. That is fine; I have no problem with a judge or counsel saying, ““We have to take into account that this might prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken, but because of the nature of this case that is not relevant. We must also take into account whether we are discouraging people from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity, but that is not relevant””. The case is dismissed within two minutes. I do not see why putting in the word ““shall”” will waste any more of the court’s time because if the case is irrelevant, it can be dismissed just like that. I am frightened by the notion that the court will engage in a Second Reading debate on the various points when they are totally irrelevant and spin the case out for their huge legal fees. If we are really that worried, we need to think about how the court system is managed and I know that that is being done. If the real reason we are putting in ““may”” instead of ““shall”” is to help court management, that concerns me, too. I cannot see the disadvantage of putting in the word ““shall””.