Compensation Bill [HL]

I am in complete agreement with my noble friends Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Lucas, Lord Eccles and Lord Erroll—the Minister has not really satisfied us yet. It is interesting to note that no one has spoken in her support. That is probably because we are united in our belief that we are here to enact laws which are certain, or, indeed, which make the position of the potential litigant and the potential defendant much more certain. In dealing with the previous amendment, the Minister said that it is very clear what courts may take into account. However, in replying to this amendment, she steered a little bit away from that very firm view and introduced a note of uncertainty regarding what they may take into account. The noble Earl said that the courts could take this matter into account and then dismiss it as irrelevant. That is a valid point. That is a very good argument in favour of the amendment—to stipulate that the judges must take it into account. If, indeed, the decision in Tomlinson is that the courts must take this into account, we are weakening the case by introducing a discretionary power rather than maintaining the existing mandatory position where a House of Lords decision is binding upon the lower courts. Therefore, there is a degree of uncertainty about this, there is some doubt, and we shall have to return to the matter. But, in the mean time, in order to reflect further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.