Compensation Bill [HL]

The basis on which the noble Lord has so helpfully set out the purpose of his amendment is essentially where he and I part company. I do not believe that Clause 1 imposes any formal or unnecessary procedures. We seek simply to identify a factor which the courts can already take into account without requiring formal evidence. The basis on which the courts operate works satisfactorily in terms of considering the burden of proof. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this amendment could well create difficulties in terms of satellite litigation. Moreover, we do not think that Clause 1 as set out will lead to requests for pre-action disclosure, but we think that that could become a problem if the amendment were accepted. We have already debated ““public benefit”” and I shall not reiterate what has been said, save that we are concerned about the risk that certain categories of case might be missed where the approach of Clause 1 has been taken. It could, for example, lose some Scout or Girl Guide activities, or certain commercial and private activities of the kind we have discussed at length. It is my proposition that if the courts are currently flexible enough to weigh up all the evidence and take all the circumstances into account on a case-by-case basis, we would not want to see this form of procedure introduced. Clause 1 as drafted does not introduce an additional hurdle; we are merely identifying a factor, and doing so in a way which recognises that the courts can already take it into account. I do not accept the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, and certainly I would not want to do what he fears; that is, to create hurdles. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.