Compensation Bill [HL]

The noble Lord has to understand that my premise is that it is not necessary because the courts have flexibility under the 1945 Act. I am happy to put aside my comments on that case. We will look at it. My advice is different from the noble Lord’s advice. We could go round this for some considerable time. The principle I am trying to establish is that the courts have a degree of flexibility which may take them to 99.9 per cent rather than the 100 per cent I suggested, but none the less means that they can take the measure into account. But by the nature of the term ““contributory negligence”” we are saying that the matter is a contribution to negligence; it is not a case of taking the full blame. My premise is that the amendment would take us into a different place.