My Lords, I apologise for not having been able to speak at Second Reading. I will briefly intervene on these amendments, because I find the content of all of them quite persuasive. The mover of Amendment 56 touched on an important point: who owns the risk if you accept a lump sum payment instead of periodic payments? If, hopefully, the routine is that in most circumstances, one finds out what a periodic payment would look like, one needs to consider this: if you prefer to have a lump sum and take the investment risk, the person who makes that choice owns it, which in turn reflects upon how you would make presumptions about their investment strategies. I intended to touch on this when we come to my amendment in a later group, but as this is the other side of the argument, I wished to raise that point now and to say that I am in the “shove” rather than “nudge” brigade.
Civil Liability Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 May 2018.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Civil Liability Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
791 c627 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2018-06-12 15:30:50 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-15/18051558000233
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-15/18051558000233
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2018-05-15/18051558000233