HL Deb 22 July 1988 vol 499 c1625

167 Clause 107, page 78, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 on page 79 and insert—

'(1) It is for the claimant to satisfy the Board, on a blanace of probabilities—

  1. (a) that he took all reasonable steps within a reasonable time to inform the police, or such other authority as the Board consider appropriate, of the circumstances of the injury to which the claim relates and that he has cooperated fully with the police or with such other authority as the Board consider appropriate, in bringing to justice any person responsible for causing the inury;
  2. (b) that he has given the Board, or such such other authority as the Board consider appropriate, all the assistance in connection with the claim which it is reasonable for him to give; and
  3. (c) that there is no possibility that a person responsible for causing the injury will benefit from an award,
and if a claimant fails so to satisfy the Board, they may, if they think fit, refuse an award or award less than they would otherwise have awarded.

(1A) The Board may also, if they think fit, refuse an award or award less than they would otherwise have awarded because of any of the following—.'.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 167. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 170 at the same time.

This group of amendments deals with the board's powers to reduce or withhold compensation. The government amendments, Nos. 167, 168, 169 and 170, were introduced in another place following a number of discussions in this House about the shortcomings of the drafting of the present Clause 107. The drafting of the clause as it left your Lordships' House was unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. First, it contained awkward double negatives. Secondly, it contained two separate concepts of conduct in subparagraph (1)(a)(iii) and subparagraph (1)(b)(ii). One of those concepts would have covered contributory negligence which the board does not consider on the present scheme when looking at an applicant's conduct. Thirdly, on reconsideration it became evident that the conduct of an applicant connected with the occasioning of an injury could not sensibly be described as conduct which took place after the injury. Those defects have now been remedied by the amendments without otherwise altering the tests which are set out in the clause. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 167.—(Earl Ferrers.)

1 p.m.