Compensation Bill [Lords]

The Bill started as a measure of one part, grew to one of two parts and ended up as one of three parts. It is none the worse for that—indeed, the third addition is broadly welcome. Like others, I am grateful for the constructive way in which everybody has participated. It is fair to say that, although part 1 was controversial, it probably reflects the broader majority view across the House. Although some have concerns about adding to lawyers’ opportunities, we must none the less hope that they will be restrained. I say to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that counsellors’ advice to Ministers, which I was kindly shown, on the ““may”” or ““shall”” option was persuasive. Perhaps he will be slightly reassured by that, although I am happy to try to persuade him outside later. It is regrettable that, in your absence, Mr. Speaker, and through no fault of yours, we were unable to debate the last three groups of amendments on Report. One would have allowed us to raise the other definition issue that rightly took up time in Committee and the House of Lords—whether ““desirable activity”” was the right phrase. Again, I was encouraged to know that Treasury counsel and those who advise the Government and the draftsmen and women see the merit of a good argument. They nearly appeared to suggest that an alternative might be more acceptable. They just backed off that in the advice that the Under-Secretary shared with me.