Civil Liability Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Scotland Office
Viscount Ullswater Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 54 because of pre-emption.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, we support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and his introduction of Amendment 53. My noble friend Lord Sharkey and I, together with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, have tabled a number of amendments to the proposals for later reviews of the discount rate; that is, all reviews after the first, which we discussed in the previous group. These amendments on the later reviews are considered in this and the following group—the last group—and I shall speak to both groups of amendments now.

Broadly, we support the following propositions. First, we do not regard it as sensible to have a fixed three-year period, or even a fixed five-year period, between reviews of the discount rate. Interest rates and rates of return change unpredictably and at very different speeds over time. Years may go by, as they have recently, with very little change then a period of rapid change may follow. Fixed periods between reviews do not respond to that pattern of change and slavish adherence to fixed periods would lead both to reviews required by statute taking place unnecessarily during periods of stability and, more seriously, to there being periods—possibly long periods—following rapid changes in rates when the discount rate failed to represent an accurate assessment of predicted long-term returns.