Compensation Bill [HL]

There is no provision in the Bill which addresses that point. Ministers are rightly encouraging public bodies, as the Minister just said, to contest frivolous claims rather than settling them in a search for the quiet life. But even that policy, in the short-term at least, inevitably has significant costs attached. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the Better Regulation Task Force report published in May last year, Better Routes to Redress. It included on page 6 the following point:"““Local authorities are spending a great amount of money dealing with all the claims they receive. Every claim made, however frivolous or vexatious it is eventually found to be, has to be handled. That costs money: money raised from local residents and money that could otherwise be spent on sophisticated systems in place to manage, for example, repairs to their pathways and highways””." That observation reminds us of the need for the amendment. Amendment No. 19 sets out:"““The following principles apply in determining whether a public or other authority has taken appropriate steps to meet the standard of care””." The first point is that they are limited by the financial and other resources that are reasonably available. There are a number of other provisions. In subsection (2) of the amendment, I have sought to extend the provisions to breach of statutory duty, which is essential in the context of public authorities. Subsection (3) makes it clear that:"““This section shall not apply to claims by an employee against an employer arising out of the course of his employment””." In effect, that excludes the application of this section to employer’s liability claims. This is very much the view of the insurers of public authorities and of the authorities themselves. They have neither wanted to be, nor have they ever been, seen as second-class places of employment. That issue goes wider than simply public authorities, but we consider it best raised in this context. The proposed clause is deliberately not restricted to injury claims and would cover the range of unusual claims brought against public authorities for facilities and services offered at the public expense. Referring back to Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, he made it clear that he did not regard financial cost as a significant item in the balancing exercise which the court has to undertake. At the time he was not aware of the Minister’s seesaw, rather he was referring to a similar situation. He continued by saying:"““There are two other related considerations which are far more important. The first is the social value of the activities which would have to be prohibited in order to reduce or eliminate the risk from swimming, and the second is the question of whether the council should be entitled to allow people of full capacity to decide for themselves whether to take the risk””." I hope that the Minister will understand the reason for bringing forward this amendment. It gives us an opportunity briefly to reflect on the very substantial costs involved in frivolous and vexatious claims. I do not believe that the Bill as drafted will enable such claims to be repudiated more easily. We have to find a way to ensure that the burden on local authorities in particular and public authorities in general can be lifted. This amendment is one way of producing a situation which I believe is sorely needed at a time when public expenditure constraints dictate to local authorities the difficulty of maintaining a balance. I beg to move.