Compensation Bill [HL]

My Lords, in view of what has already been said in this debate, I must draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I am a solicitor, but for many years I was an officer of the British Youth Council and for very many years a member of the Scout Association and my father was a county commissioner for the Scouts. I mention that because I know many of these organisations strongly support Clause 1. The Scout Association, in what I thought was a very interesting piece of evidence to the Select Committee, said that 30,000 youngsters are on its waiting list. However, because of the fear of being sued, the number of people coming forward to be Scout leaders is comparatively small, so all those youngsters have to remain on the waiting list. I am sad that the Minister has not been able to attract more friends in support of Clause 1. Although I would not take to the barricades in its defence, I do not share the widely held view, as we have heard in the short debate, that the Bill would be better off without it. The Minister has always maintained that Clause 1 will not change the law. As she knows, I disagree with that. However, I agree with her that it will change perception. This discussion is really all about that. Part 1 is not necessarily about changing the law, but it certainly is about changing the manner in which people and courts behave. Even if it does not go as far as one would wish, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that, at least, it takes us in the right direction. What do we have at the moment? There was a disagreement about whether we have a compensation culture, as we on this side believe, or whether, as the Government and other bodies have propounded, there is the perception of a compensation culture. However you term it—a blame culture or a compensation culture—any sense of a claims free-for-all inevitably sets citizen against citizen, creating a less civil and less humane society, a society where youngsters are brought up without that special vitamin that comes from risk. We have heard that from many of the organisations that have participated in the Minister’s consultation. I therefore see Clause 1 as part of a broader campaign to restore common sense and civility to society in general and to the litigation system in particular. I recognise, of course, the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, whom I have always respected on these matters. He always gives me pause for thought. On considering the matter, although Clause 1 could be improved, I would hesitate before advising my noble friends to vote it out of the Bill. I believe that a number of amendments will come forward in the other place, as happened in Grand Committee, which may or may not improve the Bill. I do not think, however, that we should send the Bill to the other place without Clause 1—I agree that it would rather take the heart out of it. Although my noble friend Lord Eccles is aware of my views, and we had some good discussions in Committee, I rather side with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I do not think that this is a party-political matter, in reality, but I think that the Minister should be given the benefit of the doubt as she seeks to change perception. It would be a huge achievement if people were to look back on the Compensation Bill and say that it at least helped to restore a modicum of decency, civility and—to use a popular word of the moment—respect to society. Now that the government amendments, which I originally tabled in Committee, have been accepted, it would be curious were I to seek to reject the improved Clause 1. It should be accepted, not because it is perfect, but because it represents a step, however faltering it may seem to some, in the right direction.