My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, in which arguments have been put forward on both sides, which I respect. I am grateful for the support that I have had from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, feared that there was a risk of a change in the law if Clause 1 was not enacted. I do not see that happening. We have had a recent, common-sense interpretation by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House in the Tomlinson case. Your Lordships’ House is of course the highest court, whose decisions are binding on all inferior courts, and I see no likelihood whatever of that decision being changed, so I believe that there is no prospect of the law drifting. The noble Lord said that Clause 1 created certainty, but it does not. What is a desirable activity? What steps to meet a standard of care can be dispensed with in the case of a desirable activity?
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that lawyers were protecting their own business, but I am afraid that Clause 1 would provide all too much work for lawyers if it were enacted. The idea that parents should individually investigate the qualifications of instructors before allowing children to go on trips is quite unrealistic. He said, ““Please leave risk-takers to take risks””. Yes, I entirely agree with that view, but they must be able to decide on the basis of their own judgment and knowledge what risks to take and they should not be exposed to the risk of the incompetence of others.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the difficulty in getting people to become Scout leaders, but Clause 1 will in no way make that easier. The real problem here is the cost of insurance premiums. The Scouts will still have to get insurance cover for people who work with them, and insurance companies will not be persuaded that Clause 1 will in any way justify lower premiums.
In those circumstances, this is an issue of importance. Although I recognise, in view of the attitude taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we cannot expect to win, I would like to make our views on this clear, and test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 173.
Compensation Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Goodhart
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c656-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:47:41 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305802
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305802
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305802