Compensation Bill [Lords]

I welcome the Bill, especially clauses 1 and 2. I too congratulate Lord Hunt on his handling of the Bill, and in particular on his success in winning the vote on the splendid clause 2; and I congratulate the Government on their graciousness in accepting it. I shall make four basic points. First, I shall explain how adventure training and certain types of sport are being severely damaged by the current culture. Secondly, I shall try to make it clear that this is not just a question of perception; it is based on a string of court cases. Thirdly, I shall touch briefly on what society is in danger of losing. I shall end with a few ideas for strengthening the Bill. When I introduced my private Member’s Bill, which has been mentioned in both Houses in this context, I was touched by some of the letters of support that I received. The Children’s Play Council wrote:"““I have read with interest about your Private Members Bill on volunteering and risk taking…it is very common for playgrounds to be closed or removed because of local authorities liability fears””." The Youth Hostels Association wrote:"““YHA welcomes the private members bill””." Youthsport stated:"““I am happy to add the full support of Youthsport…As a training project for volunteers across London, Middlesex and Surrey we have been acutely aware of the growing trend towards litigation””." After my private Member’s Bill was blocked, colleagues and I set up the all-party group on adventure and recreation in society. I am particularly glad that my co-chairmen, the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Derek Wyatt) and for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), are present. We campaigned for fresh legislation, with the support of the Campaign for Adventure—whose remarkable director, Ian Lewis, has done much to keep us informed—and we are delighted that the Government have introduced the Bill. The truth is that a huge amount of damage is being caused. In 2003, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and Sport England conducted the largest survey ever in the field of volunteering in sport and outdoor activities. It listed eight factors that were damaging volunteering, top of which came"““risk, fear of blame and the threat of litigation.””" More recently, the Scout Association carried out a survey of 1,100 scout masters. It stated that"““69 per cent. agree or strongly agree that the recruitment of new volunteers is made more difficult because of fears of being sued…a staggering 92 per cent. agree or strongly agree that risk-aversion is affecting the range and nature of activities being offered to young people””," at a time when 30,000 youngsters cannot get into the scouts because they do not have enough scout masters, and when almost twice that number are waiting to join the girl guides for the same reason. That leads me to my second point. Why does that state of affairs exist, or is it just a perception—an urban myth? I believe that it is a reality, given the large number of cases that have been fed to me. We sent a dossier of them to Baroness Ashton, who was very courteous about meeting us; however, we were told that, because her Department did not have law reports on those cases, even though we had given the dates, the courts and the names of the judges, it could not comment on them. I then read the proceedings on the Bill in another place. Lord Goodhart, speaking for some of the Liberal Democrats—although not, it seems, I am relieved to hear, for the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers in the Commons—said:"““There are, of course, reports of cases where damages have been awarded to people who are the authors of their own misfortunes. It is difficult to find authentic texts for these judgments and I suspect that some of them are urban myths. Some of them are reported; some were decided before the law was clarified in the Tomlinson case; and some are simply bad decisions, which are unavoidable in any legal system.””—[Official Report, House of Lords; 7 March 2006, Vol. 679, c.647. ]" The question for Parliament is: is a pattern developing, or not? Six days after Lord Goodhart’s speech, and while the Bill was still before another place, a court case took place in Manchester. It was one of many cases inflicted on the scouts while the Bill was being debated in the Lords. The scouts’ legal adviser said:"““I attach a note of a recent case in which the Scout Association lost following an injury to a brownie attending a scout panto...chairs were set out in the village hall and the brownie was injured on allegedly sharp piece of metal protruding from one of the chairs…Apart from individually inspecting every chair with considerable resource implications endangering the running of such an event it is hard to see what more the group could have done. To add insult to injury the Judge awarded the claimant twice our counsel’s valuation of the claim and 20 per cent. more than the claimant asked for!””" It cost the association £15,000.