Compensation Bill [Lords]

Yes, and I will explain why in a moment. I am clear that clause 1 does change the law. Judge Tetlow presided over the Manchester case that I mentioned. In summing up, he said:"““It follows there was a jagged edge which should not have been present in an area likely to be inhabited by children. Something had gone wrong. I do not think the defendant can avail itself by relying on the licensing officer’s inspection. The defendant set out the chairs and was in a position to remove any chair that was broken or defective. The system obviously went wrong for this chair to slip through the net.”” Actually, the chair was never found but, on the balance of probabilities, it was decided that a defective chair was the cause." ““It presented a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury and should have been removed. I therefore find that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the reasonable safety of the claimant.”” The point is that these chairs and the premises had been checked by the scoutmasters, and the licensing officer from the council had done a safety check, too. In the end, the judge’s view was that an additional and burdensome extra check should have been carried out; a check of every chair. There could not be a clearer example of something to which clause 1 would have applied. The clause asks whether or not, by taking precautions against a risk, we could prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken or, more importantly, whether we could discourage persons from undertaking functions. The one thing about which the Scout Association, the Girl Guides and all the other groups to whom we have talked are clear is that anyone who has been hauled through a case like this as a scoutmaster, guide leader or whatever almost invariably leaves the Scouts or Guides and so do a lot of their friends.