Compensation Bill [Lords]

Exactly. Let me give details of a second case, from a large dossier; the Gaping Gill incident. In summary, a scout troop visited a beauty spot and some parents were invited to come along as additional supervisors. On the way, a little boy asked a scoutmaster if he could investigate a cave in the side of a hill that they had passed. The scoutmaster said no, that it was dangerous and explained why. The boy asked his father, who said yes, took him to the entrance and gave him a lighter. The poor little boy walked over a 300 ft cliff to his death. His elder brother was serving in the troop. Two years later, when the boy’s elder brother left the troop, the father sued the Scout Association. The scoutmaster was declared to be negligent in a British court of law on the grounds that having spotted an ““urban parent””—a parent from an urban environment—the scoutmaster should have taken more active steps to prevent the boy from getting into the cave because he could not be expected to understand the danger. Let me make it clear that not only the scouts furnished us with cases. We have had them from the guides, the mountaineering community and the Royal Yachting Association, as well as one from a school. We must understand how much is at stake and how much damage is being done to our country. The Duke of Edinburgh, who is the patron of the Campaign for Adventure, has said in public:"““The danger for society is not that people take risks, it is that they do not take risks because they see risk as entirely negative rather than the very positive thing it really can be and most often is.””" By coincidence, almost the same month, the Lancashire education advisers issued a statement:"““Many Duke of Edinburgh Award Schemes and other providers of diverse educational opportunities are having trouble recruiting””" volunteers"““due to fear of unfair litigation.””" Sir Chris Bonington, who addressed the inaugural meeting of the all-party group, said:"““A sense of adventure is vital for children growing up and society as a whole.””" If young people are not offered opportunities to take risks and to learn to expand their horizons in a properly organised and structured environment, the less enterprising will turn into couch potatoes while the more enterprising will get out and make their own opportunities for risk. We see that in joy riding, people playing chicken on railway lines and a string of other unhappy events. I rather agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on balancing risk. Those are the risks we have to balance with the damage we are doing to voluntary organisations, and indeed professional ones, that provide adventure training and sport. Let me spend my last couple of minutes looking at ways in which we could strengthen the Bill. I want to make four points, two of which, funnily enough, were put forward by the Field Studies Council. First, there is perhaps something to be said—this is the only part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that I agreed with—for a clearer definition of ““desirable activities””. Lord Hunt made an excellent stab at this. The basic point, if the House will forgive me for repeating it again, is that there is no contradiction between saying, on the one hand, that there is no compensation culture and accepting, on the other, that in this specific area—a tiny proportion of all cases, involving adventure training and sport—real damage is being done. The American experience proves it. America is the worst country in the world for a compensation culture, but there is specific protection for sport and adventure training in the law of many American states and a much higher burden of proof. I would be happy to have provision restricted to sport, adventure training, physical recreation and educational purposes, or something similar. I leave it to others wiser than me to draft the clause. My second point is that, having restricted the provision, we really should say ““shall”” rather than ““may””. I entirely understand the objection to that made by the Minister in the courteous hearing that she gave us, but that objection would surely be coped with if we had a more restrictive definition of ““desirable activities””. As time is short, I shall move on from that point. The third issue concerns landowners and farmers; there was a close vote in another place on it. The plain fact is that all organisations such as the scouts and the guides, as well as those that provide for schools that want to visit farms, can operate only with the good will of the farming community. I cannot see why—this does not have to follow the exact wording promoted in the House of Lords—we cannot have an element of clause 1, or indeed an extra clause, that specifically provides comparable comfort for those who make their land available for such activities. The fourth and final point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). We must consider the possibility of including a specific measure to address the issue of those who disobey instructions or behave manifestly recklessly. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is important for people who run leisure parks and provide opportunities for youngsters to do adventurous things professionally, but it is even more so for those who do so in a voluntary context. If somebody deliberately sets out to disobey an instruction and brings a serious accident on themselves, that should be a stronger defence than it appears to be now, as the Gaping Gill incident all too sadly illustrates. If somebody is drunk or drugged, the same point should apply. I am glad that the Field Studies Council supports that move. This is a good measure—I have confined my remarks to the first two clauses—and it is one that most hon. Members support. I strongly urge the Government to consider strengthening the first clause so that it provides even clearer protection for those who provide opportunities, frequently on an unpaid basis, for young people to test the boundaries and grow as individuals in a structured way that is not necessarily safe, but is sensibly balanced in terms of risk. That is what they need if they are to grow up without feeling the need to take the sort of risks that none of us wants to see them take.