Compensation Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Other Departments have, or will have, significant liabilities, but the fact remains—[Interruption.] The judgment is not that old, but all Departments are considering it. Our position is that we want to try to assist claimants who are, rightly, arguing for joint and several liability. Several Members spent time on clause 1, and I shall try to address some of the many points that were raised. The Government do not believe that putting a definition of desirable activity into the Bill is appropriate. The provision gives the court the flexibility to consider all the relevant circumstances in the case, to reach a fair and just decision. Including a definition of ““desirable activity”” could imply that certain types of desirable activity had more weight than others. Clause 1 addresses a misperception of how the law works, which has taken hold to such an extent that it affects behaviour. It is a legitimate function of legislation to address such matters. The law may be familiar to lawyers and insurers, who deal with it on a daily basis, but it is not familiar to people and organisations concerned about possible litigation. The clause will show them the importance that the Government attach to the issue and will make the law more widely known. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) believe that the inclusion of clause 1 will lead to a tsunami of litigation—I think that was the phrase that my hon. Friend used. The Government do not believe that will be the case. The clause reflects the existing law and the guidance given by the higher courts, and should not fuel any increase in litigation. It will discourage the bringing of claims based on the proposition that reasonable care involves all steps required to prevent accidents in any conceivable circumstances, regardless of the effect of requiring those steps.