Compensation Bill [Lords]

The Bill has been improved during in its passage through Parliament. I join in the thanks to the two Chairmen of the Committee, and I also thank the Minister, who has been courteous and has responded on many points, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, and all the Members who have taken part in deliberations on the Bill. Perhaps I should also thank the usual channels for ensuring that we kept in order and got through what we had to get through in Committee. We are pleased with the amendment obtained by my noble Friend Lord Hunt that adds clause 2 to the Bill. It allows offers of treatment, rehabilitation and apologies without admissions of liability. That builds on the principles that the Association of British Insurers and the Citizens Advice Bureaux set out in their initiative, ““Care and Compensation””. That should mean that there will in the future be more focus on early settlement of claims and treatment to get victims healthy and back to work as soon as is practicable. We are pleased that the Government have been able to listen to pleas to help the victims of mesothelioma, and with the Minister’s assurance that that will be underpinned with rules of court and that she will do what she can with her colleagues to speed that through. The lack of joined-up government on the case of Barker v. Corus was clearly unfortunate and I shall revert to the matter of how much money was spent. Matters were pursued in the wrong way. However, in Committee, we supported clause 1, which restates the law of negligence. I hope that it will be possible to follow up the impetus that the amended clause 1 will give with some advertisement of exactly what the law of negligence means and an attempt to educate some of the public authorities—scouts, guides and others who take part in the desirable activities that we have spent much time discussing. Landowners, occupiers and leisure park owners had hoped for some further discussion of what clause 1 means for them because there has been a reasonably sensible and robust attitude to occupiers’ liability in the courts. They therefore hoped for some assurance from the Under-Secretary that clause 1 will not change that and that they will not be subject to further cost and burdens in dealing with an unpredictable liability. Much land has natural features and it should not be necessary to erect signs, fences and unsightly and expensive clutter around them. It was hoped that we would hold a little more debate about that to ensure that the law is not being changed. The Under-Secretary’s general comments suggest that it is not. We hope that the voluntary code for unions will work, despite our reservations. We will watch closely to ensure that it does—the Under-Secretary need not worry about that. We still believe that it is a pity that the regulator will not be an established regulator such as the Financial Services Authority. However, the Government could reassure us by announcing the appointment of a senior figure, with knowledge of that world, to work with a major trading standards office. There has been speculation that someone of the calibre of Mr. Mark Boleat may be available for the role. That would be most welcome. When can we expect the announcement? Have I missed it? Overall, the Bill has some useful provisions to help tackle the perceived compensation culture. It is a modest measure—and there is a big agenda to tackle—but it is greatly improved.