Clause 2 - Statements of Inherent Risk
Promotion of Volunteering Bill
10:45 am
Ms Fiona Mactaggart (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Race Equality, Community Policy and Civil Renewal), Home Office; Slough, Labour)
In my experience, leading firms of solicitors do that all the time, and that is part of our problem. Our court system operates by precedent. Very possibly, what lawyers are arguing about is the extent to which that judgment is applicable to the Hampstead Heath case, and not whether there is inherent risk in the activity. I have not seen the advice to which my right hon. Friend refers, but that, rather than inherent risk, is probably the issue with which we are now dealing. I hope that I am right in thinking that.
Despite having been rude about the courts earlier, I should say that they recognise that there is concern about litigation and its extent. Lord Steyn said only last month that
''the courts must not contribute to the creation of a society bent on litigation, which is premised on the illusion that for every misfortune there is a remedy.''
That is what we are talking about. We know that we are making progress when the House of Lords makes such statements and says, as Lord Hoffmann did:
''People must accept responsibility for their own actions and take the necessary care to avoid injuring themselves or others.''
Those views of the House of Lords are of great weight; they should influence the lower courts, and I am confident that they will do so. I am not sure whether they will apply to my right hon. Friend's constituency case, but I hope that they will do so and that the advice that he has received saying that they do will prevail. That would be the sensible resolution.
The common law on negligence has ebbed and flowed over the years. The courts have sometimes extended and sometimes contracted the situations in which a person may be held liable for causing harm to another. Certain hon. Members have expressed the view that the law has recently been extended and that the purpose of the Bill is to retract that extension. That is not necessary and, in any event, the Bill is disproportionate in addressing that aim. It would unjustly extend the law in favour of negligent defendants over injured claimants, including children.
I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the cases relied on to support the need for the Bill, but I do not believe that we have yet reached a stage at which Parliament ought to act, particularly in view of the recent judgments of the House of Lords. We do not change the law every time a court reaches a conclusion with which we disagree. That is one of the reasons for having an appeals system and a House of Lords.
I have set out some of the unintended consequences and harmful effects that the Bill would have. The hon. Member for Canterbury also bases his case on the need to combat the fear of litigation. The evidence suggests that that might well be misplaced or exaggerated,
because claims are not increasing in the way that he suggests. The compensation recovery unit must be informed of all claims for the purpose of recovery of social benefit, and it has a comprehensive record of claims. Figures that it provided show that the number of accident claims made to insurers decreased by 9.5 per cent. in the year to March 2004.