Clause 1
Compensation Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Lewisham East, Labour)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is suitably impressed.
I very much welcome the thinking behind the amendments and agree that we need to strike a balance, with people behaving responsibly and an element of common sense brought back into the situation. That is why I hope that we can reach some agreement—we began to see agreement between the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw towards the end of the debate—about the way in which we treat young people. Making them go beyond their adventurous abilities is something that must be considered.
Nevertheless, I ask the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire not to press the amendments. I shall try not to take up too much of the Committee’s time, because we have had a thorough debate, but I can say that my main reasons for arguing against the amendments are that there is already sufficient legislation to cover what he is trying to achieve, and that there are some drafting errors, which as he recognises, is often inevitable when one puts together amendments in this way.
I reiterate that it is important to ensure that people take responsibility for their actions, and that a proper balance is struck between the individual’s rights and responsibilities. The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 already allows the court to take into account all aspects of a claimant’s behaviour and the extent to which his or her negligence might have contributed to the injury suffered. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that his amendment could be called the Tony Martin amendment, but it would not have protected Tony Martin, because he was sued for the deliberate tort of battery, not for negligence. Also, section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 already makes it much more difficult for any criminal to sue for battery; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that into account.
On drunkenness, the court will reduce damages on account of the carelessness of a drunken claimant not because he was drunk, but because he was careless. It might interest hon. Members to know that a drunk cannot use drunkenness as an excuse for not taking care of himself, or as much care of himself as if he had been sober, but of course, the court will always decide on the evidence before it.
The hon. Member for Canterbury talked about his canoe case, which was obviously a difficult one, but as it did not go to court, we cannot speculate on what the court might have decided.