Clause 1
Compensation Bill [Lords]
9:00 am
Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
My reading of amendment No. 13 suggests that proposed subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) actually work slightly separately. They state that they relate to someone who has
“willingly accepted a risk as his, or ... entered onto land or into premises with the intention of committing an offence.”
Would that not mean that a fireman who enters premises and gets injured in the course of trying to put out a fire would not necessarily find it so easy to sue the owner of the premises? There may be problems in considering compensation for people wounded in the conduct of their work, but it would seem unreasonable for the owner of a house that must necessarily be a danger as it is burning to end up being sued by somebody who is pursuing his work. There are two issues to consider and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the amendment would afford some protection against vexatious claims.