Compensation Bill [HL]

I should like to say a few words in the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I must apologise for missing Second Reading because I was unable to be here. As a result, I will not make a Second Reading speech because I do not need to. There are amendments that cover most of the points that concern me. My main concern is that Clause 1 is not strong enough on the defence side. I am a member of the all-party group on adventure and risk in society. It is a great shame that we were not consulted about the wording of Clause 1. It was specifically withheld. We were told that we would first see it when the Bill was published. There was a bit of unnecessary secrecy. It might have been helpful to have a proper discussion beforehand so that various points could have been thrashed out. We could have seen if some of the concerns could have been met. Those concerns are real because we need to get certainty into the minds of school governors, volunteers and various other bodies that they can permit some adventure and risks to be taken. I do not think that Clause 1 goes far enough. For instance, leaving out the breach of statutory duty I now realise is a very important missing element from this clause. It is no good saying that there is no evidence of trips being cancelled. I know perfectly well anecdotally that there is. My wife is a school governor of a state school in Bedford, which has certainly put a ban on several school trips and has had to cancel various activities. I have heard exactly the same thing from various other schools. So it is happening, even if researchers try to claim that it is not. One needs to be aware that all school governors and volunteers for small groups are not skilled enough or bureaucratically-minded enough to carry out risk assessments which will stand up to subsequent detailed examination in the courts or for health and safety purposes. It is very difficult to carry these out. I have been helping my wife with one for her farming estate, which is a nightmare. We are at 108 pages and climbing. One has to know so much about everything, but it is impossible to know all the various things that one has to take into account. Something will also be missed. That also applies to statutory duty. Do you really know every statute that affects you? Can you be certain that you are not breaching a statute? It is impossible. But, of course, in the cold light of a court, with hindsight, it is terribly easy to pretend that you should have known. Very often people who indulge in adventurous and risk-taking sports are not box tickers. They are not procedural thinkers. They are leaders—people who want to go out and do things. Some people would say that in itself is risky, but if you are going to take part in adventures that is the reality. We need to stiffen up this clause, particularly on breach of statutory duty. There have been perverse judgments through the courts. A couple of judgments virtually said that the group leader should have physically restrained adult idiots or their children. Very often then you have the problem of when does assault start. How much physical restraint are you allowed to use when someone who is himself a youth leader jumps on to something with his helmet not properly fixed? There are huge problems with the current system and with some perverse judgments from the courts. It is not good enough to say that the courts know best. They clearly have shown with several judgments in the past that they do not. Amendment No. 1 should be accepted.