Compensation Bill [HL]

It might be helpful if I make a short intervention to explain my outlook on the amendments in Part 1. I differ from the previous speakers as I have serious doubts whether Clause 1 should be in the Bill at all. I will explain that when we discuss Clause 1 stand part. Since the decision of your Lordships’ House in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council the law has aboutgot it right. It is quite impossible to do what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just asked and to spell out all the circumstances in which anybody could possibly be guilty of negligence. The question of what are reasonable acts and what is a reasonable duty of care depends so much on the facts of the case. You have to consider what is reasonable. So far as I am aware, the perverse decisions that have been referred to all predate the Tomlinson case. Now the problems lie in the misconception of the law rather than in the law itself. Other problems arise elsewhere which we need to look at very seriously—I shall make one or two suggestions on those later—regarding the costs of litigation and the effect that has on insurance premiums. I suspect that in a very large number of cases, ““a desirable activity””—to use the phrase in Clause 1—has been withheld because of the insurance costs involved. The Government say that Clause 1 reflects the existing law but does not change it. I hope so. I am therefore opposed to any amendments to Part 1 which would change the law—which covers a number of these amendments. It does not cover Amendment No. 1 which seems to me in the circumstances to be an appropriate amendment to be made to the Bill as it would clarify what is perhaps an ambiguous situation. I have no doubt that the measure should apply to breach of statutory duty in the same way as it does to negligence at common law.