Compensation Bill [HL]

That is absolutely not what I said. I said that if one puts statutory duty into this clause, it requires the courts, when looking at any case to do with a statutory duty, to take into account Clause 1. There are many statutory duties in law that are nothing to do with claims of negligence and we do not want to cause confusion. I accept that volunteers should not be expected to know certain things. What we expect them to know is as much as would be appropriate and relevant. In looking at a case, the court can already take into account the issues that it thinks relevant, including statutory duty, if appropriate. My argument is not that I am expecting people to know huge amounts. It is that the words ““statutory duty”” already cover a massive number of things in law and will cover more things in the future. It would confuse the courts if they had to take statutory duties into account. It is not that the massive department behind me is not capable of looking at things, but I do not think that there is a way of defining ““statutory duty”” appropriately that would narrow it down. I do not want to add anything that is confusing because lots of people have said to me that I should make this simple and clear. I also do not think it would help the courts. One of the themes of the Bill is to make sure that we do not fetter or constrain the courts, or put them in a difficult position. This is not necessary, because the courts can do it anyway.