Compensation Bill [HL]

The key question arising from this debate is: is it a desirable activity to introduce Clause 1? I am not too sure that it is. The Minister is pressing me to know whether I agree with the clause. But I am in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I have some serious doubts, mainly because I cannot quite see exactly what the clause is trying to do. My noble friend Lord Lucas set out some general principles, which were very helpful in understanding what we should be trying to do. Those people who are going to be sued should know exactly where they stand. I agree with my noble friend. I am just not sure that we have reached a conclusion which I find acceptable. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. We have to know what breaches of statutory duty we are talking about. I return to the see-saw analogy, which, after all, the Minister has used. In order for a see-saw to be balanced, something has to happen—not not happen, but happen. Therefore, either Clause 1 is doing something or it is not doing anything at all. I do not believe that Parliament has yet reached the stage where it is there to educate people on what the law is. Yet, that was the conclusion that the Minister seemed to be reaching—that the law is satisfactory. The Minister must be the only person who thinks that it is. But the argument is that the law is satisfactory: there is therefore no need to amend it. We have to deal with the fact that people do not understand it. Therefore, the purpose of Clause 1 is to educate people. I know that the Government are re-thinking their education policy, but I am not too sure that this is a feature of it. Perhaps it is no holds barred: I understand that it is open season down in the other place and that anyone who has a view about education will be heard. Perhaps I ought to write to the Prime Minister putting the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on education. But I do not think that it is the purpose of legislation to educate. It is a paradox. It might be an oxymoron to say that Clause 1 is there so that people will understand the law. In fact, Clause 1 introduces a number of concepts which make the law more difficult to understand. Either the law is satisfactory at present, as the Minister says it is, or it is not, in which case Clause 1 is necessary. So the jury is out on Clause 1. No doubt we will return to a number of other areas later. This week, I was able to attend a presentation given by the Association of British Insurers, which was interesting. I think that everyone would agree with its comment that,"““The Government has recently put forward its own Compensation Bill. Its modest provisions will only work effectively if they are the first step towards a more comprehensive programme of reform””." I believe that the Minister agrees with that. Now let us see what the other steps are before we can see whether this first step—Clause 1—is the right one to take. I will of course reflect on everything that the Minister has said, but I am sure that we will return to this issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.