Compensation Bill [HL]

I am grateful for the chance to go through once more some of the issues that are important to us in Clause 1. I reiterate what I said at the beginning of our discussions about this clause: it is not our purpose to amend the law, and that is why I am resisting amendments that I feel would do so. We believe that the law is in the right place and that the courts particularly but not exclusively, because of the Tomlinson judgment, can exercise their role effectively. We do not wish to see anything that we do stifle the ability of the common law to develop in this area, because we think that would be inappropriate, but it is the function of legislation to remove any doubt that there might be about the law. We know that there are perceptions about the law that could lead it being considered to be in doubt, and there is the purpose of the Government. In the discussions that we have had in your Lordships’ House, never mind the discussions that will come in another place, there are very strongly held views about the importance not only of the Bill doing what we will deal with later in other clauses, but also of recognising the importance that those involved in activities feel that we should attach to their desire to make sure that the law is clear where people feel there is doubt. I understand why those noble Lords who are in the legal profession look at this matter in a slightly different way, but it is my conviction that we need to have something around Clause 1. If the Government do not address the matter in the correct way, we will end up with a Clause 1 in any event, and it might be that noble Lords find it even more difficult to deal with. I am convinced that we need Clause 1. Equally, I am listening extremely carefully to those who have expertise in this field, within the framework that I have already set out about our desire to make sure that we do not amend the law in an inappropriate manner. The significance of the Colgate summit was the ring of confidence that the leaders came out with, not just the broad grins—it betrays my age that I remember the Colgate ring of confidence advertisement. I am not referring this to the Law Commission in the traditional sense, because I am not amending the law. I am not going to say that I will refer it to get away from a problem in Committee. I shall discuss this with the Law Commission, and I will make sure that its views are known to noble Lords, but I am not referring it. I do not expect the Law Commission to hold an inquiry or do a significant piece of work, but noble Lords have given me the idea that I could talk to it about this within the context of my relationship with it and I will do so, but it will not be a referral. It would be wrong of me to suggest that it would be. I shall deal with a couple of other points that have been raised, particularly on the question of small claims and personal injury. Noble Lords will know that it is not 14 years since we looked at this; it was looked at in 1999 and we decided not to raise it then. I have a fantastic word that we use in Government that noble Lords will recognise—““shortly””. We will consult ““shortly””. I do not know what it means either; it means ““probably not tomorrow morning””. I expect it means not before Christmas, because nobody really wants to be consulted on this before Christmas. I commit to come back with a definition about what ““shortly”” means when I have one. It is not lack of will; we are just trying to get ready to do this properly. That enables me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is very important that we do not lose track of the other side of the work that is going on across government, which is helping people to make legitimate claims more easily. That means that we are trying to look at the claims process itself, to make it more timely, proportionate, cost effective and all of the things that noble Lords have raised. This is particularly true in the context of lower value claims. I know that noble Lords will want us to make that point. It is an important part of the work we are doing, and we will keep noble Lords who are interested in touch with it. Specifically on insurance, not only for schools, but more generally, one of the pieces of work that we are going to take forward in the group is affordable insurance. The Department for Education is looking specifically at whether insurance for schools can be made more affordable and by what means. It has considered the possibility of mutual schemes. It has been working with the insurance sector, as the Committee is probably aware. It will not surprise the Committee to hear that issues concerning school premises are involved, particularly arson, as well as personal injury. That work is continuing. I am very happy to keep any Member of the Committee who is interested informed of that work. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I have not read the ABI report as I have been away in Strasbourg and returned only last night. However, we have asked the ABI to present its thoughts to the ministerial steering group. I am delighted that it has agreed to do that. It is not so much a case of reading the document perhaps as hearing that verbal input which will enable me to deal with the matter. That will occur before the next stage of the Bill. I think that I have said as much as I can about Clause 1. We do not want to change the law, but we want those involved in activities to appreciate that the nature of what they are doing is recognised. We think that the courts do that well. We do not want to hamper their ability to do that, but we need to say something. We think this is the right thing to say; to say nothing would be unacceptable to many people. They would consider that this Bill had failed if that were the case. It is the Government’s job—and specifically my job as this is my policy area—to respond to all the different views that we receive. I have sought to respond in a constructive and helpful way but not to do something that is detrimental to the courts. Sometimes that feels as if you are being run over in both directions. While I am willing to consider changes as I have indicated, I hope that noble Lords will reflect that what I have described is exactly what we need to do. To take out the measure would be to fail a lot of people who feel it is important to make that statement, and I am not prepared to do that. I hope that on the basis of those comments the clause will stand part of the Bill—for now at least.