Compensation Bill [HL]

Much of this matter was debated on earlier amendments, particularly Amendment No. 3. We discussed the problem that the word ““negligence”” could cover any sort of negligence, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just mentioned. It is not defined. I am fairly certain from the discussions held by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Risk and Adventure in Society that Part 1 aims to make people feel they can volunteer their services safely, and perhaps cover some of the cases where members of the public might want to help someone out. At present if you try to get someone who has had an accident out of their car and damage them in the process, if you have done a first aid course, you can be sued. However, if you have not done a first aid course, you will be all right. Certainly as regards the case that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just mentioned, doctors are not allowed to help people in certain circumstances. That is perfectly true. I took my son to a cottage hospital to have a very deep wound in his knee patched up. The GP was not allowed to touch it or do anything about it. All that was needed was for the wound to be cleaned out and two stitches inserted. That would have solved the problem. Stitches need to be inserted quickly before the blood starts to clot. I knew perfectly well that if I had taken my son to Bedford Hospital or Addenbroke’s there would have been a four-hour wait—there always is for a minor injury—by which time it would have been too late to do anything about it. We then rushed him off to Biggleswade Cottage Hospital. The staff there were not allowed to touch the wound. I offered to bring my own needle and sutures as I was in the TA and carry those things in my emergency pack. I also offered to bring my own cleaning kit so that a qualified nurse could use it. But, no, they were not allowed to touch that under rules governing their insurance. In the end I put butterfly stitches in myself and got a bollocking from staff at my son’s school two days later who asked why I had not taken him to hospital. It would have been too late by then anyway. We have reached a ridiculous situation where people are not allowed to help others due to insurance considerations. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that in certain circumstances, perhaps outside the hospital environment, any citizen—however well qualified—should be allowed to help others. That is what the measure is supposed to be about—removing risk from such action. Although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says that the law is adequate, I have received a briefing which states that Tomlinson is an exceptional case and is the only one that has reversed a general trend. However, there is nothing to say that trend will not continue and that the courts will not consider other judgments prior to Tomlinson. If there were signs that previous somewhat odd judgments were being reversed, one might have more confidence in the opinion that the law, lawyers and the courts know what they are doing. I am afraid to say that there is still a problem in that regard. That is precisely why in general I agree with many of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, disagrees with—I refer to Amendments Nos. 15 to 25—because they would help ameliorate the situation and the public perception, which is restricting people’s ability to get on with normal life and treat other citizens in a normal way. If this is left as a general negligence clause, it will trap architects and others whom we have discussed. Although I accept that this measure may not be perfectly worded, it should be looked at between now and Report—the Minister has been terribly helpful in that regard—with regard to what are desirable activities. I hope that this short debate will be taken into account when that is done.