Compensation Bill [HL]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that example. We are trying to make it easier and simpler for people outside to understand their legal position. I was greatly assisted on this difficult area by an e-mail that I received a few moments ago from the Historic Houses Association. As well as making me aware of its support for this amendment, it clarified that when a claim is made there is serious concern about whether there is liability. The Historic Houses Association has 1,500 houses in its UK membership, of which about 500 are open to the public.  That is more houses than the combined total of the houses owned by English Heritage, the National Trust and its equivalents in the UK, so it is speaking with some authority. It testifies that its members are facing an increasing burden of aggressive litigation and, although some of its members stand firm and refuse to pay claims, it says that,"““many others have felt forced to take a more pragmatic view, taking account of the publicity generated and the ‘no smoke without fire’ assumption that often runs through the public’s mind when they read of accidents in the popular or local press, and have settled out of court, sometimes at considerable expense—even when the fault for the accident might be held to be with the claimant””." So far as these amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 24 and 25, are concerned, people outside are talking about the need for clarity. The purpose of this amendment was to send a signal that drink and drugs are not acceptable if one is going to be in a position where one might well suffer injury.