Compensation Bill [HL]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is really important for us to ensure that we recognise the implications here for all bodies, whether they are public or private—here I acknowledge what the noble Earl has said—when having to deal with frivolous or spurious claims that require resources to be put at their disposal in order to sort them out. That is particularly pertinent to the work of the ministerial group on local government. However, that does not mean that I do not take seriously his point about the private sector. Moreover, the voluntary sector is also critical. When talking to local government colleagues—I work with the ODPM—it is clear that two things need to be done. The first is to support organisations, and public authorities in particular, to ensure that they have the information they require—dare I use the word ““guidelines”” here?—to enable them to feel confident about tackling these questions and thus not give in to such claims. I know from talking to organisations in the private sector that reputation starts to play a part and it is easier for a claim to be got rid of than to worry about the publicity that might follow, and so on. So I am very interested in trying to persuade all our organisations to fight the cases that they need to fight and to recognise the ones where they need to think otherwise. That is how we want to approach the matter. I am delighted that the noble Lord has raised this important question. One of the great contributions to the conference held on 17 November—I do not think that the noble Lord was able to be there for this part because I know that he was involved in a pensions Bill in your Lordships’ House—was that of Knowsley Council. That was a very interesting case of a local authority which had managed to reduce its claims in one year from 1,700 to 250 and saved £1.7 million in the previous 12 months. I do not have an aggregate figure for how much local authorities spend, but there was one example. It gave a very good description of the kinds of things it had done. It fought claims and it tried to ensure that claims were valid. I think that from one cul-de-sac of six houses there were 12 claims. They were people who were witnesses in one, claimants in another and so on. Knowsley tackled what was becoming a culture of claiming very positively. It involved the police service in doing so. It worked very hard with its housing repair department to make sure that it was doing things very quickly to prevent claims coming in. It had a wonderful and very dramatic effect. I cite that case because it was a great example to me of how it had done it without us, but, my goodness, if we put some weight behind the work it is doing, I think we could make a real contribution. That is my ambition for some of the work that goes on outside. So I am very grateful because the amendment has given me the chance to talk about an area of work that is not covered by the Bill. I could not agree more: it is very important. I return to the Historical Houses Association. We are working with organisations which can help get to their members and say, ““We will support you in trying to make sure that you accept claims that are real, and that you absolutely do not give in to claims that are not. Here is lots of information and advice on how other people have tackled this to very good effect””. I am very keen to do that. The difficulty with the amendments—the ““policy defence”” is the term that the Australians have used for this—is that people make decisions on public authority spending. I understand that the courts will be mindful of that in looking at the issues. If you are a member of the public or involved in an activity, it is difficult to know what decisions have been made. I do not think we can exclude that decision-making process from the process that courts can examine. In other words, the fact that you have made a decision in an appropriate manner but you have not done a particular thing—repaired a fence or whatever—somehow lets you off. I am reluctant to go down this route because it does not take us where we want to go—or, indeed, where the noble Lord wants us to go. I could not agree more with the premise that underlies this: that we need to ensure that all bodies, including our public bodies, involved in the provision especially but not exclusively of activities for young people, and people generally, understand the support that we want to give them to ensure that they reject spurious claims and bring spending resources under control. That is for the very reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is that that is a waste of public money, a waste of anyone’s money, which could be much better used to support other activities. I could not agree more with that premise.