Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Compensation Bill (HL).
Compensation Bill [Lords]
I agree that leaflets would be very useful, but I cannot see what extra good having a new clause provides, apart from its being a starting point for a press release. My main problem with the Bill is that it seems to use statute as a press release; I would rather use a press release than a statute. Clause 1 makes the law less flexible. The idea that there is a benefit in fixing the law is the opposite of the truth. The fundamental benefit of the common law is that it uses ideas, rather than specific formulae of words. Formulae can become out of date but ideas do not; putting things in statute can make matters worse, not better. The risk on the other side of the equation is that there will be further litigation. The hon. Member for Canterbury asked: how can that be, given that this is supposed to be a protective clause? The answer is that there will be more appeals, and more cases will be fought in court in the first place, rather than settled, because the law will be unclear. It must be made absolutely clear why that is the case. The phrase ““desirable activity””, as contained in clause 1, is ambiguous. Because of how the law currently works, there are two ways in which an activity can be desirable. It can be desirable privately—people pay for it and therefore want it—and publicly, in the sense that it gives benefits to society as whole that are not captured by individuals. The crucial question will be: does the new phrase include either or both those types of benefit? It will take a long time for that very basic point to get through the courts. The benefits of the new clause, which are very minor, are outweighed by its risks and costs. In terms of the law of negligence, putting forward this new clause is itself negligent in the classic sense. I want to finish by making three points, the first of which has already been made but needs to be re-emphasised. The Health and Safety Executive is the bigger part of the problem of the perception of a compensation culture, and of the fear of organising voluntary events, than is the civil law. I do not know whether the Bill is the right place in which to deal with that problem, but it must be dealt with.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 447 c490-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Compensation Consumers Accountability Courts Companies Advisory services Fees and charges Liability Exemptions Legal opinion Marketing Negligence Voluntary organisations Regulation Trade unions Voluntary work Claims management services
- Legislation
- Compensation Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 14:09:43 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329072
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329072
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329072