Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Lord Beecham Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, less than a week ago we debated the Government’s amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, and inflicted defeats in relation to proposals affecting young offenders and, even more significantly in terms of their constitutional importance, two changes to the procedures for judicial review.

Today we return to this Bill, a piece of vanity legislation if ever there was one, which, except for Clause 3—as we have heard—adds nothing to the provisions of the Compensation Act 2006, which, by implication, it purports to amend. I concur entirely with the critique of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others of this muddled attempt to deal with a problem for whose very existence there is a complete lack of evidence—a Bill that is very badly drafted, in any case.

At Second Reading, I acknowledged that the House is properly cautious about declining to give a Second Reading to Bills emanating from the Commons, and there is a similar reluctance totally to destroy Bills in the way in which the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, would achieve if passed, which would leave the Bill consisting of only its title. However, if we were to go so far on a Bill as feeble as this, it would actually strengthen the hand of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the vastly more important and damaging provisions of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which we have sent back to the Commons with our amendments. I fear that he would not hesitate to cast this House as a recalcitrant and obstructive group, placing us alongside the left-wing pressure groups and campaigners which he conjured up as the phantom proponents of judicial review and opponents of his attempts to undermine it. It would, I suggest, make it more unlikely for the Lord Chancellor to exercise political responsibility in relation to the amendments on secure colleges and JR by accepting them, or, should he fail to do so, for MPs on the Government Benches to demonstrate political heroism in a just cause by voting for them.

For those reasons, I regret that I cannot advise opposition Members to support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment to Clause 2, nor his amendment to Clause 4—in any case, the Government have tabled an amendment to it that reflects one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in Committee, to which I added my name. I do that with regret because I share entirely the noble and learned Lord’s criticisms of the vacuous nature of the Bill; but it seems to me, for the reasons that I have given, unwise for the House to join him in the Lobbies. I say that with the more trepidation as I understand that he is the chairman of the East Sussex Rifle Association; I fear that I may end up as a target—if not for the noble and learned Lord, then for some of the members of that association.

There is nevertheless a serious issue as to the role of the House in these strange circumstances. However, in relation to Clause 3, I will be asking the House to agree that it should not stand part of the Bill, essentially because that clause seeks to effect a change in the law that is unacceptable for reasons which I will adduce when we come to debate that amendment. However, I fear that I shall not be joining the noble and learned Lord in the Lobby—

[Lord Pannick]

Is the noble Lord saying that the Opposition are not going to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Berwick, because, although they think that Clause 2 is absolutely terrible, it is not the worst legislative proposal that Mr Grayling has brought forward in this Session?

[Lord Beecham]

There is a lot of competition in that respect. I merely say that on this Bill it is not worth the House taking a position that is a departure from its normal practice. I genuinely fear that the Lord Chancellor will use such a vote to muster support against the much more serious amendments that we have sent back for the Commons to consider. That will not help us in sticking to those amendments, should they come back to us. That is why I will not be in either Lobby this evening if the noble and learned Lord decides to test the opinion of the House.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking against Clause 2 in Committee and in the debate today, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has maintained that the clause adds nothing useful to Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 or to the existing common law and is therefore unnecessary. I take this opportunity to explain why the Government believe that the clause has an important purpose, which merits the support of the House.

The clause stems from our wish to ensure that people can feel confident about participating in activities that benefit others without worrying about what might happen if something goes wrong and they find themselves defending a negligence claim. Clause 2 sets out to provide valuable reassurance that if that happens, the court will take careful and thorough account of the context of the defendant’s actions when reaching a decision on liability. Rather as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said when introducing the provisions of the Compensation Act, as I have quoted before:

“They will reassure people who are concerned about being sued that, if they adopt reasonable standards and procedures, they will not be found liable”.—[Official Report, 28/11/05; col. 81.]

So two separate Governments have identified a fear.

It is said that there is no solid evidence and that such evidence as there is is anecdotal. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson: it is rather hard to identify and amass solid evidence about this. However, I am not sure that many people would disagree with the proposition that we have a culture where litigation hovers over many activities like a shadow and can genuinely inhibit the sort of things that most people would consider to be desirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I want to say a word about the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. He said that, as the Bill changes the common law, it ought to have been referred in the first instance to the Law Commission. I entirely agree that from time to time it has not been at all easy to discover what the government case has been, but their final position is that it does not change the common law in any way; it merely confirms what was already the common law and what was included as Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord’s difficulty.

So far as the rest is concerned, I shall say nothing more about the arguments put forward by the noble Lord in answer to the debate. They have already been dealt with very fully. However, I want to say a word about the attitude of the Opposition to the amendment. As I understood it until 2.15 pm this afternoon, the Opposition would be supporting the amendment. That was my clear understanding.

[Lord Beecham]

If the noble and learned Lord understood that, he misunderstood it, and if I have contributed to a misunderstanding, I apologise. It was never the Opposition’s position that we would support the noble and learned Lord. We were considering the position and I tried to contact him unsuccessfully over the weekend. Therefore, we have not resiled from the position that we previously adopted.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am quite happy to accept that there must have been a misunderstanding. However, that was certainly my understanding of the position, just as my understanding of the position at Second Reading was that they would be supporting my amendment. I was wrong about that and I am wrong again. However, that still leaves the question of why on earth the Opposition are not supporting the amendment. After all, on the whole, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. If they found that they were against something—and I understood them to be against Clauses 2 and 4, just as they are against Clause 3—in the ordinary way they would oppose it.

However, I am wrong about that. The reason given for this seems to me to be entirely incomprehensible. The reason why the Opposition now do not want to oppose Clauses 2 and 4 is that if they did so while opposing Clause 3, that would then have some effect—which I really did not understand—on the attitude of the Lord Chancellor in relation to some other Bill; namely, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. That is a wholly irrational ground for an Opposition to act on. I would have thought it their duty, if they are against Clauses 2 and 4, to oppose them. They say, however, that, for reasons which I do not understand, they do not intend to take that view officially. I hope that at least some members of the party which is represented by those on the Opposition Front Bench who take that view will think differently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, Amendment 1A may be less controversial than the matter that we have just finished discussing, although in matters of the law you never quite know. The amendment was originally tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, and I added my name to it. My noble friend has had to travel to northern England today on business, so is unable to be here in time to move this amendment. I am moving it on his behalf.

The amendment is very simple: a one-word change to Clause 3, the clause entitled “Responsibility”, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred earlier. It replaces “generally” with “predominantly”, so that the clause will read:

“The court must have regard to whether the person”,

demonstrated a “predominantly”,

“responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”.

The question was whether the use of “generally” was sufficiently focused to achieve the appropriate balance in individual cases. The adverb “generally” has three definitions in the Collins English Dictionary. The first is “usually; as a rule”. The second is “commonly or widely”. The final one is,

“without reference to specific details or facts; broadly”.

I suspect that what your Lordships’ House will wish the courts to consider, if this Bill passes into law, is whether the defendant will first claim that he was demonstrating an approach which on that occasion was in the main responsible in protecting the safety of others as opposed to the approach which usually, but not necessarily on that occasion, was responsible. Replacing “generally” with “predominantly”—we return to the Collins English Dictionary definition, which is,

“for the most part mostly and mainly”—

should provide the courts with the power to examine the approach of the defendant at the material time and avoid them having to consider the approach demonstrated at other times or taking the matter even wider, enabling them to take into account the approach followed other than that at the material time.

This Bill has an important role to play in reassuring potential volunteers, but equally it should not encourage behaviour which is thoughtless or irresponsible and thus puts others at risk. This change of word may better balance the two aspects, and I hope that the amendment will find favour with my noble friend. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Clause 3 is the one clause in the Bill which the Government acknowledge embodies a substantive change in the law. In Committee, I moved an amendment to remove “generally” from the requirement on the court to consider whether,

“the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty … demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”.

Neither at Second Reading nor in Committee did the Minister define the meaning of “a generally responsible approach”, and in replying to the debate in Committee he acknowledged that the term was “unusual” in statutory terms. Indeed, he indicated that he would,

“consider carefully whether and to what extent it adds anything to what is in the clause at the moment and whether, on balance, it takes the matter any further”.—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 414.]

We await with bated breath the outcome of the Minister’s deliberations along with his response to the amendment tabled by his noble friend, who is seeking to ratchet up “generally” to “predominantly” in the proposed clause.

I have to say that neither term is satisfactory in terms of either definition, which is entirely lacking, or effect. Why should someone suffering damage through an act of negligence or breach of statutory duty be denied compensation on the grounds that the act or omission was in effect a first offence, or at any rate a rare offence? What, for that matter, constitutes a “responsible” approach? How does the Minister define those terms? Moreover, and crucially, the clause is not limited to social action, responsibility or heroism, terms which are in themselves undefined and undefinable, or to personal injury cases. We are dealing not just with safety but, in terms of the clause, with other interests. As I reported in Committee, the Minister in the House of Commons, Mr Vara, affirmed that the clause,

“could in principle be applicable in relation to other instances of negligence such as damage to property or economic loss where issues of safety may not necessarily be relevant”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 693.]

Why should a negligent builder, medical practitioner, accountant, surveyor or even solicitor—I declare my interest—escape liability for what might even be catastrophic damage because he has been hitherto “predominantly” responsible? Negligence can lead to large losses outside the realm of personal injury. Is not the reality that this badly drafted clause is yet another concession to the insurance lobby, which ordinarily would of course stand behind the defendant in such claims?

Many Members of your Lordships’ House will have received an e-mail today from one of those pressure groups which so exercise the Lord Chancellor in relation to judicial review. In this case, the pressure group is one which we can be confident he entirely approves of: it is the CBI. Its curiously worded communication supports Clause 3 on the grounds that it,

“provides better protection against accidents for those firms—particularly the small and medium sized companies that already have good health and safety processes in place”.

Of course, it does nothing of the sort. It provides “better protection” against claims for negligence arising from accidents and it extends, of course, to large employers as well as medium-sized and small employers.

The e-mail goes on to suggest that,

“this clause will encourage the courts to recognise that safety is a shared responsibility”,

as if the courts do not already do so, and do not make findings of contributory negligence when a claimant fails to take proper precautions, or dismiss a claim when he is wholly responsible. Of course, again, the CBI ignores the fact that the clause extends to all types of negligence, including by small and medium-sized businesses which might well find themselves a victim of negligence other than of the kind leading to personal injury.

As the CBI’s response eloquently exemplifies, this whole Bill has all the hallmarks of being drafted by the Lord Chancellor on the back of a small envelope. This clause, in particular, is deeply objectionable. Unless the Minister is prepared to abandon the clause, I shall invite the House to divide and consign the envelope to the parliamentary waste bin.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I add my support to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Clause 3 is very troubling for two reasons. First, the defendant may have shown a partially irresponsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others, that partially irresponsible approach may be the cause of the accident and it may be entirely inexcusable. Why, then, is the generally responsible approach of the defendant in other respects of any relevance whatever? The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, would not cure this defect.

The second troubling aspect of Clause 3 is that it does not appear to be confined to the subject matter of the Bill, social action and heroism. I would be very grateful if the Minister would explain whether Clause 3 was intended to be confined to the subject matter of the Bill, or whether, as its wording suggests, it is to have a broader aspect. For these reasons, if the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, divides the House, he will have my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

With great respect to the noble Lord, considering the activity in question focuses the judge on the activity that is said to have caused the particular injury, or tort, which has eventuated.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords—

[Lord Faulks]

Perhaps I could finish answering this question before I answer the next one. That would necessitate a judge looking at the activity in question and deciding whether, in relation to the activity in question that is being examined by the court, a generally responsible approach was exhibited by the defendant. What that would not involve would be going through his or her safety record for the previous 10 years, if that is what is being suggested. In fact, as the noble Lord may or may not know from personal injuries claims, very often disclosure of the history of accidents in a factory or documents on previous injuries is done in conventional personal injury claims, as the law is now—there is nothing different about that. So with great respect I do not accept the noble Lord’s suggestion that there would be a lengthening of trial or a greater complication in those terms.

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister must forgive my impatience again. He has concentrated on personal injury claims, but he would concede that the clause does not restrict itself to such claims. Could he identify some of the other sorts of cases, as his ministerial colleague did in the House of Commons, the non-personal injury cases—contract cases and matters of that kind? Would he say that, if a defendant had demonstrated an approach towards protecting the safety of his staff, that suffices to let him escape from damage to other interests of others? What sort of other interests do the Government intend to be covered by the provisions of the clause?

[Lord Faulks]

The Bill is described in its preamble as being to make,

“provision as to matters to which a court must have regard in determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty”.

I do not see any reference to breach of contract there. But the noble Lord is right in the sense that Clause 3 refers to,

“a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”.

That would open the door to the possibility of other interests being considered. Having regard to the general structure of the Bill, I would not wish to add anything to what was said in the House of Commons. I imagine that it is going to be focused primarily on conventional personal injury cases.

--- Later in debate ---

Provided this clause survives the expected attack from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and others, I intend to bring back an amendment at Third Reading which, if not using the precise wording in the order that is proposed, would include the adverb “predominantly” as opposed to “generally”.

[Lord Beecham]

I have another question. The Minister’s colleague, Mr Vara, said:

“Narrowing the clause … would mean that … bodies such as voluntary organisations, religious groups or social clubs which demonstrate a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of their clients or members would not be able to benefit from its provisions. That cannot be right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 693.]

That is the argument that he made in opposing an amendment which had been tabled. That seems to suggest that the Government were contemplating situations in which such organisations would be protected in the course of their general functions in the event of a claim arising—rather than, as the noble Lord implied, only in relation to a particular case in which they failed, as it were, to have sufficient regard to the safety or other interests of a client. Surely the noble Lord is in error in advancing the argument that we are looking only at the particular individual who might be involved in such a claim. That seems to me much too narrow an approach to the terms set out in the Bill.

[Lord Faulks]

I do not have the full context of what my ministerial colleague said in the House of Commons, but I do not believe that I am in error when I give the reasons for my answers to the various questions that have been posed. As I say, these words are not mere surplusage; they are put in to clarify and limit the extent to which “generally responsible” has an application.

I suggest that this provision is an important but modest reflection of what many people would say was a sensible encouragement of employers to adopt a predominantly or generally responsible attitude to the safety or other interests of others—but which, in appropriate circumstances and subject to the court’s overall discretion, allows these matters to be taken into consideration. That is as far as it goes. It is a modest but, I suggest, sensible addition to the law—and it is an addition to the law, as I think is accepted. Given the clarification I have attempted to give the noble Lord on the limit of the measure’s scope, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

2: Clause 3, leave out Clause 3

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, on this occasion I will not follow the precedent of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. The Minister has not satisfactorily explained the real purpose or the workings of this clause, although the two things may not coincide in the minds of those who drafted it. It represents a substantive change and, in his noble efforts to minimise the extent of that change, I fear that he has failed to address the new concerns raised by several Members of this House who are much more learned in the law than I would ever profess to be. In these circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on leaving out the 11 words at the end of this clause. Particularly following our debate in Committee, it appeared to me that a “person’s own safety” is not necessarily a part of heroism, so it is a useful removal.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in speaking to his amendment to leave out the clause, said that his reasons for wishing to do that were broadly the same as his reasons for tabling Amendment 1, which concerned Clause 2. I understand that, and therefore draw the conclusion that I drew a couple of hours ago. I hope that my noble friend will resist that amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked what was added by the reference to heroism in the Bill. The answer is that it allows the Government to bestow an acronym on the Bill; otherwise, it would simply be the “Social Action Responsibility Bill”. Now, we have the words “and Heroism”, which make a convenient acronym. That is an interesting way of proceeding with the drafting of legislation and I concur with the noble and learned Lord’s criticisms of that process.

Having said that, the Minister has at least made a concession by, in effect, accepting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to which I subscribed, as I said before. It was of some comfort that St John Ambulance, which was certainly in touch with me and, I suspect, other noble Lords, welcomed that change. The clause does not substantially affect anything, as we have already heard. However, in so far as this modest change makes it marginally more palatable, I welcome the Minister’s concession. He has not been able to offer too many concessions, but I am glad that he has prevailed on the Lord Chancellor on this occasion to make a gesture of an unfamiliarly generous kind to this House. I support the amendment.