Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, there are many reasons why Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, but to my mind the main objection is also the simplest: it serves no useful purpose. The mischief at which the clause is aimed is already covered by existing law. The mischief in question, as defined by the Lord Chancellor in the other place, is that volunteers are being deterred from volunteering by fear of being sued for negligence. That is the very same point specifically covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, passed less than eight years ago.

The whole purpose of that section was to encourage people to undertake what the section calls, “desirable activities”. The whole purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill is to encourage people to act,

“for the benefit of society”.

Those are two ways of saying exactly the same thing. Nobody has yet been able to detect any difference between them. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor said that Clause 2 is not intended to change the existing law, so why do we need another piece of legislation covering exactly the same ground now?

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, accepted that:

“Clause 2 relates to broadly similar territory to that in Section 1 of the Compensation Act”,

but he added that,

“the approach that it takes is different”.—[Official Report, 4/11/2014; col. 1573.]

He did not explain exactly what he meant by the approach being different. When pressed, he said that the 2006 Act had been “ineffective”. However, the only evidence relied on for that assertion—literally the only evidence—was a survey carried out about eight years ago. All it showed was that 47% of a very modest sample, some 300 people at most, said that there was a risk of being sued and that that risk was an issue to be considered. That survey was carried out in 2006-07, before Section 1 of the Compensation Act could possibly have had any effect, so how can it be relied on as showing that Section 1 of the 2006 Act has been ineffective? At the time of that survey, it had not had time to take effect.

A recent report produced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the evidence in support of the Government’s case for fresh legislation in this field. It concluded that the only evidence was almost entirely anecdotal. It said that such evidence was not a sound basis for legislation, and that must surely be right. We now have before us a clause for which there is no evidence of any need covering exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the Compensation Act, which was passed less than eight years ago, and covering the ground already covered by the common law. In negligence cases, judges have always had regard to the matters referred to in Clause 2.

If that was not enough to condemn the clause—although I suggest that it is—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has recently said that this clause, even if it is to form part of the Bill, will have very little, if any, effect. Indeed, that was the Government’s own case. Paragraph 23 of their impact assessment states that any reduction in claims for negligence will not be substantial.

If, as I suggest, these reasons are nothing like enough to justify the inclusion of this clause, one is driven to ask: what is the real reason the Lord Chancellor is bringing forward this unnecessary clause for our approval? There can be no doubt about the answer to that question, because the Lord Chancellor himself said it over and over again in the other place. The real reason is that the Lord Chancellor wants to send out, as he put it, a strong signal that if people are trying to do the right thing—he used that sort of phraseology over and over again—the law will be on their side. In other words, the justification for including this clause in the Bill is nothing other than a publicity exercise on the part of the Government. If that is the case, and I suggest that it is, it is a flagrant misuse of the legislative process. The purpose of legislation is to make new law or to change existing law so that it can be enforced in the courts. This clause does not purport to do either of those things. It could not be enforced by the court, which is why it will be treated with derision when it comes before the courts—a word that was used by a recent Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, speaking from the government Benches in the other place. The clause should be rejected on that ground, if none other.

Finally, I should mention points made during the debate in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who I am glad to see in his place, is in favour of Clause 2. He was chair of the task force which published in 2011 the report Unshackling Good Neighbours. His view is obviously, therefore, entitled to great weight on that ground. I hope, however, that he will forgive me for saying that he did not really answer the point that Clause 2 covers exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, which should be given much more time to take effect.

On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said that, while he was broadly in sympathy with the Government’s objective, this was, as he put it,

“frankly, a lousy way to do it”.—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 404.]

It was smoothing over all the difficulties with words that have very little meaning. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, went further. He was extremely critical of the drafting because of the use of the same word, “person”, in Clauses 2 and 4 to cover two entirely different persons. He said it was a great pity that the Government had not faced up to the real problems in this area. As a result, he said, he was deeply troubled by the clause as it stands.

For all these reasons, I hope the Government will think again before pressing ahead with this unnecessary clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say some nice things about my report, and I reciprocate by saying that I have had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship of various committees, and he has always been a punctilious and perceptive chairman. He is particularly kind in being ready to listen to and appreciate the views of those of us who are not learned in the law.

I hope that he will forgive me, but, once again, I cannot support his proposal this afternoon, and I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench not to do so either. We had a pretty thorough discussion of this issue in Committee on 18 November, and I do not intend to repeat the remarks I made then. As I understand it, and as I understood then, the noble and learned Lord is concerned about interplay between this piece of legislation and the Compensation Act 2006. I understand his desire for legal clarity and legal purity, but I have another objective, and that is of legal connectivity.

The report that I produced for the Government, Unshackling Good Neighbours, to which he kindly referred, looked in some depth at what was inhibiting people from getting involved in society and acting as a trustee, and whether they feared potential legal consequences. We received examples in sufficient numbers, which cannot simply be dismissed as anecdotal—a term that I sometimes feel is somewhat patronising. The noble and learned Lord sought to reassure the House that, if a case came to court, the court would throw it out, would, in his phrase, “have regard for the circumstances”. With respect, he may have overlooked the effect on an individual of the agonising, expensive, lengthy and psychologically depressing process of preparing the case—this against the background that, in the event, the court may not throw the case out.

I continue, therefore, to believe that this legislation sends an important signal—there I agree with the noble and learned Lord. This signal may seem unnecessary in the cool, calm, reflective atmosphere of the Inns of Court, but it has a greater resonance at the coalface of our civil society.

At another level, I am particularly looking forward to hearing the final determination of the Opposition’s position on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is a witty speaker and a very practised politician. He has made some disobliging remarks about the contents of the Bill, but he has so far not moved beyond that point. I suspect that, as a practical politician, in his heart of hearts, he knows that this is an issue that, in the minds of the public, needs addressing, and which this Bill does so address.

Before I conclude, I reiterate one other point that I made in Committee. I do not argue for a single minute that the Bill is a silver bullet as regards encouraging volunteering or greater participation in our society. There is much else to be done besides. Better insurance arrangements are crucial, as is the need to debunk myths about the legal consequences of day-to-day actions, too often assiduously and repeatedly promulgated in the press. However, even if the Bill is not a silver bullet, it is a bullet, and one well worth firing. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will resist the noble and learned Lord this afternoon.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we have had our fun on this Bill at Second Reading and in Committee. I, for my part, cannot remember a legislative proposal that has been the subject of more sustained ridicule and derision. We now come to the serious business. I have been studying and practising law for 40 years—not as long as many noble Lords, but a long time—and I cannot remember a more pointless, indeed fatuous, piece of legislation than Clause 2 of this Bill, with the possible exception of Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has explained and as we have previously discussed—and as is not in dispute—Clause 2 will not change the law. Courts already have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members. I referred to the leading cases at Second Reading. The Minister has at no stage suggested that there are any cases in which courts have ignored such obviously relevant factors.

What then is the point of Clause 2? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has already explained, the Lord Chancellor, Mr Grayling, has been very clear. He wants Parliament to send a message. But if the object of the legislation is to encourage people to volunteer and to encourage heroism without people being concerned about possible litigation—the objective referred to a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—Mr Grayling should buy a half-page advertisement in the Sun or the Daily Mail or, if he wants to reach younger citizens, open a Facebook page or set up a Twitter account, and simply tell people the obvious truth, that the law is already on their side. That would be a much cheaper and more effective way in which to communicate a message than to take this sad Bill through all its stages in Parliament.

It is simply ridiculous for the Government to suggest that people who are currently inhibited from volunteering by a fear of litigation are somehow going to step forward when they hear—if they do—that we have approved Clause 2 of the Bill. Mr Grayling cannot seriously think that around the dinner table tonight, or in the Dog and Duck public house, or anywhere, people will say to themselves, “I see that Clause 2 has passed its latest stages in the House of Lords. I look forward to its speedy enactment next year because then I will be much more willing to volunteer and act like a hero, my concerns about litigation having been removed”.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is not just people in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck who are influenced by this; it is also the professional advisers. In the example that we discussed in Committee, the problem was that many solicitors offering advice to people actually provide advice that might be changed by this legislation.

[Lord Pannick]

With great respect, there is even less justification if we are going to ask the question about professional advice from solicitors, because we are surely entitled to assume that solicitors are capable of understanding basic law. This is not complicated law: it is trite, obvious law that already protects those who volunteer and act as heroes.

It has been said at previous stages of the Bill that we often legislate in the hope of changing people’s behaviour. Reference has been made, for example, to the Race Relations Act. But what is different and what is exceptional about Clause 2 is that it does not purport to change the law one jot or iota. All that it will do is enable Mr Grayling to say that he is in favour of social action; and when we come to Clause 4, he will be able to say that he is in favour of heroism, as if the rest of us were not. I object to legislation being used by the Government to send what is no more than a political message.

In paragraph 125 of its excellent report, published last week, on the office of Lord Chancellor, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee stated that the Lord Chancellor should have,

“a clear understanding of his or her duties in relation to the rule of law and a willingness to speak up for that principle in dealings with ministerial colleagues, including the Prime Minister”.

The Lord Chancellor ought to understand that it is part—an important part—of the rule of law that the statute book has a role and a purpose: it is a purpose distinct from a party conference speech or a party election broadcast. Clause 2 simply debases the parliamentary currency and it therefore undermines the rule of law. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, decides to test the opinion of the House on Clause 2, he will certainly have my support.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

1A: Page 1, line 12, leave out “generally” and insert “predominantly”

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for returning to Amendment 1A. I thought for a moment that it had been forgotten in the heavy-duty exchange of legal artillery that was flying across the Chamber. I am also grateful for his reassuring remarks about the possibility of something further being introduced along the lines of “predominantly” if the Bill survives the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

words which we are now invited to omit—would be treated as a sufficient context to indicate that, contrary to all normal principles of statutory drafting, “individual” and “person” were being used interchangeably. However, if those words drop out, the person who is acting heroically—whatever that means—is either an individual or a body corporate. No doubt a body corporate charged with providing emergency services in a particular district is a person acting heroically. I suggest that at Third Reading serious thought should be given to the neglect of basic principles of statutory draftsmanship which the Bill reveals.

[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.