| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Burnett: I had a look at the synopsis of the Vowles v. Evans and another case and I was absolutely amazed by the Court of Appeal's judgment. Having said that, I have not heard the evidence or read the case in enormous detail. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the case is due to go to the House of Lords or whether it is out of time for a further appeal?
Mr. Brazier: I am embarrassed to say that I do not know the answer. I understand that that will not happen, but the Minister might have further information.
Serious injuries that might change people's lives will occasionally occur in rough games and adventure training. We accept that in other areas, and accept that such cases will arise occasionally even with a safety practice that is among the best in the world. However, if people who get cold, wet and tired—such as the participants in sport and adventure training—are to be punished for reasonable mistakes because they are followed by tragic results, volunteering will dry up. It is no wonder that the survey that I cited earlier found that that is the primary concern among those who volunteer in sport.
Mr. Brazier: I have given way twice. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but want to make a little progress, if I may.
One of the effects of the rugby judgments is that a growing number of schools have stopped playing rugby. A recent conversation with a headmaster who had just taken that decision and whose school no longer offers rugby was one of the things that led me to introduce the Bill.
I asked Slade Perkins, the insurance brokers and advisers to the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the head of the voluntary sports movement, for a few examples of ongoing cases. Both client confidentiality and the Data Protection Act 1998 prevent me from giving chapter and verse on them, but I can summarise some of the cases on its list. A football referee in Hertfordshire is being sued because last year he tripped on a small hole in the local park's pitch. A member of a walking group took part in a trip to Wales with about 15 friends. One of them was injured and is suing the person on the grounds that he was the de facto group leader simply because he was the most qualified person there. A martial arts instructor in Bedfordshire is being sued by the parents of 10-year-old boy who injured himself performing a simple move that he had successfully completed many times before. A student—this is a commercial case, but it is still relevant—was banned from his gym as a result of a disciplinary issue. A year later, it refused to re-admit him because he had caused enough trouble. Two years after that, the instructor received a solicitor's letter, claiming that the student had been seriously injured in a training incident many years before and that he was holding the instructor responsible.
Most of those cases will never get to the courts and, as such, we will never know about them because insurance companies, especially since that last rugby case, are desperate to settle out of court. Slade Perkins tells me that out-of-court settlements are happening up and down the country all the time. The best measure of the growth of litigation is the insurance premiums for activities from rugby to rowing and sailing. The British Gliding Association's premiums have risen by 150 per cent. in five years. The National Caving Association told me in an e-mail that it had to abandon all activity for months because it could not get any insurance. Finally, after hundreds of hours, as the association put it, it found someone who would insure it for a 70 per cent. increase in its premium. The problem affects small clubs as well as large high-profile ones. A roller-skating club in Kent has seen its premiums for insuring the volunteers who look after its children rise from £400 to more than £1,200. It is in a deprived area and the parents will, of course, have to pay.
Worst of all, voluntary organisations are losing volunteers. The Girl Guides has a waiting list of 50,000 girls who would like to join but cannot because of the shortage of instructors. Its association has been a strong supporter of the Bill since its inception. That is why it aims to reduce the risks of litigation and the burden of legislation on those who we need more than ever, who give their time to volunteer.
Volunteering is a crucial part of our national way of life. If people choose to give their time to help their communities, we owe it to them to minimise the risks of litigation and red tape associated with their work. Yet whenever I talk to volunteers, from those working for sports clubs through to teachers organising extra-curricular activities, to farmers who are still willing to allow farm visits—many no longer will—or youngsters to camp on their land, they tell me of their fear of litigation and their frustration with mounting red tape.
The Bill's central feature is clause 2, which establishes a statement of inherent risk to help to protect volunteers and organisations from unreasonable litigation if
sensible safety standards have been adhered to. Those organising adventure training or sport would be able to give participants or their parents a certificate to sign which sets out the principal risks involved. If an accident occurs, the court would be bound to take account both of the general premise that accidents can occur without contributory negligence—in other words, that honest mistakes do not amount to negligence—and of the specific fact that the participant or parent had signed the form. It is not a waiver; that would not be allowed under European law and, anyway, would not be acceptable to the House. The certificate would raise the bar to a higher threshold of proof in a negligence claim than the current balance of probabilities as understood by an increasingly litigation-driven legal system. It would not apply in cases of criminal liability, which already requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, so it would not affect the work of the Health and Safety Executive, which also recently came under the microscope.The clause also establishes the idea of short courses for the judiciary to be trained in the Bill's implications so that they better comprehend the inherent dangers associated with adventure training and sport. Those should not cost the public purse much, as the sector would be delighted to arrange them, but the Bill does ask that the Chancellor reports on the number of judges who attend such courses.
With regard to bureaucracy, the Bill would protect national organisations such as the Rugby Football Union, which provides compulsory insurance for its members, from the plans of the Financial Services Authority shortly to impose a raft of expensive and burdensome regulation on it. It would also lighten the application of the Data Protection Act 1998. As a result of a mistake on a website, a string of sporting organisations recently submitted to the Inland Revenue incorrect applications for charitable status. When the CCPR asked for a list of the organisations that had sent in the wrong applications and had been rejected so that it could send them the correct forms that would be accepted next time round, the Inland Revenue refused on the grounds of the Data Protection Act. I am sure that that was not a commercial judgment by the Inland Revenue, but it is that sort of nonsense that we want to stop.
The last clause would introduce an American-style "Good Samaritan" clause to protect members of the public who assist those who are injured or suffering from later being sued for accidental injury or damage to property. I am grateful for the support of St. John Ambulance for the Bill. It specifically wrote to me saying that it supports it because of the inclusion of that clause, although it has some concerns about the way in which it is worded.
I want to deal with two criticisms of the Bill that I have received among a torrent of otherwise supportive messages, before giving way once more to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). The first criticism is that there is no mention of criminal record checks, which are high on most voluntary organisations' lists of problems. In fact, they are the largest element of the second item on the bureaucracy mentioned in the Sport
England survey. Frankly, the checks are too complicated and contentious for private Members' legislation.The second criticism relates to sensible complaints, including some from the Government, about the detailed drafting. Inevitably, a private Member's Bill is put together with the help that is available. The lawyers who helped me on it and the Clerks have worked extremely hard. The most cogent criticism relates to clause 2(2), which I am sure the Minister will mention, and it will certainly be necessary to clarify what is meant by sharing responsibility for safety. That idea is very important to the supporting consortium organisations. It covers issues such as the obligation of the participant's parents to tell the child that he or she must do as instructors tell them. In an activity such as hill walking, it also places a duty on every member of the team to look out for signs of exposure and not just leave it to the leader. That is an important principle for life, not just for sport and adventure training. However, I fully accept that if the House chooses to give the Bill a Second Reading, the detail will have to be sharpened up and clarified.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the wording is not carved in stone. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I will be delighted to negotiate with the Government, parliamentary colleagues and any concerned outside bodies, to improve any aspect of it. The only point that is not negotiable is the underlying principle behind the certificate of inherent risk, which is the heart of the Bill.
Before I conclude my remarks, I give way again to the hon. Member for Edmonton.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |