---

Lawrie Quinn: With a coffin badge.

Mr. Dismore: And with a coffin badge. During that walk, we experienced virtually every form of weather, from snow to blinding fog, from bright sunlight to rain. We started at night and finished in daylight. Very different risks and hazards arose along the way. Members have drawn from their experiences of such activities, and there is no reason why the Lyke Wake
 
16 Jul 2004 : Column 1709
 
walk should not be conducted safely. If a risk assessment is done, however, the weather in which it was done needs to be made clear. When we went on the walk, we debated whether the weather was suitable, because others in the party had done the walk during fine weather in midsummer, and we were doing it in the autumn in rather different conditions. That is an important consideration for outdoor activities, because what may be a perfectly safe activity in one circumstance may not be in another. If parents are being asked to sign away their rights to bring an action, they are entitled to know that.

Amendment No. 51 deals with the question of equipment. The question of safety helmets was mentioned earlier in relation to a case that succeeded because a safety helmet did not fit properly. There was an argument about whose job it was to make sure that it fitted properly. It is not just a question of whether it fits, however, but of whether it works. There must be a proper system of risk assessment, involving testing equipment from time to time to make sure that it still works. That assessment must include whether the rope is frayed, which can happen inside as well as outside, and who did the testing.

In the context of the tin hat, we can consider amendment No. 52, which provides for two different eventualities. The first part deals with the position in which the equipment is provided by the organisation concerned, and the second part deals with the position in which individuals are expected to provide their own equipment. It goes without saying that if a voluntary organisation takes it on itself to issue personal protective equipment, whether a tin hat, thermal underwear or ropes for abseiling, it needs to be clear that the equipment has been properly tested, and that when it was tested, in the case of a tin hat, it fitted properly. If that had been done in the case mentioned earlier, the organisation may not have been sued.

Of course, the equipment must also be fit for purpose. A helmet that is suitable for cycling may not be suitable for mountaineering, and, I suppose, the contrary is also true. In relation to individuals providing their own equipment, it is important in those circumstances that the voluntary organisation tells them what sort of equipment they should have for the activity. The best way of doing that is by reference to British standards specifications, which provide clear guidelines—the kite mark on the box is the best guide as to whether a helmet for mountaineering is fit for purpose. One must also make sure that it fits and that it is the right equipment for the exercise. Risks occur when that is not done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr.   Joyce) mentioned earlier the example of people going hiking in Wales who were at risk of hypothermia because they were improperly equipped. Why were they improperly equipped? Was it because they had not been told? Was it because they had been told but only in general terms? I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree, however, that if one is undertaking a dangerous activity in potentially bad weather, one must be properly equipped. The best way to ensure that is to set out in advance a proper list of what people should have and the standard of equipment that should be provided. Amendment No. 52 addresses that point, which is currently woefully lacking from the Bill.
 
16 Jul 2004 : Column 1710
 

1.45 pm

Amendment No. 72 deals with insurance. Nothing in the Bill makes insurance compulsory. It is not currently compulsory, although it is advisable for voluntary organisations to take it out in the circumstances that we are discussing. The only insurance that is compulsory covers motor accidents in relation to the vehicle, and employers' liability insurance in relation to employees—not volunteers. There is no requirement in law for public liability insurance to cover any activities engaged in by voluntary organisations, and I am sure that some organisations will take a chance and not obtain any.

If individuals are asked to accept a statement of inherent risk, they are surely entitled to know that the insurance has been properly organised, and to know who the insurers are, the policy number, the extent of the cover and how they can look at the policy, if they wish, to establish how they can make a claim easily if someone is hurt in circumstances in which an action may still apply, despite the reduction in their rights for which the Bill provides. I know from my experience of legal practice that one can have the devil's own job tracking down the insurers, and that the organisation against which the claim is being brought may not be as helpful as it should be in providing the necessary details. Amendment No. 72 makes a vital improvement to the Bill.

I spoke earlier of the importance of the Secretary of State making it generally known to people that the Bill would take away their legal rights, but there is nothing like reminding them at the time as well. I return to Lord Denning's definition of "volenti". People who are being asked to waive their legal rights must be clear about what they are letting themselves in for. Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 deal with that. At present, the Bill does nothing to ensure that children, parents or any other adults are aware that they will have less protection from the law if they are injured, because it does not require organisations to tell them. I think that that is absolutely wrong.

Amendment No. 116 deals with instructions. The Bill currently provides

"that the person undertaking the activity shall obey the instructions given by the person . . . providing the activities",

but it does not say what will happen if the instructions are not obeyed. Nor, for that matter, does it say what the instructions are. "Put your hand in the fire" is an instruction—not a reasonable instruction, not a lawful instruction, but an instruction. What happens when little Johnny is sitting in front of the camp fire? Amendment No. 116 says that if the instructions are to be obeyed, they must be reasonable and lawful. My hon. Friend the Minister suggests inserting the word "reasonable" in her amendment No. 153, so she is obviously on the same track as me. I suppose it could be said that the word "lawful" in this context is tautological, but I think it important to have belt and braces. It is possible, after all, that a reasonable instruction might not be lawful.

Amendment No. 53 deals with the question of what happens if people do not follow the instructions. Are they told off? Are they fined? Are they sent home with their tails between their legs? That is not made clear in the Bill. When safety is involved, it must be driven home to people that if they do not do what they are told, they
 
16 Jul 2004 : Column 1711
 
will be sent home, or left behind, or something. At present, the Bill just says that they must do what they are told.

The Bill refers to "the instructions given", but does not say how they are to be given. Safety instructions can be given in a number of ways. When we board an aeroplane, we are given instructions. The stewardess goes through her little pantomime. She shows us how to put on the oxygen mask and life-jacket, and where the exit doors are. In addition, each passenger seat has in front of it a chart, to which one can refer. So instructions are given in two different ways—indeed, aviation law lays down that such instructions be given verbally and by demonstration, and on the chart. However, the Bill refers simply to "instructions". How they should be given or carried out is not specified; nor does it say whether they should be given in writing or demonstrated. As it stands, one could simply say, "Oh by the way, be careful and don't fall down the hole."

Lawrie Quinn: The amendment to which my hon. Friend is referring implies even more red tape, an audit trail, an inspection, and a licence to perform such services, which presumably could be taken away if such standards were not maintained. How would enforcement work in practice?

Mr. Dismore: Regrettably, the enforcement is what will happen if there is an accident. In the end, it will be for a civil court to test whether the defence provided by the Bill can be relied on by the defendant, which is the voluntary organisation concerned. A court would then have to determine whether the correct steps had been taken, and whether the statement of inherent risk, or the risk assessment, had been properly drafted.

The hon. Member for Canterbury is trying to taking away people's rights, but in doing so we have to make it absolutely clear which rights are being taken away, and ensure that people fully understand the position they are being put in. On the other hand, one can see such statements of inherent risk as a positive thing, because they remind people that what they are being asked to do is dangerous. They make people think about the situation and comply with the instructions given. Of course, if the proposed statement of inherent risk works, there will be far fewer accidents because people will be behaving safely, and they will understand the risks much more clearly because they are set out in writing. They will understand that if they undertake such activities they will be unable to sue, and that if they disobey orders they will be sent home or left behind. All such provisions, which are vital, are currently missing from the Bill. We should not try simply to remove people's rights; we should be trying to prevent accidents.

I am a little concerned about the provision that amendment No. 57 would delete. It effectively imposes third-party duties on somebody who is not party to the arrangements. Imposing third-party duties on a parent is a serious issue, and in that regard the amendment speaks for itself.

I turn now to the first of a series of amendments that deal with age limits, an issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred in an
 
16 Jul 2004 : Column 1712
 
intervention. At what stage should someone be able to sign away their own rights, and at what stage should a parent be able to sign away the rights of their children? In taking away people's rights, one should err on the side of caution. In terms of the complete removal of rights, I have suggested the age threshold of 18.

---