| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
22 Feb 2005 : Column 61WH—continued
22 Feb 2005 : Column 62WH
Outdoor Pursuits Industry
4 pm
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Have you ever been in love, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If so, it is probable that you have experienced all the emotions associated with uncertainty, excitement, attraction and fear of the unknown, because love is a risk and a commitment to emotions, which may backfire in your face. That risk is at the heart of some of the greatest literary, political and cultural achievements of the human race. It is an example of what I am here to discuss: the politics of risk, and why I believe that an obsessive approach to health and safety, coupled with an increasingly litigious culture is contributing to the problems that face our society.
None of us can pretend that either life, or indeed political work, is devoid of risk, yet our political climate seeks to eliminate risk—as if that were even possible. In trying to do so, we are creating a population metaphorically wrapped in cotton wool. It causes problems far greater than a sensible and measured approach to risk ever would. It means that bored children who are denied access to safe and exciting school trips and sports activities seek their kicks elsewhere, and it means that Britain's second largest teaching union, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, advises its members not to participate in school trips for fear of litigation. It means also that the outdoor and recreation industries are hampered by rising insurance premiums, choking under unnecessary bureaucracy and struggling with serious volunteer shortages.
The great scientist Professor Heinz Wolff believes that humans have a biological need for risk. I shall return to that point, but trying to eliminate risk can therefore cause harm in its own right. Indeed, juvenile crime, drug use and obesity are probably in part the result of such a futile policy. By contrast, I suggest to the Government that if we seek to manage risk instead of eliminate it, we can truly begin to address those problems sensibly.
I appreciate the Government's new approach to school trips. It is good that they intend to supply to teachers sensible guidelines on school trip safety, negotiate with local authorities to cut red tape, and launch a manifesto in the new school year for education outside the classroom. A champion to oversee their outdoor education manifesto, just as Marc Jaffrey is champion of their music in schools programme, would do wonders for that policy, so my first request to the Minister is for the appointment of such a champion. Secondly, 50 per cent. of school children have parents who cannot afford to fund their school trips and outdoor education, and only 10 per cent. of them get Government funding support. Will the Minister consider the financial shortfall experienced by the other 40 per cent.?
There is a wider problem: by focusing purely on school trips, the Government are treating the symptom not the cause of the problem. The decline in school trips is the tip of a far larger iceberg. Simply upping the required quantity and frequency of school trips without addressing the culture of unreasonable litigation will merely result in more court cases and more confusion. Guidelines for teachers are useful, but on their own
22 Feb 2005 : Column 63WH
ineffective, because the legal profession will just keep fishing for litigation opportunities. Without meaning to be rude to the law, if the law allows it, lawyers will follow the money. We need a cultural change—a shift back towards individual freedom and individual responsibility. Negligence must be held to account, but responsible organisers should not be punished for the mistakes of their clients.
Consider the following case in which a scout group had organised a trip to visit the popular show cave at Gaping Gill. One of the scouts noticed a small cave-opening across a stream, and asked the scout leader for permission to explore it. The leader refused permission, pointing out that caves could be dangerous. The scout moved to where his father stood and repeated the request. His father, who had heard the leader's ruling, gave permission and accompanied the boy into the cave. Inside, the scout slipped and fell 300 ft tragically to his death down a chimney leading into the main chamber of Gaping Gill. Some two years later, once the tragic boy's elder brother had reached 18 and left the group with his chief scout award, the father successfully sued the Scout Association on the basis that the scout leader should have prevented the father from entering the cave with his son, and in failing to do so he breached his duty of care. That is just one example among many of what I consider to be a litigious society gone mad. It was a tragic death, but the scout leader should not have been held responsible for it.
The important thing is the widespread public perception that a compensation culture exists. That perception shapes behaviour in several ways: more spurious legal claims; higher insurance premiums to pay for the larger number of claims; more illegitimate claims settled out of court, not fought and defeated; and more people deterred from organising outdoor activities and adventure activities for fear of being sued. It affects outdoor pursuit centres big time, and I am grateful to Pete Jones of the Red Ridge centre in my constituency for his public and vocal support of our campaign. His excellently run centre had to stop pony trekking due to crushing insurance premiums—another example of many opportunities lost to his business and to the public.
These are powerful trends, and new Government guidelines are not enough to stop them. That is why we need a good legal definition of reasonable risk, so my second question is: will the Government clarify that definition in order to address the compensation culture problem? The definition needs to recognise that accidents can happen without there being contributory negligence by instructors.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is paradoxical that responsible organisers are penalised in that way, including those in my constituency, while at the same time, also in my constituency, we have the Dorothea quarry pool where 21 people have drowned, yet nobody seems to be able to take responsibility for the health and safety of divers there?
Lembit Öpik : The hon. Gentleman is correct. The system does not allow for a proper balance between risk
22 Feb 2005 : Column 64WH
and safety measures. As a result, there are ridiculous regulations for many activities and, possibly, a degree of under-regulation for others. We must find a way to prevent the cost of defending against spurious claims from always resting on the defendant. Volunteers in all their guises, from youth work volunteers to landowners who offer their facilities, must have protection from litigation. We need to take litigation out of our culture.
At the heart of the issue is our approach to risk. I return to the difference between risk elimination and risk management. By not managing risk appropriately, we lose the social, economic and personal positives that reasonable risk-taking can bring. By treating risk as a kind of social asbestos, to be eliminated at all costs, we forget that an element of risk is a good component of all our lives—and outdoor activities are a perfect example of positive risk. In a report published in April 2004, the National Foundation for Education Research found that outdoor activity programmes improved young people's confidence, self-esteem, inter-personal and social skills, behaviour, self-image and fitness. Further, those positive effects were shown to be long lasting. Outdoor activities, therefore, improve subsequent behaviour. Other countries know that. Peadar Cremin, principal of Mary Immaculate college in Limerick, saw that at first hand in Denmark. At one pre-school play group area for children aged from six months to six years, the kids were playing outside on a sort of mini mountain, running up and down in a remarkable fashion. No adult was outside watching over them. Peadar was told that the Danish recognise the benefit of risk as a teaching tool. The Danish believe that that is a good way to help to generate a sense of personal responsibility that will last a lifetime, and I agree. However, in spite of the clear benefits of healthy risk taking, as I said before, the NASUWT, Britain's second-largest teaching union, advises its members against taking students on trips.
I have suffered at the hands of risk. In 1998, I fell 30 m, when my paraglider deflated over a Welsh mountain. I broke my back in 12 places and smashed my ribs, sternum and jaw, and I pay tribute to the NHS and the hospitals in Llanidloes, Shrewsbury and Gobowen hospitals for their life-saving efforts. A local Conservative said after my accident that I was 10 ft short of a by-election. I probably was. Never let it be said that Conservatives do not care. Despite my accident, I absolutely oppose a ban on paragliding. To ban it would deny the right to enjoy the sport, in all probability without the same consequences as mine. Besides, that experience taught me more than I can say. It underlines Professor Heinz Wolff's assertion in a lecture to the all-party group on adventure and recreation in society, of which I am co-Chair, that
"we have a biological need for risk—especially present in young people—but essential to all. If not managed well by society by providing enough legal risk—in schools, sports clubs, the arts and social & family environments—this need for risk will become mismanaged and cause risk-seeking behaviour by individuals—antisocial, criminal or simply unhealthy. A Risk in Time Saves Crime!"
"Risk prevention for the few means waste creation for all. As resources are finite, society must therefore set priorities based upon which risks are most important. The current attitude of society to many forms of risk is totally irrational, scientifically indefensible, and economically damaging: pre-occupation with safety dissipates a significant amount of national resource."
Rather than spending time and money prohibiting and then policing an activity, why not engage with it proactively and make it safer? By managing risk rather than seeking to eradicate it, we can harness the benefits of adventurous activities.
I welcome Government plans for school trips, but they need to consider the over-regulation of everyday life as a whole. Let us give people back their freedom, accepting that some of it will also mean giving people the right to make a mistake or to have an accident. That is what was promised regarding swimming, where at present in life-guarded pools, four-to-eight-year-olds have to be accompanied by one adult for two children. It means that more kids may drown because they never had the opportunity to learn to swim due to the strictness of those regulations. The Government are thinking the right way; I am asking them to think that way on a wider scale.
Reshaping our attitude to health and safety is to recognise that our world cannot be risk-free. We lose if we sacrifice healthy and beneficial activities for the unattainable goal of absolute safety. It is Professor Wolff's firm view that in the diet of life our Government thinking is causing deficiencies in one vitamin: vitamin R, for risk. Risk, when taken in sensible doses, is the difference between sterile, anodyne and artificial living versus the chance to learn, accomplish, feel alive and even to love. Is the Minister brave enough to give us back our vitamin R?
4.12 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech. As his co-Chair of the all-party group on adventure and recreation in society, I enjoy working with him.
I want to make two brief points to underpin my hon. Friend's powerful oration—I like to call him my hon. Friend because he is indeed a Friend. First, it is difficult to exaggerate the sheer scale of the impact that the problem of litigation is having on adventure training. Thirty thousand young people would like to join the scouts and an incredible 50,000 want to join the girl guides but cannot do so because of a shortage of volunteers. The last comprehensive survey on the matter by the Central Council of Physical Recreation in late 2003 showed that of the eight factors that act as barriers to volunteering, the blame culture and the fear of litigation is the first.
Secondly, my hon. Friend gave a striking example from the scouts of a tragic death. I cannot stress enough that this is not about perceptions. Whatever statistics may be produced—no doubt the Minister will say that the number of litigation claims is falling in society as a whole—in this area, a string of ridiculous court judgments have completely undermined the confidence of adventure training organisations. I shall give an example involving a much more minor injury, coincidentally again from the scouts, although we could site many from other organisations. The case, brought two and a half years ago, was Joseph Morrison v. The Scout Association. A scout campsite had created a waterslide on a gentle slope by laying a length of heavy-polythene on the ground and covering it with soapy
22 Feb 2005 : Column 66WH
water. We have all done it for our children using hoses. The supervising adults explained that people should not run or dive on the sheet but simply sit on it. They even produced helmets to use when going down the slide.
A youth leader with a party of non-scout children decided to have a go. He selected a helmet without referring to the scout leaders and dived headfirst down the slope. In the process, his face was badly cut because the helmet did not fit. A British judge—Judge Brownlee at Newtownards—held the scout leader liable. It is not just that money was involved; a British court declared negligent a man who had given many years to scouting. He was publicly derided as being negligent. That sort of message, in case after case, is undermining all those organisations that seek to bring adventure training and sport to our children.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a change in the law. It must become more difficult to bring such negligence cases. The law must recognise inherent risk, perhaps by raising the bar for negligence cases. The alternative is a growth in obesity, a decline in the spirit of adventure and teamwork, and, I am sorry to say, a growth in antisocial behaviour.
4.16 pm
The Minister for Work (Jane Kennedy) : This is a timely debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for offering me the opportunity not only to try to set the record straight on behalf of the Government, but to counter the idea that the drift in society that he outlined is Government inspired. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has long campaigned on the issue. Last year, he had a private Member's Bill on the promotion of volunteering, in which this subject would have featured. He will be aware that Home Office Ministers were broadly sympathetic to the overall aims and objectives of his Bill.
We very much wish to endorse the valuable contribution that outdoor pursuits make to a healthy society, to the rural economy and to the well-being of people in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in another debate, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I had a friendly discussion about fast bowling and cricketing, another sport that is not without risk. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is known for his passion for dangerous pursuits and he described some of the consequences that can result from them. Indeed, I should like to have considered myself a keen horsewoman. There is nothing like the sheer exhilaration of riding flat out on a horse. It is a potentially dangerous occupation, but none the less exhilarating, and one that I would not have missed for the world.
Lembit Öpik : I am encouraged by the direction that the Minister is taking. At heart, I am saying that there is nothing dangerous about horse riding or paragliding: it is the Minister falling off the horse and my crashing that are dangerous. We should not blame the sports or activities for the misdemeanours of the individuals participating in them.
Jane Kennedy : Broadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the Government believe that people
22 Feb 2005 : Column 67WH
with a genuine claim for compensation in negligence cases should be enabled to enforce their rights. However, we have made it clear—I am pleased to have the opportunity to say so today—that we oppose the development of the so-called compensation culture. I strongly disagree with the attitude that for every mishap someone is at fault, for every injury someone must be to blame, and for every accident someone has to pay. So far, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. If I am to take issue with him at all, it is over his point that we have a culture of legislation that favours risk avoidance over risk management. I shall say more about that in a moment.
We all agree that outdoor pursuits have tangible benefits for people of all ages. They promote better physical fitness, contribute to a healthier society and, in cases like mine, when I fell from my horse, knock some sense into otherwise senseless heads. They also help to develop confidence, teach the principles of risk awareness, which is not risk aversion, build social skills and set young people in particular on the path to making a valuable contribution to the life of the UK.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Canterbury said about the important opportunity that young boys can get by joining the scouts and young girls by joining the girl guides. My younger son got a huge amount out of the air cadets. That group took him into circumstances that could be dangerous at a young age, but sensible risk management by the organisers enabled him to enjoy that risk, the element of danger and the adventure. They organised it in a way that left him with enormous lessons that he will have with him for the rest of his life.
Mr. Brazier : While I strongly back the hon. Lady's support for all three wonderful cadet organisations, in my constituency, Whitstable sea cadets, which is right next to the beach and is the oldest sea cadet organisation in the country, is no longer able to sail on the sea. As a result of the fear in our culture that it cannot meet the necessary standards, it can sail only on lakes.
Jane Kennedy : It is disappointing to hear stories of that nature because, as the hon. Gentleman described, they limit the opportunities for young people to grow and to develop their self-confidence. In rural economies, outdoor pursuits can form part of the lifeblood of the community by providing valuable sources of employment and revenue. For example, in Wales, in which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire takes a keen personal interest, activity holidays are worth more than £900 million to the economy. Adventure tourism alone accounts for £133 million each year. Those are the only statistics that I will quote.
As a result of those strong, tangible benefits, the Government are keen to promote risk and adventure in society. The Prime Minister recently said:
"Everything we do in our everyday activity in work or leisure involves an element of risk. Risk is central to the enjoyment of all adventure activities."
We know that the starting point is, for many, school trips. It is important that the concerns about risk and the so-called compensation culture do not destroy those
22 Feb 2005 : Column 68WH
opportunities and the benefits that they produce. Issues have been legitimately raised about the attitude taken by insurance companies towards outdoor pursuits, most notably the case that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire quoted about pony-trekking facilities in his constituency.
For that reason, I fully endorse the recent Ofsted report, which the hon. Gentleman might have seen, on outdoor education. It concluded:
"the benefits of outdoor pursuits and outdoor education are far too important to forfeit and by far outweigh the risks of an accident occurring".
Those are important comments from important opinion formers, independent of the Government, in the sector. Teachers who lead outdoor pursuits have a key part to play. Some teachers may have been concerned about the consequences for them if things went wrong, but they should be reassured by the report's conclusions that, if they follow recognised safety procedures and guidance, they will have nothing to fear from the law.
My primary interest is health and safety. A fundamental principle of our health and safety framework is that responsibility for health and safety rests with those who own and manage the risks. That is as true for outdoor pursuits as it is for all other aspects of work. We cannot ignore the risk or the requirement to be aware of it and to manage it. However, we must manage it sensibly. In the case of adventure activities, the challenge is to regulate it sensitively so that we continue to allow those involved to be exposed to and to enjoy a level of risk that does not stifle experimentation and development. That is important.
The Health and Safety Commission is responsible for health and safety at work. It believes that a goal-setting approach is much more flexible and promotes innovation. I pointed out to the hon. Member for Daventry that the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission had an article in the Financial Times yesterday about that precise issue, which might be of interest to hon. Members. The HSC accepts that risks cannot be eliminated from society without disproportionate cost—if ever—and that risk elimination is undesirable except in extreme cases. It seeks instead to encourage sensible risk management and appropriate controls where required.
By virtue of what they are, outdoor pursuits are often high hazard, and should an accident occur, serious consequences may follow. The key to safety is to manage the risks appropriately. An important part of that process for adventure activities is the work of the various national governing bodies. Those organisations, many of them voluntary and with limited resources, have built up a firm base of expertise in risk management and have made a significant contribution to the safety of outdoor pursuits and to standards at both national and international level. I have wanted to get that on the record for some time, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
22 Feb 2005 : Column 69WH
As I said, I do not necessarily accept that we have a culture of legislation or that regulations favour risk avoidance over risk management—certainly not in the case of health and safety at work regulations. We have a culture of risk avoidance on the rules that people use to implement the goals set in health and safety regulations. Bill Callaghan, who chairs the HSC, hit out in his interview yesterday at just that issue when he attacked the heavy-handed rules covering paddling pools—a point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—gravestones, games of conkers, which we heard nonsense stories about, and even parish walks.
We need a sense of proportion in assessing hazards and an end to over-zealous red tape. The hon. Gentleman's example of the ratios of adults to children in swimming pools is one such case. There is no specific law or regulation relating to pool safety. The HSC certainly does not stipulate adult to child ratios or how many children under a given age one adult can supervise in a pool.
Lembit Öpik : The dialogue that the Minister is embarking on is exactly the dialogue that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and I are seeking to raise in the political agenda. Is she willing to meet us to discuss specifically the kind of things that we think could make the Government proactive in managing risks? I am not blaming them, but they do have an opportunity to address the problem in that way. From what she says, I am optimistic that we may have common cause.
Jane Kennedy : I would be happy to engage in that. Indeed, we could discuss the legal definition of risk, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is, as he appreciates, a complex issue. There is no statutory
22 Feb 2005 : Column 70WH
definition, but there is much common law. He and the hon. Member for Canterbury are at much greater liberty than I am to comment on decisions that might be taken in courts, but there is common and case law consideration of what reasonable measures need to be taken to reduce risk.
On the suggestion that we might appoint a champion of our outdoor pursuits manifesto, what I have said already shows the breadth of interest across Government on the issue, not least in the Department for Education and Skills. This is not a decision that is mine to make alone, but I will consider it further and discuss it with my colleagues.
The debate has highlighted the significance of risk as an issue of public interest, but unfortunately that discussion is often polarised. At one extreme, there are those who appear to take an excessively risk-averse approach and who want a risk-free society. I regard them as bonkers, because it happily rhymes with conkers, which they want to ban. At the other extreme, there are those who dismiss health and safety out of hand as being an unnecessary infringement of their freedom of action—one might categorise them as critics of the so-called nanny state.
The Government and the HSC recognise that there must be middle ground, and we must work to discover and uncover it. I fully agree with the comments made at the launch of the all-party group on adventure and recreation in society, when it was said that
The HSC's strategic framework takes the middle ground. Our goal is to have not a risk-free society, but one in which risk is properly appreciated, understood and managed.
| Index | Home Page |