Promotion of Volunteering Bill

Public Bill Committee, 12 May 2004.

Standing Committee C

Promotion of Volunteering Bill

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I remind the Committee that a money resolution is necessary for clause 2(5). However, I note that an amendment to leave out that subsection has been tabled in the Minister's name, so the Committee can agree to the amendment and then continue to consider the rest of the Bill.Clause 1 Interpretation

Clause 1 - Interpretation

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this we are discussing the following amendments:

No. 29, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert

'(other than a person acting in his capacity as an employee of that organisation or body)'.

No. 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 65, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

'(c) an instructor of the Combined Cadet Force, the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps or any other uniformed youth organisation administered by the Armed Forces or Police whether or not such person is paid.'.

No. 31, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).

No. 63, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

' ''paid employee'' means any natural person employed by a voluntary organisation whether or not paid at the time and ''employee'' in the Act shall be construed accordingly as including any such paid employee.'.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I assure you, Mr. Taylor, that I shall trouble the Committee for only a moment, as the debate has already been extensive.

As probably the only member of the Committee who has a working farm—I take a lively and direct interest in it, despite my other duties—I want to record for the information and benefit of the Committee the fact that, in my experience, permission by farmers and landowners allowing their land to be used is an important part of the scene. Although we may table further amendments in another place, I stress that the Bill is about giving such permission voluntarily rather than for payment, which is the norm. I have often said to my wife that if I kept a register of all the things that people ask to do on my land, let alone of what they might do without permission, I would have a busy time. Only yesterday, I received a telephone call asking whether some people could ride their horses on my set-aside land.

I do not want to detain the Committee, but I add one further consideration. Farmers usually give permission readily. Prudent farmers check with their insurers whether they are covered, and the typical insurance policy certainly allows such activities, on notice, without an additional premium. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if a run of adverse experience leads to claims, it will feed into the costs of premiums. As a result, even if farmers do not make money from the process—most do not do so for such occasional uses—they may be faced with higher third-party liability premiums. That would depress their readiness to allow such activities. I simply record that negative aspect for the Minister's consideration.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and to the Minister for mentioning the anomalies between the various amendments.

I stand by everything that I said about farmers and landowners—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has just made an eloquent point on the subject—and about the importance of the cadet corps. The bulk of the activities of the cadet corps are unpaid, except for the Army and Air Force cadets when they go off for the weekend and sometimes the Sea Cadets.

Our debate has thrown up the fact that the Bill has missed an important group. The hon. Member for Loughborough mentioned part-time coaches, but a problem also arises with regard to adventure training. The Youth Hostels Association, which is a strong supporter of the measure, would be deeply concerned if it thought that producing a certificate to secure protection would shift the burden to paid wardens in youth hostels. Amendment No. 63 would extend the measure to full-time or part-time paid employees of voluntary organisations.

Amendment No. 65 is a drafting amendment. It was pointed out to me that the description of the various categories of people is not clear. For example, some are affiliated to the Royal Navy as naval cadets, but there are at least three groups, and they have recently been reorganised. I have therefore listed the names of the principal groups and taken advice to word the provision so as to cover new groups.

As I said, I am happy to accept Government amendments Nos. 28 and 29, but I urge the Committee to resist Government amendments Nos. 30 and 31 and to support my new amendments Nos. 63 and 65.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

It is a pleasure to be chaired by you, Mr. Taylor, and I am confident that it will continue to be.

As I explained, under paragraph (b), the term ''volunteer'' would be extended to a farmer or other landowner who may permit his land to be used for voluntary or educational activity. My concern is that that would allow such a person to permit their land to be used for such activity, knowing that the land was dangerous for whatever reason, but to seek exemption

from liability in the event of an accident caused directly by their negligence.

The Bill and its promoter, with whom I have had productive conversations to try to find a way of solving the problem that the Bill seeks to address, have a difficulty. We must recognise that the Government have not used their usual powerful panoply of tricks—it is quite wrong of me to call them that; they are, rather, the resources at the Government's disposal—to destroy the Bill at an early stage, because we recognise that it seeks to address a genuine concern. Indeed, we hoped to be able to use it to deal with that concern, but our efforts were frustrated by the fact that the more we investigated the issue, the more we believed that it risked making things worse and did not solve the problem that we are all trying to solve. That is why we are here in Committee and I have not had the joy of speaking at great length on a Friday morning, which I am quite capable of doing and have done before.

The clause is an example of the temptation to try to fix a whole load of things that are perceived to be problems, but not necessarily in a way that will work. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) cited the case of the farmer who alerted him and his sons to the fact that a particular part of his land that is a vehicle dump could pose a risk and should be avoided. The problem with the clause, however, is that it would actually allow a farmer or another landowner not to provide such information at all. Indeed, landowners who allowed their land to be used in return for a fee could seek the resource—

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I should declare that I am the owner of some farm land.

I do not want to detain the Committee, but I wonder whether inserting the phrase ''for no consideration in money or money's worth'' after the word ''shall'' in paragraph (b) would provide a solution and ameliorate the position?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

That would deal with the specific point that I was making, but not with the whole substance of my concern. The hon. Gentleman points out a flaw that needs to be remedied in some way, but my fundamental concern is that farmers and landowners should not be allowed to permit their land to be used if they know that it is in a dangerous condition, and neither should they abdicate their responsibility in respect of such land. There is a risk that the clause would allow negligent behaviour by landowners in providing them with broad protection even when they were not acting as volunteers but merely permitting their land to be used—something that is covered by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

I understand the Minister's concern that farmers might try to absolve themselves of the general liabilities arising from their occupation of the land in connection with the activities being carried on there. Those are two different risks, however, and I

should have thought that it was not beyond the wit of the Committee to devise an amendment that would split them. The provisions could enable farmers properly to assess the risks attached to the land, so that they would not transfer those risks; they would transfer the risk only with respect to the inherently risky activity.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

That is precisely why we want to remove the relevant paragraph; the inherently risky activity must be dealt with as such, and in the main, that is the approach that the Bill takes. The statement of inherent risk, about which we have reservations that will arise later, is a mechanism to deal with the risky activity. The Government want to remove the paragraph about farmers because the activity is what involves risk, whereas—this seems to me precisely what the hon. Gentleman was getting at—paragraph (b) is an attempt to introduce the issue of the state of land as a kind of escape clause, or rather, as that is not really an appropriate phrase, an issue to be thrown into the pot. It seems to us that that is inappropriate.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On payment, I should be happy to accept on Report the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). However, with respect to the Minister's broader point, as we shall see later, the provision does not wholly remove the ability to sue where reckless disregard can be shown; it simply raises the barrier for negligence.

The fact is that it is only the willingness of local farmers that makes many field trips and scout and guide activities possible. Scout masters, teachers and others are very careful about such matters. The criminal law requires them to be careful. We owe the people concerned a degree of protection, or we shall simply lose them.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I agree that we need to encourage landowners and farmers to allow their land to be used. That is sensible. However, I do not believe that the procedure set out in the Bill will succeed in doing that. It will have unintended consequences. For example, the mechanism means that the farmer or landowner shares responsibility for the risk inherent in the activity, because he or she benefits from the statement of inherent risk. It places on the other signatory to the statement of inherent risk a shared responsibility for the risk associated with the condition of the land. Frankly, in many cases, it is not possible for people to share such a responsibility. They are not in a position to do so because it involves an unknown quantity with regard to the participants and probably also to the provider of the activity.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh, because it is, relatively speaking, early in the morning, but I must say that there does not seem to be an ounce of good faith in the Government's approach. There is no allowance for the fact that, on the whole, farmers will not set out to allow young people on to dangerous land. The Minister must have anticipated the question that I am going to ask her, given last week's debate: can she provide us with an example of a farmer having allowed people on to land knowing that it was in poor condition? Perhaps she

can provide us with a plausible example, but if not, it will be clear that the Government are once again coming up with ideas that have no basis in reality.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am saying that this measure is an inappropriate way of dealing with the problem that arises. I do not believe that farmers' fear of allowing their land to be used is well founded. I am concerned that the measure is an inappropriate way of dealing with the matter and that it will increase fear in the landowning and farming communities. I am trying to point out its potential consequences. The vast majority of farmers would not do what the hon. Gentleman describes. I have absolute good will, and that is one reason why such provision is unnecessary.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Clause 2(4)(c) states that a court shall

''only uphold any claim for negligence or breach of statutory duty where it would manifestly be unreasonable not to do so.''

If there is manifest unreasonableness, the courts could push a coach and horses through the statement of inherent risk. The Minister has things covered all ways.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I do not think so, and I will explain why. Manifest unreasonableness is required, and I do not believe that such situations will generally occur. One must consider the case law to date: in every case about landowners of which I am aware, the decision has supported the landowner—this includes parks with swings and so on—against claims of negligence related to their activities. I do not know of a single case in which the measure would be necessary, although there might be one.

Manifest unreasonableness would not necessarily cover someone who had not bothered to check whether the condition of their land was safe in every respect. The current law provides adequate protection, and the suggestion that such additional protection is required simply feeds anxiety.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

I suggest that when the Minister gets into a hole on the subject of land, she should stop digging. She says that there is no problem, but we would not be supporting the Bill if it were not for the fact that so many of us know of people and groups in our constituencies who have been unable to obtain access precisely because of the problem with which it deals.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

They cannot get access because of the perception of the problem.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

That is wrong. I have not practised as a lawyer for more than 10 years, but I can refer the Minister to the two leading cases—I hope that my memory serves me right—of Pannett v. McGuinness and Herrington v. British Railways Board, in which the railway company was held liable to trespassers on the railway. If she has not seen those cases, she needs to do so. Such cases are what feed fear, cause growth in insurance premiums and destroy voluntary activity throughout the country.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I have not seen that case.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

There are two cases.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I understand that. The cases that I have seen included that of the Isle of Wight and others. I will look carefully at the cases that the hon. Gentleman cites, as I have often found when looking at cases to which hon. Members have referred that their final resolutions raise questions that are rather different from those raised in debate.

On amendments Nos. 31 and 65, I sympathise with the intentions of the hon. Member for Canterbury in seeking to simplify the position of instructors of police and armed forces cadets. I have explained that paragraph (c) would give instructors volunteer status, whether or not they are being paid. Amendment No. 65 would have the same effect, but extend the scope of the Bill in this area.

There are two issues at stake, and they would remain the same even with the proposed new wording. If an instructor supervises an activity as part of his paid employment, his responsibilities are likely to be covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; the hon. Member for Canterbury and I have discussed that matter extensively. The Bill should not cut across those provisions. Employers' duty of care to their employees and to those for whom they provide a service must remain intact, and it is important that that should be sustained everywhere—in schools, and in relation to the services that have been mentioned. He would not want to lessen the impact of that legislation for cadets or trainees in those services, but I am concerned that his amendment might do so. Such services all require discipline, and introducing the proposed statement of inherent risk could open the gates to recklessness. I do not believe that that is his intention, but that is the risk.

Crucially, if an instructor from one of those services were acting in a voluntary capacity, and other than in their paid employment or on a commercial basis, they would in any event be covered by the term ''volunteer'', as defined in amendments Nos. 28 and 29, provided that the organisation for or with which they were working was covered by the definition in the Bill.

The term ''volunteer'' is very clear. When a person is involved in a voluntary activity, they are a volunteer, and when they provide a service for which they are paid, they are an employee or commercial operator. In these circumstances, I do not believe that we need specifically to identify cadet instructors. That would potentially confuse the term ''volunteer'', which is a precious term, and open up the prospect of legal challenge about its exact meaning.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

To save time, I shall ask my two remaining questions together, although they are slightly different.

First, why would a nurse walking down the street, for example, be liable to be sued if he or she helped somebody who was having a heart attack, and did so because they had a professional qualification, while somebody such as me who has no such qualification would not be liable? Would that not apply in the circumstances that we are talking about?

Secondly, what protection is the Minister offering to farmers who come a cropper after having acted in

good faith? Simply promising to do something about that is not good enough; if the Government are rejecting this proposal, we need to understand what they are promising to do and when they will do it.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

On the first point, I think that the hon. Gentleman is introducing a completely separate issue, which is dangerous. This measure covers people who are not merely walking down the street, but undertaking activities provided by a voluntary or volunteering organisation, and the question is whether they are working as volunteers or employees. That is not comparable to the issue of reasonableness and carefulness, which is different according to people's different qualifications. One example is covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and it relates to someone's professional employment. The example that he cites is not connected with such circumstances, but is more related to measures debated in the previous sitting that were rejected and to the so-called good Samaritan clause.

The second point was about what we can do for farmers. My difficulty is that I do not think that the Bill will have the intended effect. It is interesting that other organisations in the sector that were enthusiastic about it have become less so, not because they do not want the problem to be fixed, but because the more they look carefully at that problem, the more they realise that it is as much about the way in which a risk assessment is conducted and about public information and the relationship between providers and insurers as it is about what happens with litigation in court. That is the risk.

Having sought carefully to collaborate with the hon. Member for Canterbury in trying to draft appropriate legislation, I have been persuaded that a Bill that focuses on the way in which the court deals with litigation and compensation claims holds within it the profound risk of worsening the problem. It could generate litigation to test the boundaries, which would push up insurance claims.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Obviously, there will be litigation on points such as manifest unreasonableness—there is bound to be some—but at least such provision will change the boundaries of risk and lessen or mitigate it. We on the Opposition Benches acknowledge that we cannot have black and white legislation. The provision would lessen the risk and the insurance premiums, and, in due course, far more people will volunteer.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

If all that the provision did were lessen risk, it would be fine, but if it opens the door to negligence and inappropriate lack of care for children who are volunteering, as I fear it would, it would be a profound problem, which no Committee members want. That is why I am concerned.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

If there were a lack of care for children, it would manifestly be unreasonable.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I do not accept that a farmer's lack of care in investigating all the things that might exist on his farm would necessarily meet the test of

manifest unreasonableness when he says to the local scout troop, ''Oh, do anything on the land.''

Derek Wyatt (Labour, Sittingbourne and Sheppey)

Even if the Minister cannot tell me this now, could her legal officers put into the public domain their analysis of the insurance laws in Queensland, New Zealand and throughout America that have covered this issue? If we had such information, we would be in a better position to understand this issue.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I could ask for the information, but I can tell my hon. Friend that those countries have dealt with the issue rather differently. Rather than shifting the burden of proof, which is what the Bill would do, they have created a bonding system and have organised that within the insurance market. That seems to be beginning to work. One of the problems in trying to find a consensus with the Bill's promoter is that it has not been possible to develop a system as complex as those in other countries, which might be more suitable. If the consequence of shifting the burden is to allow for negligence, I do not believe that any of us would want that.

Lindsay Hoyle (Labour, Chorley)

As the Minister is developing the idea of the bond system, may I ask who would put up the money? We understand the insurance bond sold in relation to insurance companies; presumably, it must be the landowners that are to chip in for the bond. Will the Minister correct me if I have got that wrong?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The bonding system works much more with the clubs and groups occupying the land, as I understand it.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

What that amounts to is clubbing together to pay lawyers' fees. I know that the Minister wants the law changed, just as practically everyone else in the Room does, and that she has difficulty with the Government's lawyers—for what they are worth. However, as I understand it, there was a common law defence of voluntary assumption of risk—volenti not fit injuria, for those who had a classical education.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. This is a rather long intervention.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

What is wrong with seeking, through the Bill, to override the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which took away that common law defence?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

That defence still exists. Our concern is that this proposal goes much further than volenti not fit injuria, for which there is a common law defence. The proposal would open the door to unsafe practices and allow those who conduct such practices to get away with it.

The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon deserves a reply to his point. I have discovered the answer to his point about Panet and Macguinness, and it is relevant to our discussion. Those cases were decided in 1972, at a time when common law was generally agreed to be particularly harsh on trespassers. Those cases led to Parliament passing the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which sets out the

current law. It might be helpful to read what Lord Hoffman said about occupiers' liability in that Act:

''I think it will be extremely rare for an occupier of land to be under a duty to prevent people from taking risks which are inherent in the activities they freely choose to undertake upon the land. If people want to climb mountains, go hang gliding or swim or dive in ponds or lakes, that is their affair. Of course the landowner may for his own reasons wish to prohibit such activities. He may think that they are a danger or inconvenience to himself or others. Or he may take a paternalist view and prefer people not to undertake risky activities on his land. He is entitled to impose such conditions, as the Council did''—

this was in the case of the Isle of Wight council—

''by prohibiting swimming. But the law does not require him to do so.''

The concerns of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon have been dealt with by the 1984 Act.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

My hon. Friend the Minister has raised the matter of swimming; I have received representations from the Hampstead heath winter swimming club, which tells me that it is having great difficulties in its negotiations with the Corporation of London, which is responsible for Hampstead pond, about the un-lifeguarded use of the pond. The Minister's response would mean that an organisation as responsible and well lawyered as the Corporation of London is dominated entirely not by the law, but by an urban myth that there are problems with the issue; I cannot believe that.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The case that I cited—it was not to do with the Isle of Wight, so I apologise to the Committee—was about precisely that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should write to the Corporation of London to point out that the claimant in Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council suffered a broken leg after diving into a lake in a council-run country park. Swimming in the lake was prohibited, and there a notice was displayed to that effect.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will the Minister confirm that the case, which went all the way to the Court of Appeal, was resolved only after many years of extremely expensive litigation?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

That is true, and it is a problem. The case went to the Court of Appeal, and I read out Lord Hoffmann's judgment, which is absolutely clear. I recommend that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras send a copy to the corporation because the judgment deals precisely with the matter before us.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

My hon. Friend suggested that I might do well to look into things more closely. I am advised that the judgment depended on the particular facts in the case and that it is not possible to determine the extent to which the lower courts would give proper effect to the broader principles. People who are trying to swim and people who have a pond still do not feel that the law is clear enough. They think that Parliament's job is to make laws, not to say, ''Go to the courts to sort things out.''

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I understand that. The problem is that we are dealing with a matter of perception. Where the courts have reached a final decision, they have, as in the case before us, taken the view that we, as a Committee, would have wanted them to take.

Bearing in mind that many of the activities that we are discussing will be undertaken by children and that a landowner's action must be reckless if they are to be liable to prosecution, the question is whether we should legislate in a way that creates the possibility of negligence. The Bill says not that people should take basic, sensible, reasonable safety precautions, but that they can choose not to do so and that they will be free of all liability unless they are reckless in choosing not to do so. That is not what we want to achieve. All I am trying to suggest is that the risk in the way the Bill is constructed is that we will allow negligence rather than, as we all want to, preventing over-restriction, in the form of provisions that seek to make people completely bomb-proof in terms of liability.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I really must come to the aid of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who is quite correct. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 dramatically changed the defence of volenti non fit injuria. The fact, which is mentioned in an excellent House of Commons Library publication about the promotion of volunteering, is that the mere knowledge of risk does not necessarily imply assent. In the Bill, we are trying to redress the unfair balance against volunteers, which the House put in place in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

Actually, most of the cases that we are discussing have little to do with volunteers. However, bearing in mind the cases that have been decided, I do not accept that we have shifted the balance in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

There is an issue about trying to ensure that people can undertake adventurous activities safely. There should be a responsibility to conduct such activities safely and carry out proper risk assessments, and we should not encourage people to avoid that responsibility. I am concerned that the proposals might not achieve that.

I must proceed, because I am trying not to use the Committee's time excessively, yet it feels as though I am, given the length of time that I am taking.

Amendment No. 63 proposes to clarify the meaning of the terms ''paid employee'' and ''employee'', where they appear in the Bill. I am concerned that such definitions would conflict with the term ''employee engaged in volunteering'', as provided for earlier in the clause. As drafted, amendment No. 63 would enable a volunteer acting in a voluntary capacity in an organisation to be referred to as a paid employee or an employee. In such circumstances, it is right that, as has been provided for, such a person should be defined as an employee engaged in volunteering. To refer to such a person in any other way would contradict the definition prescribed earlier. Doing so would also raise questions for voluntary organisations and voluntary bodies that employ staff to pursue their work, whether those staff be employees, paid employees or employees engaged in volunteering. Such a proposal would also confuse the status of those people and would not be helpful. It is important to be clear about the status of the people whom the Bill might affect. If the

amendment were accepted, the status of people who give their time and skills freely to their employers, where the employer is a voluntary organisation or a volunteering body, would not be clear.

I have sought to cover everything. There are some further matters that, as I said, I shall seek to make more public for the Committee.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I must apologise for not welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor. With your interest in rugby league, I cannot imagine a more suitable person to chair us.

I should like to make a few quick points. First, to clear up any confusion, nowhere does the Bill touch on criminal prosecutions. The Minister raised a bit of a canard about that, but we are dealing purely with civil litigation.

Secondly, the need for the Bill derived originally from representations from my own National Farmers Union branch. Fewer and fewer farmers in my part of the world are willing to make their land available. Any hon. Member who attended the reception hosted by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and organised by ''linking environment and farming'', a group that tries to bring farming and wider communities together, would have heard more about such problems.

The Sea Cadets is a voluntary organisation and would probably be covered as a result of amendment No. 63, without a special provision of its own, whether its volunteers are paid or unpaid. As far as the public are concerned, the other two cadet forces are, for practical purposes, very nearly the same, although they are administered directly by the Ministry of Defence. Instructors give their evenings for free. At my local branch, one is a channel tunnel manager, another a policeman and another a teacher. Instructors are paid for such things as camps, when they go away for a week. Providing them with protection for their hard work in the evenings, when they are working towards more difficult activities, but not doing so when they are actually doing the more challenging activities would be manifestly silly.

Objections were made to amendment No. 63, which was drafted Mr. Michael Harbottle, a lawyer who has provided pro bono assistance and has assisted as a parliamentary draftsman on two previous charity Bills. He assures me that using ''employees'' to cover two different categories of people, exactly as drafted, avoids a lot of consequential amendments. He is satisfied with the amendment, and the Minister did not identify a problem, although she said that there was one.

I urge the Committee to resist amendments Nos. 30 and 31 and to support the rest of the group.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 29 in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert

'(other than a person acting in his capacity as an employee of that organisation or body)'.—[Fiona Mactaggart.]

Amendment proposed: No. 30, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).—[ Fiona Mactaggart.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out 'which' and insert 'to the extent that'.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, after 'business,' insert 'it'.

No. 34, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, leave out from 'gain;' to 'or' in line 14.

No. 35, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out 'school'.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

These are drafting amendments, which do not change the impact of the clause. We are merely trying to make sure that commercial organisations that provide services without profit can fall under the term ''volunteering body'' in respect of those services only, rather than in a more general way. Provided that the organisation delivering the activity did so without profit, it would be brought under the scope of the term ''volunteering body'' for the purpose of the legislation. The amendments do not have any impact on the apparent intentions of the original draft of the Bill.

We also seek to remove the word ''school'' where it appears for a second time—again, a drafting amendment.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am happy to accept most of the amendments, but my legal adviser tells me that we should resist amendment No. 34. It could leave an area of ambiguity; an example that was given was the McDonald's clean-up squad. Those are people, in their McDonald's T-shirts, who are employed by McDonald's but work in their free time to help clean up a community. There could be a grey area as to whether they would be included under the measure. As Business in the Community was one of the early groups to support the Bill, I am anxious that those people should be included. On the strength of the legal advice on that quite complicated point, I urge the Committee to oppose amendment No. 34. I am happy with the other three drafting improvements.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am not confident that amendment No. 34 would have the effect that the hon. Gentleman fears, but in the spirit of compromise I am happy not to press the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, after 'business,' insert 'it'.

No. 35, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out 'school'.—[Fiona Mactaggart.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am prepared to accept that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. It is important that we know what a volunteer is, although I have reservations about some of the conclusions that we have come to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Statements of Inherent Risk

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out from 'person' to 'who' in line 24.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 45, in clause 2, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

'( ) If the person undertaking the activity is aged less than sixteen, the Statement of Inherent Risk must require the person's parent or guardian to explain the risks set out in the Statement to that person.'.

No. 48, in clause 2, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

'(3A) The Statement of Inherent Risk shall be signed—

(a) by or on behalf of the person presenting the Statement;

(b) if that person is an employee, on behalf of the voluntary organisation or volunteering body by whom he is employed;

(c) if the person undertaking the activity is aged at least sixteen, by that person;

(d) if the person undertaking the activity is aged less than sixteen but at least eleven, by that person and by his parent or guardian;

(e) if the person undertaking the activity is aged less than eleven, by his parent or guardian.'.

No. 50, in clause 2, page 2, line 49, leave out from 'and' to 'in' in line 1 on page 3 and insert

'the Statement has been duly signed in accordance with subsection (3A),'.

Amendment No. 59, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

'( ) In this section ''guardian'' means a guardian of a child within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 and includes a special guardian within the meaning of that Act.'.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

We come to the core of the Bill and the critical issue on which we need to focus. We have all agreed that there is a problem and the debates and discussions so far have highlighted the key problems.

The focus of the Bill is on sport and adventure. In those areas, the key issues are fear of litigation, growing insurance costs, anxiety about volunteering numbers, and dumbing down of activities in order to deal with those other problems. The hon. Member for Canterbury pointed out the health and safety impacts that that can have—for example, the impacts on child obesity and on opportunities to take part in activities.

On Second Reading, I said that the Government wished to do things to deal with those issues and that we hoped to explore what they might be in Committee. I worked hard with the hon. Gentleman to see whether we could find a way of dealing with those issues, and we still want to do so, but we believe that this Bill is not the right way to achieve the ambition that we all share.

The key issues are linked. It is inevitable that we have focused on litigation, as that is at the heart of the problem. However, the real heart of the problem is the perception of litigation. I have put a lot of energy into trying to find out the figures on litigation. As hon. Members know, I was tempted to take a similar approach to that of the hon. Gentleman by introducing legislation to deal with the problem. Therefore, I needed to be clear about precisely what the problem was. It seems that there is a significant difference between reality and perception.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I want to make two points. First, I am happy to accept all of the amendments in this group. Secondly, while we strongly disagree on the issue of

perception versus reality, may I put it to the Minister without usurping your authority, Mr. Taylor, that it would be better to debate that when we address later groups of amendments about which we have real arguments? I am very happy to accept this group of drafting amendments in its entirety without complaint.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I understand that. I am not trying to take up the Committee's time unnecessarily. I was seeking to use this opening discussion on clause 2 to address these matters because it is important to understand the heart of what the Government are trying to do. As clause 2 sets out the heart of the problem, I thought that it would be helpful if the Committee were to understand where we are coming from and what our concerns are. I am not playing a game here. The hon. Gentleman is generous in accepting the amendments but it would help our debate on later amendments on which we disagree if I set out the Government's approach now, because it has shifted since Second Reading. We have tried to look at the details.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Would my hon. Friend like to convince me that perception and reality are different?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

Yes, I will try to do that. I have spent a lot of time looking at what is actually happening. All Committee members have spoken as if the compensation culture is leading to a substantial increase in the number of claims made, the number of claims litigated and the number of claims settled out of court. Those are the sort of assumptions on which the debate has proceeded. However, figures provided by the compensation recovery unit, which has to have figures on every claim made because it deals with recovery in terms of benefits and so forth, show that claims declined by 9.5 per cent. in 2004 and that public liability incidents, which is what this sort of claim relates to, were down by 16.7 per cent., which means that there were 20,000 fewer claims.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

We are talking about volunteers, and about the fact that people do not volunteer, whether it is because of the claims or because they believe them. However, that makes no difference to the fact that they do not volunteer.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

That is true, which is why we need legislation or action that deals with that perception, rather than focuses on what happens if there is less litigation.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

We touched on this issue on Second Reading. I do not believe that the compensation recovery unit has the figures, and the Minister might correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the problem is the huge amount of claims that are settled before proceedings and the gargantuan pay-outs that are involved.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a consequence in terms of the increases in the sums that are paid. However, that has happened partly because of the increases in costs for people who

are facing a lifetime of disability following negligence. Nobody in the Committee wants settlements not to meet the proper costs of someone who is affected, and I do not think that that is his intention. I accept that there has been a consequence in terms of the sums that are paid out. Nevertheless, the perception of an increasingly litigious culture is not well founded.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I cannot understand that. Not only many lawyers, but many claims assessors and amateur claims pursuers are involved in such matters. There is a plethora of people touting for business throughout the country, which is an indication that something is amiss. Those people advertise on television all the time and in the newspapers and other media. There is a huge compensation culture, and there are many reasons for it, not least including the introduction of conditional fees. All the same, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) rightly said, perception is just as important as reality. Can the Minister explain why there has been a massive growth in insurance and insurance cover, whose cost is unaffordable for most organisations, if they can get it?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the cost and availability of insurance cover must be tackled, and that there is a perception that litigation is the source of the cost. That is why the Bill deals with what happens at the point of litigation, but I contend that the problem lies more with the points that he made, including, for example, the way in which litigants are funded—[Interruption.] I should like to deal with this intervention before giving way again. I am trying to follow the way in which these processes are made. Perhaps it would be more sensible to deal with the way in which insurance is worked out and how cases are dealt with. We have been taking those matters forward in the public liability review by the Department for Work and Pensions, and they are also being taken forward in the Clementi review. These issues are ways of dealing with the real, rather than the perceived, problems.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the figures that I cited dealt with claims that are settled or those that do not get anywhere. The best I can do on that is to mention the annual report of Datamonitor, which is generally accepted as the best source of independent business information on such things. That report showed that accident claims made to insurers rose by 0.2 per cent. in the most recent available year. Although the decline in litigation that I was talking about is true, there has been a tiny increase in the number of claims being made. There is a belief that part of the reason for the increase in claims is the growth in accident claims companies, the new way of funding cases and the perception about which we are talking, whereby people believe that large pay-outs will be made. In practice, however, that happens less.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of insurance. It is generally accepted in the insurance business that—

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The Minister's comments are straying a little wide of the amendments that are being discussed. Perhaps she could return to the content of statements of inherent risk.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am sorry, Mr. Taylor. I was trying to respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, and I was coming to his final point.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The Minister may briefly respond.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The hon. Gentleman asked why the cost of insurance had risen so much. Part of the reason was 9/11 and the fact that the insurance sector pushed up costs across the board, and not merely in the area that we are discussing. That is probably the most significant reason for the costs.

Andy Reed (Labour/Co-operative, Loughborough)

I return to the issues of the statement of inherent risk and of perception. Does the Minister understand that perception is vital, because action follows from it? In many instances, perception will be based on the reality of only one or two cases, but it is enough for a whole sector to feel the fear of being the next test case in that particular area. Therefore, although perception might well be just that, it can be based on a reality that has an enormous impact across the business. The statement of inherent risk does not just kick in at a later stage, but gives people confidence to undertake the activities.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

Absolutely. I understand that that is what people want out of this, but frankly, that is not what legislation is for. If the problem is misperception, we must deal with it. We should not create legislation that allows negligence, but it is my contention that that is what the Bill does. I do not believe that any hon. Member in this Committee would like to allow negligence, but that is what it does in practice in order to deal with an issue of perception. Hon. Members are right that we must deal with the issue of perception.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

The fact is that the courts, following the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, have extended the definition of negligence. If we in this Room are being honest, we must accept that we wish to retract the concept of negligence by introducing the statement approach. We are not afraid to say that we wish to restrict the concept of negligence; we do. However, only we can do that. No procedural changes, agreements with the insurance industry or anything like that will do it; only the courts or ourselves can do it. The courts are moving the matter in the wrong direction and we want to bring it back.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I understand that, but I think that it is largely an issue of perception about the way in which the courts have operated. In most cases where a defence of volenti non fit injuria has reached the senior courts, it has been clear that a reasonable person who is behaving sensibly and has undertaken a risk assessment is not liable in the way that it is generally assumed that people are.

Hon. Members have been asking me what we are doing to deal with the issue of perception. I think it is an important issue, and I had hoped to see whether there was a possibility of using the sort of mechanism that we are discussing without opening the door to negligent or reckless behaviour, but I believe that that is what the measure does as it is presently constructed.

We need to deal with the issue, and it is important that I answer that point.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I have been listening to the Minister, but aside from the fact that I know that Pete Jones in the Redbridge centre perceives the risk to be so great to his business that he is disinclined, in the real world, to take on volunteers, I am not clear in what way she has been talking about the amendment. So far as I can understand, everybody in the Committee agrees with the amendments. I am uncomfortable about spending so much time having a Second Reading debate when we should be examining the detail of the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am not dealing with the amendments, because I am responding to interventions. When Committee members intervene on me, I have a responsibility to respond. I was speaking to the amendments, but I have so far made no progress because I have been dealing with interventions. When I have done so, I shall return—

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am sorry for making it worse.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

We have been seeking to find ways of dealing with the issue of perception. The Government have taken a key set of actions. First, we have established the insurance cover working group, which is developing sharing schemes for insurance in a range of voluntary organisations. Those have been more robustly developed in other sectors, but they are beginning to develop in sports. Creating better relationships between providers and insurance companies has made a real difference.

We have also established the Russell commission, which is considering a youth volunteering scheme. Part of its brief is to investigate barriers to volunteering. The Department for Work and Pensions is working on employer liability insurance and has identified solutions to the perceived problem of inaccessibility of employer liability insurance. The Better Regulation Task Force is shortly to report on the compensation culture and, following last week's sitting of this Committee, I have arranged a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism to examine how insurers are treated under existing legislation.

We are trying to ensure that we have the best possible risk management. That is the key to the amendment. We want to embed risk management and to ensure that there are opportunities to learn lessons from the present arrangements. Take the example of the insurance broker who works closely with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, but had feared that caving practices were too unsafe to insure. Having met experts from the sector, he is now willing to insure the sport, which is rigorously regulated by its governing body. Such mechanisms can deliver the changes that we require.

The aim of amendment No. 45 is to clarify the circumstances in which a parent or guardian will be required to sign a statement. It makes it clear that a counter-signature is required only when the person undertaking the activity is aged under 16, and that, rather than taking full responsibility when not present, the parent or guardian should explain the risks to the

child. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury for accepting that.

Amendment No. 48 makes it clear who should sign the statement. Such people include those aged 11 to 15 who are capable of understanding the nature of the risk and the explanation that has been given by the parent or guardian—the hon. Gentleman and I discussed that earlier in the proceedings. We are eager to get youngsters to recognise that they have responsibilities where there are risks, and that they can conduct their activities in a way that helps to minimise risk. I hope that that will be the consequence of the amendment, and we shall discuss later what the signature should mean in practice. Amendment No. 50 is a consequential amendment, while amendment No. 59 is intended to clarify the definition of a guardian. We are trying to make things clearer. I am unsure whether we have achieved all that we wanted, and some matters will be dealt with later.

Our aim is to set out in clear terms who will sign the statement and what the signature will mean. That does not sound like a difficult task, but it has turned out to be one, particularly where discussion touches on the application of these matters to children and the legal effect of signed documents.

With these amendments, I have sought to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants, so I am glad that he has agreed to support them. However, I still do not think that they are perfect, and we may have to revisit them when the Bill proceeds to later stages. This group of amendments is intended to address the issues that he and I discussed at length with regard to whether this mechanism can be used.

I have expressed my anxieties, but I did not do so fully because you, Mr. Taylor, were keen for us to deal with specific points. I will express them again and more fully when we address later amendments that deal with the impact of the statement of inherent risk. In these amendments, I am seeking merely to clarify the role of the adult and the role of the child and to deal with who is signing rather than the consequences of that signature, although the Committee will need to address that point as well.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The amendments cover genuine concerns about the idea of shared responsibility that were raised on Second Reading. I am delighted to agree to all of them. I congratulate the officials who drafted them and the Minister on her wisdom on this matter.

At this stage, I am not going to try your patience further, Mr. Taylor, by entering into the debate on perception versus reality. I cited a striking real case that resulted in a real pay-out last week. I shall refer to several more cases when we address coming groups of amendments, as I want to do so where they are relevant to particular amendments, rather than here.

Amendment agreed to.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I beg to move amendment No. 38, in

clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out 'activity or activities' and insert 'sport or adventure training'.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 39, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out 'activity or activities' and insert 'prescribed activities'.

No. 55, in clause 2, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

'( ) In subsection (1) ''prescribed activities'' means such activities as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

( ) Any such regulations shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

( ) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative and other organisations as appears to him appropriate.'.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

In these amendments, I seek to clarify the scope of the activities covered by the statement of inherent risk, and specifically whether the statement should cover all voluntary activities, only activities prescribed by the Secretary of State or only sports and adventure training.

The hon. Member for Canterbury and I spoke on Second Reading and in later discussions about the activities that were most affected. His continuous contention was that the many voluntary organisations that had expressed profound concerns about the Bill were, in general, not in the sports and adventure sector and would therefore not be most affected by it. Since then, some organisations in that sector have felt, as I have done, as I have looked further into the matter, that this apparent solution might not solve the problem.

We need to see what the scope of the Bill should be and to consider whether it should cover all volunteering activities or focus on activities where there is the highest risk of the kind of accidents and events about which the hon. Gentleman is most moved. It is not just I who have moved away from feeling that the approach set out in the Bill might deal with the problem. Other organisations, such as the Central Council of Physical Recreation, feel that their original support for the Bill—[Interruption.]

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

The Minister must not misconstrue what the CCPR has said. I spoke to it this week and received something in writing from it saying that it is not opposed to the Bill, but that there may be other ways in which it would want to explore these matters if the Bill were not passed. However, it is not opposing the Bill, and it is wrong for the Minister to say that it does so.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I think that the hon. Lady misunderstood me. I said that the CCPR had moved its position, and it has. It said:

''We are also aware of the opposition to this particular piece of legislation which is being proposed, from across the wider voluntary sector and some government departments: this opposition is based on concern that there has been insufficient time to test the effects of the proposed legislation, and that there could be unforeseen consequences which could make matters even worse for volunteers and their organisations. For these reasons, we have taken the view that, rather than continue to support the Bill through Committee stage, we should use the raised awareness of the issues created by the Bill, to work cooperatively with partner organisations and government departments and agencies, towards positive solutions

to a wider range of problems than can possibly be covered by the Bill.''

That is the CCPR's view. That is not to say that it is completely certain that the Bill will not, in all circumstances, have the end for which the hon. Member for Canterbury hopes, but it is clear that it fears, as I do, that there might be unintended consequences and that using the proposed legislative mechanism to deal with perception could create problems that might more effectively be resolved by other action. That is what I am arguing for.

Ian Taylor (Conservative, Esher and Walton)

Does the Minister think that the CCPR has listened to her comments and is simply reacting in anticipation of the reality, which is that despite the appearance that she gives of being in favour of some of our concerns, she intends to kill the Bill?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I do not think that that is wholly so.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Wholly?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

There is some of that in it—[Hon. Members: ''Oh!''] These organisations came to the view that if resources could be put into tackling these issues—that is one of the offers that I made to them—and if there were ways of using the Russell commission, the insurance cover working group and the report of the Better Regulation Task Force to resolve these problems, such an approach might be more likely to produce the results and it would be in their interests to collaborate.

Kate Hoey (Labour, Vauxhall)

Ah!

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am being honest. It would be in those organisations' interests to collaborate with the Government to produce results as swiftly as possible, rather than to go for a legislative solution that might open the door to negligent behaviour, as I am advised that it will. Nobody would want the Bill to have such a consequence, including the hon. Member for Canterbury and I.

Andy Reed (Labour/Co-operative, Loughborough)

I have some sympathy with the Minister on this point. The best way forward and my favoured option is an insurance scheme. I know that Sport England has put such a proposal in its latest document. I would be greatly reassured if there were a further message from the Government that that is the route that they want to pursue, and that they want to do so quickly. The situation in Queensland works well, especially for sports and other clubs. I support the Bill, but if there were a better option on the table, I would take it, because some parts of the Bill would add burden to sports and other clubs. I hope that the Bill's promoter will address those points.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

That is exactly what I have sought to do. The hon. Member for Canterbury, being such a very honourable gentleman, will ''fess up'' to the fact that when I came to the conclusion that the legislation would not achieve the ends that we wanted and that it risked achieving the opposite by creating additional litigation, costs and bureaucracy, I offered alternative proposals that would include progress on insurance and other things.

I shall be completely honest. This issue is being pursued by a relatively small unit in the Home Office, which is providing me with the bits of paper that I am using today. We had to make a choice when the hon. Gentleman decided to pursue his Bill, and I have not said that that there is no way in which I would continue to work on proposals. I believe that the issue should be addressed. I am not putting resources into addressing it at the moment, because resources are properly being put into dealing with other legislation that is before the House. That is what hon. Members would expect a Department to do. Nevertheless, I have offered a range of solutions, including substantial progress on insurance, which I believe is possible.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. May I ask the Minister to return to the subject of the amendments, which is replacing ''activity and activities'' with ''sport or adventure training'' and so on?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

My concern is that the Bill could impose a significant administrative burden that may have a severe impact on a wide range of activity in the voluntary and community sector as a whole. Although clauses 3 and 4, which deal with bureaucracy imposed by the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Data Protection Act 1998, have been deleted, we would all agree that the Bill should not place additional bureaucratic or regulatory burdens on the sector. I know that that is the ambition of the hon. Gentleman.

The Bill would have a severe impact, especially on the wider sector, because many activities carry risks that are relatively negligible compared with those of sports and adventure activities. For the organisations involved in such activities, the benefits of a statement of inherent risk would be vastly outweighed by the administrative burden, which could take time away from the important community work that those organisations carry out. Many of them have expressed substantial concern to the Government.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

What sort of organisations is the Minister talking about?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

There is a range of them. For example, CSV—Community Service Volunteers—said:

''We feel that the bill, in particular the Statement of Inherent Risk, will lead to highly bureaucratic processes that would exclude many young people from the activities that they enjoy.''

CSV suggests that the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance would agree.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

St. John Ambulance was virtually the first organisation to send me a strong letter of support, and it has never retracted that support, so I am surprised to hear it mentioned. An amendment in a later group deals with the Minister's very point; it would make it clear that if people do not want go down this route, it cannot be taken into account by a court.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

In my view, that amendment would cause further problems.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

Does the Minister not concede that at the beginning of clause 2 there is no obligation on a voluntary organisation at the margin of these activities to provide a statement of inherent risk, and also that there is also no obligation on any voluntary

organisation that undertakes such activities to provide a specific statement of inherent risk if, in its judgment, there is no such risk in the activity covered?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The problem, and it is a profound problem, is to do with the consequences of litigating in this way. If the statement of inherent risk is as valuable as the hon. Member for Canterbury believes, insurance companies may start insisting on one for every activity. I have constantly said that one of my anxieties about the Bill is its possible unintended consequences; something akin to mandatory statements could end up being created. Volunteering England, an umbrella body for volunteering, has said:

''The bill, as drafted, may in fact contribute to bad practice. If volunteers are encouraged to sign a disclaimer or waiver, a volunteer-involving organisation may assume that it has discharged all of their legal responsibilities for volunteers, participants and those in their care. It may also discourage volunteer-involving organisations undertaking a risk assessment of their activities.''

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will the Minister confirm that Volunteering England is not an umbrella body but a Government quango? Does she accept that the issues that she is raising will be dealt with in a later group of amendments?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

It is not fair to describe Volunteering England as a Government quango. It has conferences and is accountable to other volunteer-involving organisations. It plays a quango-type role at times, but it is an independent organisation quite capable of poking the Government firmly in the eye on behalf of volunteers. It has done that to me, as Minister with responsibility for volunteers, a couple of times.

Derek Wyatt (Labour, Sittingbourne and Sheppey)

In 2002, more than 10,000 volunteers helped in the Manchester Commonwealth games. At the Olympic bid presentations in July next year, the International Olympic Committee will ask where our volunteers insurance Bill is. We will not win our bid for the Olympics unless that is covered. If the Minister is not going to cover that with this Bill, will the Government introduce their own Bill, as the hon. Members for Canterbury and for Montgomeryshire asked this and last week? Without that, we will not win our bid for the Olympics.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

We believe that we can resolve the insurance issues in a voluntary way. We have made great progress through the insurance cover working group.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I hesitate to bring the Minister back to the amendments under discussion, which relate to activities and sport and adventure training and not to insurance, but I must.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I accept your ruling, Mr. Taylor, but I was trying to answer an intervention relating specifically to sports and adventure activity volunteers, and the impact that a lack of them might have on the UK's capacity to win the Olympic bid. I would like to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). He is right

to focus on insurance, but I believe that we can deal with the insurance issue through policy action. I have already demonstrated that the number of insurance claims has not gone up, as is perceived. I assure the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, who asked whether the figures that I cited included all claims, that they do.

I agree that we need a robust mechanism that can ensure that sporting volunteers are properly insured. The work of the insurance working cover group is one way of sorting that out, as is the work of the Minister responsible for supporting community amateur sports clubs. We are making progress through such work, which is where we should be putting our energy, rather than allowing providers of activities to be negligent, which is the risk under the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

What will amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 55 do?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I was just coming to that. I was trying to deal with the interventions as swiftly as I could; the hon. Gentleman will notice that I was speaking as fast as I could in order to get back to that point.

Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 are either/or amendments; that is, they might be acceptable in their own right, but not together. Amendment No. 38 ensures that the activities covered are restricted to sport or adventure training. That is clear and succinct, but I suspect that we might need to clarify the meanings of ''sport'', ''adventure'' and ''training''.

Frank Dobson (Labour, Holborn and St Pancras)

Restricting activities to sport and adventure training would leave out play, but most children spend most of their time not on sport or adventure training but playing. Many voluntary organisations provide for play, and if we do not cover play, we will not cover many people who believe themselves to be at risk.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I understand that point. That is precisely why we offered amendment No. 39 as an alternative. One problem with the procedure governing private Member's legislation is that there is no opportunity for extensive consultation about who should be covered and who should not. We know that the wider voluntary sector has reservations about that procedure, and parts of it do not want to be covered by it under any circumstances. Amendment No. 39 therefore makes provision for secondary legislation to define the scope of the activities covered.

Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)

In the spirit of pre-consultation, may I offer for the Minister's consideration the question of education, whether formal or informal? Many of the activities undertaken in this country are related to the activities of schools, and in my earlier contribution, I may have mentioned that I am a vice-president of a country trust, which was set up with the specific purpose of encouraging school children to visit farms to learn about what happens in the countryside. That, too, is an important function, which should not be excluded under any circumstances.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I understand that. The Bill would not cover school activities undertaken in

school time by teachers. I have discussed that extensively with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who shares the desire of everyone in the Room to ensure that schoolchildren have opportunities to take risks and be adventurous while they are at school and beyond the usual curriculum. He believes that that is an important part of learning. The hon. Gentleman may remember the speech that the Secretary of State made to, I believe, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, in which he referred to the importance of that. So the Government are seized of the need to encourage that.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

I have discussed this with Farms for City Children—an organisation similar to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Daventry. The chief trustee is Michael Morpurgo, the children's laureate. The organisation arranges for children from inner cities to visit farms to see what happens on them, but it cannot get insurance, or the cost of insurance is massive. It has two or three farms. Young children go with their teachers to the farms to learn about agriculture and farming. It is a tremendous experience, but Michael Morpurgo tells me that the organisation will have to pack up unless something can be done. That would be a crying shame. Surely something must be done? That is what we are trying to do through the Bill.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

That intervention was rather too long.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I have taken groups of children to Treginnis farm, which is run by Farms for City Children. That is an excellent organisation, but it is also capable of not doing things safely at all times. I can recall an example of that. In that case, no one sued, which was a good thing, but there was an issue of risk. We need to ensure that risks are properly assessed and managed; the Government are committed to that, and I believe that it is important.

It would not be right for any organisation, even one as wonderful as Farms for City Children, to be in any way negligent about risks to children. Let us be clear that we are talking about serious accidents—in some of the cases that we have discussed, people have broken their necks. When those things might happen to children, it is important that we balance the need for children to have the opportunity to be adventurous with the responsibility held by the providing organisation to ensure that their activities are as safe as possible. I am profoundly concerned that hon. Members are seeing the matter from only one end of the telescope, and not seeing that the providing organisation has a real responsibility to make things safe.

We are supposed to be trying to deal with what is covered by the Bill. I am trying to return the Committee to the subject of the debate. Amendment No. 39 is an alternative to saying that the only area covered should be sport and adventure. It provides for secondary legislation to define the scope of activities. I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury is worried that such secondary legislation could be used in a devious way—I suppose that the word devious is probably not parliamentary language, but I am quite

certain that that is what he thinks—deliberately to make the scope of the legislation negligible. That is not the Government's intention. We seek neither to limit the provision to sport and adventure activity, nor, if that is not sufficient—for example, because of issues such as city farms—to provide for proper consultation within the sector before we legislate. The amendment has its disadvantages: it might add complexity, and it could use up extensive resources on consultation about what should be included, but it would give us flexibility now and in the future as well as time to consult on whether organisations feel that it is appropriate for them to be in or out.

Amendment No. 55 sets out the scope of the proposed regulations, which will be subject to the negative procedure.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

Going back to the Minister's previous arguments, is her argument about the difficulty caused by the need for a gap between the extension of the Bill over everything and a more narrow scope? Obviously, she is also discussing whether there is a halfway path. If there were not some form of limitation, there would be pressure on organisations that otherwise would not wish to obtain a statement to do so because, she feels, the insurance companies would insist on it. I am trying to clarify: is that her main argument?

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

We have been informed by a number of volunteer-involving organisations that they do not think that a statement of inherent risk is appropriate in their sector and in the activities that they undertake. A number of different regimes would be running, because the hon. Member for Canterbury does not intend to make the measure mandatory. We felt that our approach would be appropriate, because the desire for the measure has come from particular areas of activity, not from all activities involving volunteers; it has not come from people running fêtes or advisory organisations, for example. There is such a range of volunteer-led activities, and many of those involved with them are concerned that the provisions would be expensive, bureaucratic, and a problem for them.

In our estimation, the statement would allow negligence. If insurance companies saw that, they might want to lean on that provision. If that is how they respond, a requirement would effectively come about on organisations for whom the bureaucracy is not appropriate.

In the two amendments, we offer ways of allowing organisations that do not want to be part of the measures, and who think that they are not appropriate to them, to be confident that they are outside the regime, and I do not believe that even the promoter of the Bill particularly wants to include all voluntary organisations. One way would be to limit the provision to sport and adventure activity. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras points out, that would not necessarily include play, and that would be a problem. The second way is to allow the list of what is to be included to be defined in secondary legislation.

We are talking about a concern felt by the organisations themselves. The Scout Association says that one of the practical problems with the Bill—although it does offer some support for it—is that insurance companies may require organisations to use the facility that the Act provides to produce such a statement. We seek to prevent that from happening by circumscribing the conditions in which such a statement can be used, and that is in tune with the intentions of the promoter. If he trusts the Government not to use the provision deviously, he should accept amendments Nos. 39 and 55, which would allow regulations to be made. That would let us consult the sector and engage with people about whether they wanted to be in or out. Otherwise, I suggest amendment No. 38, which focuses on ''sport or adventure training'', as the alternative.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I shall urge the Committee to resist all three amendments.

I hope that the hon. Member for Loughborough will forgive me if I come back to his points on insurance in a later debate, although a central point has already been made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras: insurance premiums reflect real risks in courts, and we are dealing with real cases.

The central reason why I cannot agree to the secondary legislation route, on which we have had many discussions, is that the Minister still believes that the Bill is about perception and not reality. I am simply not happy to delegate matters to secondary legislation.

There are two problems with restricting the measures to sport and adventure training. The first has been outlined by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras: that route would exclude recreation, which is a large part of the Bill. The second is that, as I am told by my legal advisers, ''adventure training'' might be construed rather narrowly.

Let me give a few real examples directly relevant to the amendments. I asked the Girl Guides, at 24 hours' notice, to give me a list just before Second Reading of a few cases of actual payouts that its insurers have had to make recently. A girl caught her foot on a slide in a park, injuring her ankle. Her parents alleged insufficient supervision: £800 was paid out. As it has 500,000 members, one can imagine the consequences for the organisation and its willingness to use playgrounds. Another girl slipped on a wet drain cover. She was not adventure training; I understand that it happened in the guide hut. The parents alleged that the area was not safe for play: £3,500 was paid out.

The next case is directly and clearly relevant. A girl was cooking sausages over an open fire, an activity that would clearly be preparation for adventure training if she was going out for the weekend, but which happened in this case in the environs of the guide hut. My legal adviser tells me that that probably would not be covered as adventure training, because it

happened in the environs of the guide hut, but £5,000 was paid out.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

Were proceedings taken, or was the case settled by the insurance company beforehand?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I do not know, unfortunately; the list was prepared rather quickly. However, to return to an earlier point raised by the hon. Gentleman on out-of-court settlements, every case was agreed on the advice of the legal adviser to the Girl Guides, whose view was based on previous court cases. The vast majority of payouts are the result of out-of-court settlements.

Another case involved a girl who fell out of a bunk bed at 2 o'clock in the morning. The youth hostel is obviously a place from which adventure training is organised, although not in the narrow, technical way in which a court might interpret adventure training. Another teenager slipped on an organised walk on an uneven footpath: £5,000 was paid out.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

That is exactly my point. Bunk beds might not be safe or not properly risk assessed, and children might fall out.

John Burnett (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon)

It makes no sense.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

No, no. I mean it. A child who has not used a bunk bed before, who might sleep walk or something like that, should have a bunk bed with a raised side. I speak as a former primary school teacher; when I took the children to Farms for City Children, I made sure the children were safe. We do not know the facts of those cases, and it is important that we should. The problem is one of perception.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister will know that I do not mean it uncharitably when I say that no intervention has more clearly illustrated the divide between us.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I feel concerned. Reference was made earlier to fetes. Could not accidents happen equally easily at them? Without some limitation, would not those organising almost any event or activity feel that they absolutely had to have a statement of inherent risk? It worries me that, without some limitation, pressure could be applied across the board.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am grateful; we shall return to that subject on a group of amendments that address that specific question.

Although the Scouts were initially wary of coming on board, I have received a charming letter from their legal adviser saying that they are strongly behind us. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I apologise for not having been here for the first day's debates. I had constituency engagements, which I could not avoid, before the Committee's business was announced. I may therefore have missed some of the argument.

I am anxious that the Bill may have too wide a scope. The argument is valid that pressure could be applied and that people could insist on a statement, whatever the organisation or activity. I doubt whether the amendments would deal with that.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It may help the hon. Lady if I mention two later amendments. The first would provide that no

court was ever to take account of the fact that no statement of inherent risk had been made. The second would make it clear that statements are to be used sparingly, and not for every activity.

Judy Mallaber (Labour, Amber Valley)

I understand the tenor of that argument. However, personal experience of how insurance companies deal with some constituency

matters relating to companies and liability insurance, and some of the ridiculous—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till Wednesday 19 May at half-past Nine o'clock.