This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/12/opposition-mps-question-chris-grayling-sarah-bill-social-action-responsibility-heroism
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Opposition MPs question need for Chris Grayling's social action bill | Opposition MPs question need for Chris Grayling's social action bill |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| With its dashing title, chummy nickname and dedication to "happiness for the wider public", the social action, responsibility and heroism bill should be a surefire winner for its sponsor, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling. | With its dashing title, chummy nickname and dedication to "happiness for the wider public", the social action, responsibility and heroism bill should be a surefire winner for its sponsor, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling. |
| Opposition MPs, however, question whether there is any need at all for legislation aimed at "encouraging people to play an active part in society". | Opposition MPs, however, question whether there is any need at all for legislation aimed at "encouraging people to play an active part in society". |
| The bill's unusual brevity has prompted parliamentary surprise. It runs to barely one and a half pages and is encompassed in not much more than 300 words. In tribute to its acronym, MPs are calling it the Sarah bill. | The bill's unusual brevity has prompted parliamentary surprise. It runs to barely one and a half pages and is encompassed in not much more than 300 words. In tribute to its acronym, MPs are calling it the Sarah bill. |
| Its stated purpose is to guarantee greater protection for employers or volunteers who might otherwise be deterred from performing worthwhile deeds or organising local community events through fear of negligence claims. Others portray it as an assault on a culture of excessive health and safety regulations. | Its stated purpose is to guarantee greater protection for employers or volunteers who might otherwise be deterred from performing worthwhile deeds or organising local community events through fear of negligence claims. Others portray it as an assault on a culture of excessive health and safety regulations. |
| During the committee stage of the bill this week, Labour's shadow courts minister, Andrew Slaughter, inquired: "Is the bill about saying to the general public 'don't feel worried about being a Scout master or trying to give first aid to someone by the roadside' or is it about saying to the senior judiciary 'you are getting this all wrong. You are supporting this compensation culture and you need to buck up'? | During the committee stage of the bill this week, Labour's shadow courts minister, Andrew Slaughter, inquired: "Is the bill about saying to the general public 'don't feel worried about being a Scout master or trying to give first aid to someone by the roadside' or is it about saying to the senior judiciary 'you are getting this all wrong. You are supporting this compensation culture and you need to buck up'? |
| A letter from Grayling to parliament's joint committee on human rights (JCHR) has been released, which critics claim proves their point: that the bill will have no noticeable legislative effect whatsoever. | |
| The committee chair had asked the justice secretary whether the legislation was intended to change the substantive law on negligence – or if it was intended merely to counter public misconceptions about legal liabilities. | The committee chair had asked the justice secretary whether the legislation was intended to change the substantive law on negligence – or if it was intended merely to counter public misconceptions about legal liabilities. |
| In response, Grayling wrote: "The bill will not change this overarching legal framework, but it will direct the courts to consider particular factors when considering whether the defendant took reasonable care." | In response, Grayling wrote: "The bill will not change this overarching legal framework, but it will direct the courts to consider particular factors when considering whether the defendant took reasonable care." |
| Slaughter told the Guardian: "This is a frankly pathetic bill that simply reveals how painfully little David Cameron has to offer in the final year of this parliament. | Slaughter told the Guardian: "This is a frankly pathetic bill that simply reveals how painfully little David Cameron has to offer in the final year of this parliament. |
| "Access to justice is under threat and our prisons are in crisis but this is what the Conservatives waste our time on. The committee stage of the bill has shown how little support there is for these measures which Chris Grayling himself admits will not change the law in any way." | "Access to justice is under threat and our prisons are in crisis but this is what the Conservatives waste our time on. The committee stage of the bill has shown how little support there is for these measures which Chris Grayling himself admits will not change the law in any way." |
| But Shailesh Vara, the Conservative justice minister piloting the bill through the Commons, insists that clause three of the bill does introduce a genuine change: obliging courts to consider whether someone "took a generally responsible approach to safety". | But Shailesh Vara, the Conservative justice minister piloting the bill through the Commons, insists that clause three of the bill does introduce a genuine change: obliging courts to consider whether someone "took a generally responsible approach to safety". |
| Vara said: "This is an important and much-needed piece of legislation. Worries about liability can drive volunteers to take out insurance when they don't need to, force responsible employers to settle damages claims out of court rather run the risk of being found negligent, and stop passersby from helping people who are in difficulty. | |
| "This bill will provide valuable reassurance to people that courts will take full account of the circumstances if someone is sued after acting for the benefit of society." | "This bill will provide valuable reassurance to people that courts will take full account of the circumstances if someone is sued after acting for the benefit of society." |
| The debate has also stirred up accusations about the interests of the insurance industry. In the course of the committee stage debate, Slaughter stated that the industry had given the Conservative party £5m or £6m in donations. | The debate has also stirred up accusations about the interests of the insurance industry. In the course of the committee stage debate, Slaughter stated that the industry had given the Conservative party £5m or £6m in donations. |
| The government's statutory impact assessment of the bill records: "Insurers and other defendants may gain from slightly reduced aggregate compensation paid and this may feed through to lower insurance premiums." | The government's statutory impact assessment of the bill records: "Insurers and other defendants may gain from slightly reduced aggregate compensation paid and this may feed through to lower insurance premiums." |
| It also notes that one of the potential benefits to society would be encouraging "participation in volunteering and other socially valuable activities. This may lead to a greater sense of community spirit and happiness for the wider public." | |
| Sarah is not the most diminutive bill ever. The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, which enabled women to be elected to the Commons, took up less than a page of paperwork and has the best claim to being the briefest. It is fewer than 100 words, a mere 27 if preamble and title are excluded. Its meaning was never in doubt. | Sarah is not the most diminutive bill ever. The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, which enabled women to be elected to the Commons, took up less than a page of paperwork and has the best claim to being the briefest. It is fewer than 100 words, a mere 27 if preamble and title are excluded. Its meaning was never in doubt. |