Accident Victims (Compensation) (Hansard, 30 March 1982)

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce no fault liability for death or personal injury arising from accidents at work or on the highway; and for connected purposes. The present system under which victims of accidents at work or on the road either do or do not receive compensation is an archaic, costly, slow and unjust gamble. The law should be altered to follow the lines laid down by the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury as long ago as four years. This Bill is designed to introduce the concept of no fault liability into compensation for accidents at work and on the road, and to attempt to ensure that the victims of those accidents receive compensation within a reasonable period of time and without the anguish and prolonged suffering that our present ancient and unkind system often imposes on them.

For an accident at work an injured person can at present obtain damages or compensation only if he can prove fault, if he can show that he suffered as a result of the negligence or of the breach of statutory duty, usually of the employer or of some other employee but sometimes of a third party.

There is only one notable exception. Under the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969, if an employee is injured through a defect in equipment or killed through a defect in plant the employer is deemed to have been negligent. The employee recovers his damages irrespective of proof of fault.

It is this principle of strict liability, which exists in our law only in those very limited circumstances, that the sponsors of this Bill seek to extend to all accidents, both at work and on the roads. There is no such principle in respect of any accident on the road. If a person is injured or killed in a road accident as, alas, thousands are each year, the only hope of getting damages is for him to show that his injury was caused, or for his dependants to prove that his death was caused, as the result of the negligence of another road user.

This may sound perfectly reasonable. It may seem sensible to let the courts decide. The system, however, does not work, for three reasons, each of which would be enough to invite radical change in our law. The first is that the average person cannot obtain justice in this country because, unless he is poor enough to qualify for legal aid or rich enough not to need it, the courts are not available to him. The idea that justice is available to all in the United Kingdom is unfortunately a myth.

Secondly, the time that is taken to reach a court hearing is prolonged, often five or six years from the date of the injury. During that period, the sufferer obtains no recompense whatever.

Third, when the case comes for trial, those who must attempt to recollect what happened in that instant of disaster have to apply their minds to an incident that occurred, generally in a split second, months or even years before. As a judge recently remarked: As time goes by, memory fades but recollection improves. Even when trying to be honest, people find it impossible to establish what happened in a moment long ago, when in many cases they could not recollect this even shortly afterwards.

181 The whole system of justice for accident victims is, therefore, in ill repute. The sufferers number thousands. I pay tribute to the people who have set up the National Association of Compensation Victims for bringing these people together and trying to apply much needed pressure on behalf of those who are suffering. There is no need for people like Mrs. Pat Carter or Mrs. Marilyn Salkeld to look very far to find examples of systems that are better, more compassionate and fairer than our own. Such systems exist in 24 states of the United States, in Canada, in two states in Australia, in Sweden and, above all, in New Zealand, where there is an absolutely comprehensive system. It may be paid for by insurers. It may be paid for out of State funds. But it is not right that financial suffering should be endured by those who are least able to cope with it and who should be least required by a decent society to bear it.

The costs could be set off against the legal costs of the court proceedings and the costs of the insurers. The entire scheme, in whatever form it may come to the House, would be far less expensive than at present appears and would certainly get rid of the awful lottery and gamble which now decides for so many thousands of people whether they can have decent compensation for accidents suffered either at work or on the road.