§ Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North)In every free nation, in every age, there is a tendency to dwell on the failings and shortcomings of society, usually at the expense of that which is good. One has only to look at the numerous stories in our media to gain the impression that thuggishness and criminal behaviour are the norm in this country. Yet it is the very fact that such activities are relatively rare that makes them so newsworthy. Paradoxically, their rarity leads us to believe that they are commonplace. But those activities in society that really are commonplace tend to be ignored. They do not get the recognition and prominence that they deserve.
It is pleasing, then, to have the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to pay tribute to the many millions of people in Britain who selflessly give up their time freely for the benefit of others. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that some 23 million people undertake some form of voluntary work each year. There are more than half a million organisations currently in this country whose existence depends largely on the generosity, time and good will of ordinary members of the public in providing help for a huge range of causes.
One need only look at some of the major charities in the United Kingdom to get an idea of the scope of the voluntary activity in this country today. Barnardos, for example, raises and spends more than £50 million each year on child care. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution, through the seemingly unending efforts of its fund raisers, provides, at no cost to the taxpayer, a totally comprehensive sea rescue service which is the envy of the world. Looking around at our hospitals, our schools, our citizens advice bureaux, we see millions of people giving their time for no reward save that of knowing that in some way they are improving the lives of others.
I think that it is easy to take for granted this huge welter of voluntary activities going on every day. We talk all too often of the great pillars that hold up our society, yet too seldom do we recognise the strength of the voluntary sector as one of those pillars, quietly touching most people and forming an important link between the individual and his or her fellow citizen. It is not just the big charitable organisations that do that. Look at the network of voluntary associations that tie people into their neighbourhood. Look at the parent-teacher associations, look at the meals-on-wheels, look at the scouts and the guides.
Within the constituency of every hon. and right hon. Member there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of active voluntary organisations. We should not forget that many of them have a laudably symbiotic relationship with the state, the latter providing some of the funding and encouragement to enable the former to mobilise volunteers to fulfil much-needed caring roles. These, surely, are some of the finest examples of genuine partnerships between the public and the private sector. Within my constituency one only has to cite the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust in its efforts to provide education to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and to care for those unfortunate enough to have contracted the virus. That is an excellent example of the state and private individuals working together for a common good. The funding that the Terrence Higgins 789 Trust receives from the Department of Health enables those volunteers to mobilise their skills to prevent the disastrous spread of this cruel disease.
I hope that, even in these times of financial hardship, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will urge his colleagues to continue to recognise the practical and financial benefits of investing in that form of voluntary organisation. Funding from the Department of Health and, for education in our prisons, from the Home Office, is just the sort of pump priming that is needed to unleash the reserves of voluntary effort and remove the burden of those activities from the shoulders of an already overburdened state. It would not make sense to cut what, to the Government, are relatively small amounts of money for such organisations, if the Government then have to pick up the increased bills through other governmental bodies, such as the Health Education Council or local authorities.
I said earlier that people undertake those tasks for no tangible reward, yet there is no harm in recognising occasionally those who do not actively seek any recognition for their work. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already hinted, in his Carlton club speech earlier this year, that the reform of the honours system is likely to lead to greater emphasis on rewarding those who give so much of themselves for the benefit of others. But he went further in that speech when he said:
We need, through the honours system and other networks of recognition and encouragement to give the volunteering movement extra support".Well, I should like today to raise an issue that would provide simple and practical encouragement to many organisations. I refer to the concept of Good Samaritanism. In essence, Good Samaritanism is a term used to describe the encouragement of indivduals to lend support to those in distress while freeing them from the discouragement brought about by the threat of potential civil action if something should go wrong.Let me illustrate the point with an example brought to my attention by the St. John Ambulance Brigade, itself one of the two foundations of the Order of St. John of which Her Majesty the Queen is the sovereign head. The St. John Ambulance Brigade does unstinting work, both in teaching people first aid and in providing trained first alders for public events. Indeed, many of the sporting events, fetes, and fairs that are enjoyed by millions of people throughout the country would not be possible without the wholly voluntary dedication of the St. John Ambulance Brigade. Last year, the brigade gave around 4 million hours of public duty. Its recent Breath of Life campaign gave some 100,000 people, free of charge, essential resuscitation information and techniques.
There is no doubt that the activities of the St. John Ambulance Brigade should be positively encouraged; yet in November 1988 it faced litigation in the High Court which signalled a serious threat to its activities. In brief, the bridgade had been providing first aid at a motor cycle scramble in Bedfordshire. During one race, a young man fell of his motor cycle and lay prone on the track. His father urged him from the sidelines to get back on his bike and finish the race, but he did not move. Members of St. John, having been unable to persuade the organisers to stop the race, went to his aid amid the noise and cacophony of the racing motor bikes. They asked him a series of basic questions to assess his state, one of which 790 was whether he could move his toes—a way of testing for back injury. His replies led them to believe that he could safely be moved, and they proceeded to do this. Afterwards it transpired that the boy had suffered back injuries, which he claimed had been aggravated by the action of the St. John Ambulance Brigade. The brigade was therefore sued and was forced to fight his action in the courts. The learned judge concluded that the members of the brigade had strictly followed the indications in its first aid booklet and hence the brigade could not be guilty of negligence.
In this case, despite winning in court, costs were not awarded to the brigade's insurance company, which I believe had to pay some £50,000 for its defence. The result has been, naturally, a hefty increase in the subsequent insurance premiums. But the needless cost was not the only worring aspect of the case. The learned judge made it clear that it was the strict adherence to the first aid booklet which saved the St. John ambulance men from being found guilty of negligence. The implication of this is that a first aider, in the heat of the moment, possibly in a life-or-death situation, is protected only if he or she, follows the text book to the letter.
At a time when the Prime Minister is seeking to encourage the greater involvement of people in the voluntary sector there seems here to be a positive and practical measure that can be used to remove a strong discouragement to certain forms of voluntary work.
In a number of states, both in Europe and America, there exists the legal concept of Good Samaritanism. I shall quote from the law of the state of Missouri in the United States of America. Its 1979 Act, entitled
An Act relating to the Civil liability of physicians and registered professional members rendering emergency care and assistance",contains the following section:Any other person who has been trained to provide first aid in a standard recognised training program may, without compensation, render emergency care or assistance to the level for which he or she has been trained, at the scene of an emergency or accident, and shall not be liable for civil damages for acts or omissions other than damages occasioned by gross negligence or by wilful or wanton acts or omissions by such person rendering such emergency care".I believe that this country would benefit from an adapted version of that law. I have in mind a Bill of just two clauses, the first of which might say:Any person who otherwise than for remuneration renders first aid or other personal care or assistance to a person injured or affected by any accident or emergency shall not incur thereby any civil liability save for gross negligence or wilful misconduct".The second clause could state:A person so acting shall be entitled to the benefit of the foregoing section whether or not he or she is qualified or trained in medicine, nursing or first aid".Such an Act, were it to be promoted, would wipe away the discouragement that currently prevails in certain parts of the voluntary sector.I think that there is no doubt that concern for one's neighbour and knowing how to save his or her life is a part of good citizenship. Good Samaritans acting sensibly should be encouraged and should be legally protected. I urge my hon. Friend to consider seriously the possibility of introducing or supporting Good Samaritan legislation along the lines that I have described. Millions of people undertake voluntary work and none of them seeks any reward. But, similarly, none of them relishes the thought of protracted and precarious legal wranglings when he or 791 she has acted responsibly and in good faith. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some reassurance when responding to the points that I have read.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack)I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on obtaining this debate. He has raised an important subject in the House. I also thank him for his courtesy in telling me what would be the general line of his inquiry. I hope that my reply will be the better informed as a result of the courtesy that he has shown to me.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend put at the centre of his debate the St. John Ambulance Brigade. As someone who has taken part in motor sport, I understand the vital role that it plays in being there when it is needed. Perhaps all too often we take the service for granted because it is always there. One could hardly imagine a sporting occasion in Britain at which the brigade's smartly turned out uniforms and obvious awareness of what was happening were not evident. The brigade has become part of the furniture. The fact that my right hon Friend drew attention to that particular item of furniture is important.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I presume a moment of his time to put on the record the work that St. John Ambulance does in Fylde. Mr. Michael Wren Hilton and Mr. Steve Williams have singularly dedicated themselves to that work. I took advantage of the foreknowledge that my right hon. Friend gave me of the subject of the debate to ask Mr. Wren Hilton for his thoughts on the central issue at the heart of the problem. He shares with my right hon. Friend the anxiety of St. John members. He acknowledged the relationship between the problem and public liability insurance. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
My right hon. Friend was also right to mention the concept of Good Samaritanism. I hope that in my remarks I shall not pass by on the other side of the road by ignoring any of the points that he raised. That is the essence of volunteering. The volunteer is the person who does not pass by the problem. The volunteer is the person who says, "I see a problem. What can I do to help?"
The selfless actions of the St. John Ambulance Brigade are a clear demonstration that there is a boundless pot of innate decency among most people in our society and a willingness to give and to help. In his new year message, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister touched that chord. It is a positive chord to strike at a time when, as my right hon. Friend rightly said in his comments about thuggery and crime, we must perform an important balancing act. We must recognise that all is not wrong in our society. A great deal is right, but a great deal more could be done.
I wish to spend a few moments on the technicalities as we see them of indemnity insurance and some of the risk factors to which my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House. I fully recognise the anxieties of the volunteers who render emergency assistance. They come forward in good faith and with the greatest care. Yet they could somehow find themselves the target of litigation. I understand and share that anxiety. But I hope that the House will understand that I am, sadly, not in a position to comment on the specific case to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention.
792 The subject is difficult and complicated, as my right hon. Friend said. It has many legal implications. It goes wider than health care and beyond my remit as the Minister with responsibility for the voluntary sector. I accept the responsibility as rapporteur, if I may use that term. I shall comment in a little more detail on some of the points that my right hon. Friend made, but I undertake to ensure that the other parts of government who should be listening to what he says are fully appraised of his arguments.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to the subject of insurance. The position of charities engaged in community care activities is no different from that of non-charitable bodies in regard to the risk of claims for negligence. The charity trustees or charity can protect themselves and their staff and volunteers by taking out appropriate public liability insurance. Although my right hon. Friend drew our attention to some of the problems that arise when that insurance is invoked, I checked to ensure that that type of cover was generally available. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that cover is available for those who seek it. Trustees, when taking out such insurance, should act prudently and in the best interests of the charity. They should ensure that they do not pay more than they need to and that the cover is appropriate to the risks involved.
We need to consider the questions that arise about matters of negligence, which lay at the heart of my right hon. Friend's speech. It is important to know how the law considers that issue. In some circumstances, those who act on a voluntary basis may be liable to compensate those injured as a result of their negligence, as my right hon. Friend said. As a matter of law, however, negligence comprises three legal elements—a duty of care, a duty in respect of breach of that duty and damage caused as a result of that breach.
In the case of volunteers, the first issue that arises is: do they owe a duty of care to any person injured as a result of their actions? Although the law often imposes a duty to take care not to injure others, there is no general duty to act for the benefit of others. I have put that in precise legal terms and I am glad to say that it does not inhibit the many thousands of volunteers who do care and, as my right hon. Friend rightly drew to our attention, give so generously of their time and talents.
When a person intervenes to help an injured party it is likely that a legal obligation arises to take care not to injure him further or to prevent intervention by a better qualified person. Should a situation arise in which a volunteer is held to owe a duty of care to a person injured as a result of his actions, the next stage to be considered is that of breach of duty. The standard of care, which conduct will be measured against, is that of the reasonable man. That standard may vary according to the circumstances of the case.
In terms of treatment of a road accident victim, a passer-by, who, in the absence of expert assistance, does his personal best to help, is likely to be judged by a lower standard than a person who is acting in the capacity of himself—a qualified member of a first aid organisation, albeit on a voluntary basis. Equally, I should also emphasise that the law would not see the work of the volunteers in the same light as professionally qualified medical workers. In saying that, I stress that I imply no criticism of the excellence of the work undertaken by the St. John Ambulance Brigade.
793 I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an important distinction in the perception of this matter. A victim would also have to show that he suffered as a result of the breach of duty—for example, that the volunteer caused his condition to worsen or that that volunteer prevented, in some way, his access to proper treatment. I hope that those specific comments are helpful and will act as a guideline to those who will read the debate and wonder how they or their organisations might be affected by those obligations.
My right hon. Friend gave us an outline of what he considered to be an elegant solution to the problem. It is one upon which those who read the record of the debate will want to reflect. My right hon. Friend referred to the Missouri Act, which might offer a simple way forward—as demonstrated by my right hon. Friend when he introduced his draft clauses. As far as we see it, however, that Act relies on a distinction being drawn between what is termed "gross" negligence and what might be described as "slight" or "ordinary" negligence. English law makes no such differentiation and it is important that the appropriate duty of care is exercised. It is for the courts to decide what that duty of care is. I do not want to leave this part of the debate without offering my right hon. Friend a further way forward, other than those words of observation. As the matter lies very much in the sector of health and the care that is associated with it, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be pleased to see my right hon. Friend and such representatives as he thinks appropriate from St. John's to discuss further the implications of what he has drawn to the attention of the House. I hope that he will take up that offer.
§ Sir John WheelerI thank my hon. Friend for that offer, which I am sure will be pursued with much enthusiasm.
§ Mr. JackI am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response.
There was a great deal more in my right hon. Friend's speech on the wider issues of the voluntary sector and I shall now touch on those. In the broader context, it is perhaps worth reflecting that the Government spend £2.7 billion in the voluntary sector a year. Our focus is often on giving and not so much, as in this case, on spending. That is a substantial sum of money. It underlines the ever-growing appreciation of what the voluntary sector can contribute, in partnership with the Government, to the life of the country. One has only to look at the voluntary movement in housing to realise what a singularly important task is taken forward, by and large, by a great deal of voluntary activity. The fact that so much public money is invested in that sector underlines the importance that we attach to the voluntary contribution.
Many people ask for direct grant assistance, on which the Government spend £470 million a year in the voluntary sector. In addition, further assistance is given through taxation and my right hon. Friend will be aware that the changes announced in the recent Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will further enhance that form of help. Many individual citizens find, 794 for example, that schemes such as payroll giving and gift aid are a convenient way to make their personal statement of commitment to the voluntary sector.
I am responsible for the ministerial group for the voluntary sector. One of the issues that we have been considering, following remarks that I made at a Charities Aid Foundation annual meeting at the end of last year, is to renew the process of proofing that I asked other Departments to take into account in devising their policies. If my right hon. Friend's support for voluntary activity is to find its place in the realms of government, the Government have to continue to develop their appreciation and understanding of the effect that their policies have on the voluntary sector. We are reissuing those proofing guidelines to ensure that, as far as possible, that dimension of our public life is taken into account when other Departments are framing policies or legislation. That continual awareness can make a great difference in ensuring that the voluntary sector finds its place in partnership with government in many vital areas.
My right hon.Friend drew the attention of the House to the Prime Minister's new year initiative. I am excited by the idea, because I think that it taps into the innate goodness, the innate wish to give and to help, in our society. I can annouce that I am actively looking for ways to pursue that objective. I have it in mind to bring into the Home Office a group of representatives, organisations and individuals from the voluntary sector to sit with me and help me to take that initiative forward. That is again a way of underlining the importance of partnership, to which I attach a great deal of importance. If we are not, in simple terms, to reinvent the wheel, and instead to amplify what is there and derive great benefit for society out of that, the voluntary sector must play an equal part in developing the way forward. I am determined to see that work through.
As to my specific roles in terms of the criminal justice system, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the regard that the Home Office has for the work of the voluntary sector. For example, we have said that 5 per cent. of the probation services budget should be spent in the non-governmental sector in a spirit of partnership in dealing with offenders and ex-offenders in the community. That again underlines the importance of the voluntary sector in dealing with sometimes the most difficult of issues. It is sometimes easy for a good charity to persuade people to give, but it is much more difficult for that charity to show that it can work with difficult individuals. Organisations such as the Society of Voluntary Associates show what can be achieved.
Through our initiatives such as those on safer cities and on drug prevention, the voluntary sector is making an important contribution towards crime prevention. We in the Home Office do what we can to underline that by funding the superstructure of the voluntary sector. I am delighted that we are helping the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Community Development Foundation, the Volunteer Bureau and the Volunteer Centre. They all play their part in taking forward the move for greater volunteer——
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)Order. We must move to the next topic.