Is SARAH common sense or a get-out clause? Shared ethics is a vital part of Belonging

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill 
Shared ethics: shared responsibility

Mixed feelings on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, getting its second reading in the House of Commons today.

Does this new Bill encourage people to jump in and take social action? 
Or provide a get-out-clause for them to avoid being sued?

Certainly taking social action - doing something rather than standing by when someone is in need of help - is how we sustain our communities and uphold our society's ethics. Shared ethos is a vital part of Belonging. 

The rule of law works precisely because of this: integrity is both an individual and collective responsibility.

But a separate law to say 'it's OK to take part' feels a bit forced.

It has come about from serious concerns that people may avoid taking action for fear of recrimination and compensation-seeking.

As the introduction says:

"The bill has been developed in response to concerns that people may be put off from taking part in voluntary activities, helping others or intervening in emergencies due to worries about risk and liability. The government also wants to make sure that when people such as employers have been taking a responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity and something goes wrong, the courts will take account of the circumstances.

The bill therefore contains measures to reassure people that if they’re acting for the benefit of society, intervening in an emergency or demonstrating a generally responsible approach towards the safety of others during an activity, then if something goes wrong and they are sued for negligence or for certain breaches of statutory duty, the court will take full account of the context of their actions."

The ambulance-chasers, the class-action lawyers hearing cash registers ringing, the parents blaming the school for a simple knock-over in a playground: they've all added up to a massive cost in both cash and justice.

But is there a risk this is interpreted as impunity for vigilantism or lack of due diligence for Health and Safety?

We are assured not:

"The bill does not tell the court what conclusion it should reach and does not prevent a person from being found liable if the circumstances of the case warrant it. It does not therefore give anybody licence to take unnecessary risks with people’s safety or leave the injured party without a remedy when the defendant has failed to meet the appropriate standard of care."

Critics have said the new Act is unnecessary as the 2006 Compensation Act already does this job. It was devised to "find ways to discourage and resist bad claims; and to improve the system for those with a valid claim for compensation".

Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, is referred to in The Times article today on the new Act:

"British people have become too inclined to blame someone else when something goes wrong, the justice secretary said yesterday.

Chris Grayling said the “blame someone else” attitude in society had helped to fuel a compensation culture that needed to be broken."

The Government Factsheet  stresses the considerations for acting responsibly and taking reasonable care, and that the Act

"..will not tell the court what conclusion it should reach and does not prevent a person from being found negligent if the circumstances of the case warrant it. Nor will it have any bearing on criminal liability."

But this comes alongside moves from the Government to reduce the powers in the UK of the European Court of Human Rights.
  
So is this new Bill merely a way of reducing the weight on employers of pesky Human Rights or Health and Safety directives?

We express our belonging in our ethics and how we collectively uphold those standards. Language tells much. The emotionally-loaded title - "Social Action", "Heroism" - is less objective than the usual cold, neutral wording of the Westminster Bill-presses.
Wrapping this up in phrases like 'reasonable care' makes it all sound like common sense. But as human rights come under pressure the shared sense of ethics can become less common. 

It'll be interesting to see how the debate goes in this afternoon's Parliamentary business.
Though any coverage will be overshadowed by the PM's statement on the tragedies in Ukraine and Gaza. 

And in those horrors we see what can happen when we express belonging through violence, making our boundaries so small and fragile. 

Yes, Westminster, we could do with a lot more social action, responsibility and heroism. We need more SARAH: on a global as well as a national scale.