Compensation Bill [HL]

I support the amendment; it is extremely sensible. There is certainly a public perception that you should not say sorry, especially after a bump in a car or something like that, because it immediately prejudices your case and will be the first thing that the insurance company will worry about. If we are told that it does not matter whether or not you say sorry—as we probably will be—why do we not state that clearly in the Bill? We are trying to make some declaratory statements at the start of it to ensure that people understand the current law. On the other hand, if saying sorry makes you liable, we should change the law because, in that case, the law is an ass, because that is the natural thing that the civilised community say, and it will often stop something escalating. I recommend the words of Elizabeth France, who is head of the telecoms ombudsman Otelo, which is an alternative dispute resolution service. I remember her saying in her annual report that a lot of the time the cases are just a misunderstanding between one company and a subscriber and often just a small discount—as she put it, the equivalent of a bunch of flowers—will put everything straight. The person will be pleased as punch, happy with the decision and the whole, expensive procedure need not have been started at all if only someone at the beginning had just said, ““I am terribly sorry. We may be in the right, but you clearly misunderstood and here is the equivalent of a bunch of flowers””. We should have that in any civilised society, and we should have it in the Bill because that would clear up the situation.