Compensation Bill [HL]

I entirely agree with the spirit of the amendment. Indeed, I record my thanks to the staff at Clapham Junction station who, last time that an incident occurred, for the first time that I have ever heard said, ““We apologise for the inconvenience that this will cause you””, rather than that horrible phrase, ““this may cause you””, which I really hate hearing. It is important to consider in what form an apology must be to be effective. If my car runs in to that of my noble friend Lord Erroll and I go round to his window and say, ““I am terribly, terribly sorry. I was listening to the match on my phone and Chelsea just scored a goal””, I think that he would be seriously upset if the new clause were in the Bill. Just because that is an apology, why should he not be able to take as evidence the facts of what I was doing? I might not repeat it when I realise the consequences. On the other hand, if you get an apology that is just, ““I am sorry””, followed by a list of exculpations—the reasons why they are not liable—you would be even more upset than if you had not received an apology. You must receive an apology that says, ““I am sorry”” and then has something by way of elucidation or explanation that gives an understanding of what has happened if it is to be accepted as an apology. Take the case of my cousin, whose wife died of an infection acquired in hospital. What could that hospital have said? Sorry would have been wonderful, and the fact that it has never said sorry is a great cause of anguish. To say, as might have been appropriate, ““We did not notice. She seemed all right to us. These symptoms could have been something else; that was the judgment that the doctor made and it is terrible that it turned out to be something else””, would be a proper apology. But how could one do that without opening oneself up to an admission of negligence? I do not know the answer; I should be delighted if the noble Baroness does.