Compensation Bill [HL]

I can understand what the noble Earl wants the amendment to do, but I must tell him what it will actually do. The difficulty is that it would mean that, even if you have in the apology a clear admission of fault, it would not be allowed under the amendment. That is the reality of the way in which the amendment would work. I agree with what noble Lords are seeking to do, which is saying that we need to move to a position where saying you are sorry for something is not saying, ““Therefore I am guilty””. I have some difficulties, and noble Lords will appreciate that in every Bill one wishes to see things in legislation that frankly I cannot see a way of putting in because they do not really belong there. The noble Earl is seeking to create almost a cultural shift of people with feeling able to apologise and not feeling that is a relevant factor in a case. My understanding is that it is not, but if the apology included, ““I ran into the back of your car because I was listening to the cricket””, it should be, because you have said that it is your fault. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of, say, a motor accident where someone has clearly been at fault and says so is probably mightily relieved that at least the person has admitted it so he can move on with the rest of his life. One of the areas where this will be addressed, and where this will be of huge benefit, is in the NHS, where in so many cases it would have made a really big difference, even where it is not a case of someone having suffered terribly, but, in a sense, it has been a contributory factor. People have felt that no one admitting anything, or just saying sorry that it happened, has been a really big issue. I am not disagreeing with the noble Earl; it is just unfortunate that it does not quite work in the law in the way in which the noble Earl would wish. I would not want to rule out those apologies that go alongside the, ““It was my fault, I will sort it”” statement, which would be covered by the amendment, unfortunately.