UK Parliament / Open data

Compensation Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill [HL].
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, is advancing in his amendment. I have some reservations about whether this is the right way of achieving that result. All of us are aware that some people, when someone treads on their toes, will say sorry. There are other people who will get into a rage as a result of an accident that is completely their own fault. Any court will be able to see that an apology is not in itself a clear admission of guilt. Nevertheless, there are some cases where an apology, or a statement made when the accident occurs, is in a form that clearly can be treated as an admission of guilt. Therefore, it would be undesirable to say that an apology cannot be taken into account as part of the evidence of whose fault it is. The court will have to use common sense in deciding whether it is or is not. The problem lies much more with the provision in most motor insurance policies which says that if the insured person is involved in an accident they must not apologise or do anything that could be taken in any way as being an admission of guilt. Such clauses are possibly contrary to the public interest and should not be enforced. I am therefore uncertain that this provision is appropriate for inclusion in such a form in the Bill. I await the Minister’s comments with interest.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c661 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top