UK Parliament / Open data

Compensation Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Earl of Erroll (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Compensation Bill [HL].
My Lords, I rise to strongly support the amendment. It is about perception. I agree with noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in as much as he points out that many motor insurance policies state that one must not apologise. That has given rise to a public perception that one must not apologise in any circumstances whatever. I know that that has anecdotally extended to the medical profession and hospitals. It is simple to take one of the noble Lord’s points: the distinction between an apology, ““Oh gosh, I am sorry””; and, ““I was not looking when I did such and such””, which is a statement of possible negligence—““I turned out of that side road without looking””. That matter needs a clear message. I know from talking to Elizabeth France, for instance, who runs Otelo, the Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman, that many of the matters that she deals with arise because the two sides have not got round to sorting out that apologies are what is in order rather than where the blame lay for some misunderstanding. She often gets the company to give the person a £25 discount off their next bill—as she has put it, the equivalent of a bunch of flowers. That solves endless litigation, screaming, shouting and so on. An apology or recognition that there was a misunderstanding is often all that someone wants. That will often stop the matter going further, regardless of where the blame really lay. At the end of the day, many such claims are against the public purse—local authorities, the medical profession and so on. That is a cost to the taxpayer. If we can save that money, that is hugely important. Sending out a message like that and making it clear would solve many misunderstandings. Many people feel that the only recognition that a mistake has been made is their day in court, whereas the equivalent of a bunch of flowers would have sorted it all out in the first place. They just want recognition that a mistake was made; they do not necessarily want to bring the system down—which is what it gets escalated into now.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c661-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top