Compensation Bill [HL]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in applauding the idea behind the amendment, but I do not share any of his doubts about why it may not be a proper amendment as drafted. He is right to say that one of the problems is that insurance companies say that one must not apologise—although I remind him that Lord Devlin established that not only can you apologise but, if it is right, you can admit guilt, and it is contrary to public policy to say in that case, ““That invalidates your insurance””, because public policy is forwarded by a clear admission of blame if you are to blame. Be that as it may, all that this amendment says is that an apology shall not of itself amount to an admission of guilt. If you go on to say, ““I am terribly sorry; I ran you over because I was busy on the telephone””, then the latter half is obviously an admission of guilt. But surely the bare apology should be encouraged, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, without being an admission of guilt. Let us, equally, take the question of redress. Let us suppose that a child aged 10 with a brand new bicycle runs out in front of my car, is knocked over and the bicycle smashed. His mother says: ““Poor Willy. He has been saving up for that for ages. He is terribly unhappy about it””. I, being a man of adequate means, agree to buy Willy—I am not referring to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—a new bicycle. I do not do so because I am to blame.