Compensation Bill [HL]

My Lords, as I understand it, the issue was explained in a way that takes it wider than that—certainly in the Chief Medical Officer’s report, if I recall the wording rightly. In any event, I suppose that where I take issue with those who have doubts about the amendment is over their constant reference to the courts. I do not want the courts to be involved. I know that the courts can easily differentiate between an apology and an admission of liability, but we want there to be a change of attitude and perception. I certainly do not want to change the law, but I would like to change the perception that you cannot say sorry. I do not see what is wrong with that; I would like people to say sorry. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has expressed reservations, which I can readily understand. However, I say to him that I am dealing only with perception. I suppose that he opposed Clause 1 on the ground that it could complicate the situation. I hope that what I am proposing will simplify the situation, so that cases do not have to go to court. Insurance advice would no longer be that you cannot say sorry; it would be, ““Well, you can say sorry, but don’t admit liability””. The wording of the amendment—for which I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as it was his suggestion—contains the key phrase,"““shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence””." I recognise that parliamentary counsel are always worried about the law of unintended consequences. I can well understand why they are, as there have always been far too many unintended consequences from legislation—like the present Government, I speak with some scars. The noble Earl spoke about sending a message. We want to send a message to people that they can say sorry. I am prepared to make an offer to the noble Baroness, as she made one to me and, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I would like to test the opinion of the House, but I am not wedded to this wording; I am wedded to the concept of making it possible to say sorry. There may well be a need to refine the language that I am using. If we could have discussions with parliamentary counsel on a way forward, I would be very happy to accept any tidying-up changes that do not go to the fundamental concept but which perhaps improve the provision in the way that parliamentary counsel would like. I am very open to that. I am not entirely sure when Third Reading will be, although I think that it may be on 27 March. I am perfectly happy first, however, to test the principle. I feel that the principle of people saying sorry and offering redress is a very good one and I would like to know whether the House agrees. I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 157; Not-Contents, 144.