Compensation Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10:"Page 2, line 8, at end insert ““but does not include an offer, in response to a claim or potential claim, of treatment or other redress for which no payment is received or expected””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will forgive me for not responding to the point he raised but I sense that we ought to try to move on. It may be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to Amendment No. 10, I indicated that in view of what the Minister said in earlier discussions I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 26, 30, 48, 49, 50 and 54. I do, however, intend to move Amendment No. 10. This is a point that has emerged since Grand Committee, although I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Eccles for pointing out during our Grand Committee proceedings that the current definition of ““claims management services”” might include actions taken by those responsible for meeting the claim rather than those seeking to profit from the claim being brought. This is of particular interest to liability insurers facing personal injury claims. A number of the major insurers wish now to put greater emphasis on ““mending the person””. Often, speed is of the essence. If your car is damaged in a road accident, gone are the days when the insurer of the person responsible expected you to go to three different garages and obtain quotes for the repairs, submit them and then wait several weeks for the go-ahead. Instead, now you will receive a telephone call from the insurer of the person responsible, or even from one of its approved garages, to arrange to collect your vehicle and then get it back on the road as soon as possible. Companies are now seeking to apply the same discipline to cases where the claimant is unfortunately injured in the accident—again, with the principal aim of getting the claimant back on his feet and back in action as soon as possible. I am sure that everyone agrees that that is a positive way forward. I hope we also agree that it was never intended in the Bill to regulate that sort of activity. I think that we should make it clear in the Bill that there is no intention to inhibit such initiatives. Just as we must ensure that we regulate all the activities that we do want to regulate with this legislation, equally we should ensure that we do not accidentally regulate any activities that we do not want to regulate. The Bill is all about changing people’s behaviour—about positively encouraging the kind of behaviour that we want to see and also about removing unnecessary impediments to it. On that basis, I beg to move.