Compensation Bill [HL]

My Lords, the debates on this Bill have been marked by consensus and common sense and by the positive, constructive and patient approach of the Minister and her team. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his very positive approach. The Bill leaves this House looking outwardly much as it did at the outset, but some important changes have been made. As the Minister knows, although we have broadly supported the retention of Clause 1, we do have certain doubts. The courts will have to build up case law relating to this new concept of ““desirable activity”” and we cannot be sure precisely where that will lead. There is also a danger that it may be applied unevenly. However, a half-full cup seems preferable to an empty one, and I am very grateful to the Minister for amending Clause 1 by explicitly extending its terms to include breaches of statutory duty. I am particularly grateful for her comments on the new Clause 2. It was designed to clarify the law, not to change it. The intention, which I share with the Minister, is to change perceptions, behaviours and outcomes. In the new Clause 2 we are reasserting in statute that to apologise, to say sorry, is something separate and wholly different—legally as well as socially—from an admission of liability. I am particularly pleased that the Minister conceded that point. There are three distinct provisions: an apology shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty; an offer of treatment shall not of itself amount to such an admission; and an offer of other redress shall not of itself amount to such an admission. If this clause is accepted in another place, as I hope it will be, the effect on people’s behaviour could be dramatic. So we have done our bit to restore some civility to society. I sincerely hope that the new Clause 2 will give a great boost to rehabilitation. I know that the Minister shares that view. The principle of mending the person must lie right at the heart of the civil justice system. I look forward to hearing from the ministerial working group, which the Minister chairs, on a whole range of measures on rehabilitation to put it at the forefront of government policy. We must stop it being a Cinderella service and we must ensure that it is joined up. There is often a postcode lottery, and rehabilitation gets caught up in the crossfire between opposing lawyers. Over 80 per cent of injuries suffered in road traffic accidents are soft tissue injuries that would benefit from immediate, swift and targeted treatment. Sadly, there is all too infrequently the opportunity of delivering that treatment to victims. I hope now, with the Government’s announcement today, that a clear signal is sent to everyone that rehabilitation is a good thing, no ““ifs”” and no ““buts””. I make no further comment about Part 2 except that I hope that the Government’s wish to see regulation in place by October will be fulfilled. We need a system of effective regulation and a regulator that possesses impartiality, independence and integrity. I know that the Minister shares that view. She is aware of my enthusiasm for the FSA model of regulation, and I know that she is still considering that aspect. In closing, I re-emphasise my hope—not just my hope—that this Bill is just part of a great interlocking jigsaw of measures that will kick the so-called compensation culture into touch for good. What an achievement that would be.