---

NHS Redress Bill [HL]

That is a very helpful reply from the Minister, for which I am grateful. I have a worry, which it is perhaps appropriate to raise here. It was mentioned at Second Reading, but I do not think that we have raised it since. The Government scheme is wide open to spurious claims. For a would-be claimant, who wants to try his luck, the scheme seems to be a total one-way bet. It is both cost-free and risk-free. The department’s policy statement, published last week, says something rather interesting in paragraph 6. It says:"““It is possible that the scheme will initially attract claims without merit. These claims will be rejected because the redress scheme will require a qualifying liability in tort arising under the law of England and Wales””." I do not know what basis there is for saying that ““it is possible”” the scheme may attract claims without merit, nor can I understand why this possibility should only apply ““initially”” under the civil legal aid scheme at the moment. Absolutely nobody is deterred by lack of merit. The success rate in medical and pharmaceutical litigation clearly shows that merit is scarcely a consideration if there is a sniff of risk-free taxpayers’ money. So I wonder what makes the Government think that the same will not apply here. We shall go on to debate Clause 8, so I do not want to anticipate that too much. Can the Minister clarify the one point I raised earlier, which was the question of which pot of money the legal fees were coming out of? Will they be coming out of the legal-aid budget essentially or out of another pot? Is he able to tell me?