---

NHS Redress Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw his own conclusions from my explanations. Let me say again clearly that he is right in that, for a case to qualify under the scheme, there has to be a recognition of a liability in tort, and that it then follows that there is a likelihood that compensation or other recompense might be due under the scheme. That is the qualifying gateway for cases dealt with under the scheme. However, we are proposing the breathing space of an out-of-court settlement scheme, so that it is not necessary to go through an expensive and polarised legal process in which people dig in for a long and complicated battle, often to the great frustration of individual patients who are kept waiting for a long time. In many instances, those cases are abandoned or do not come to court. The Bill proposes an out-of-court settlement scheme at the outset, so that redress can be provided much more quickly to individual patients. The national health service will thereby be encouraged to take a positive approach to identifying mistakes and accepting and acknowledging problems by offering an apology and an explanation to such individuals, and by making financial recompense where necessary. There is no doubt in my mind about the scheme. I resist amendment No. 1 because it would import the independent legal process into the scheme and turn it into something different by replicating the rights that the patient gets under the second stage legal scheme. If this scheme fails and cannot satisfactorily give redress to the individual concerned, they will still have the right to take forward an independent legal action outside the scheme; they sign nothing away by allowing their case to be proceeded with under the scheme. The scheme does something different. I understand why the hon. Member for Billericay presses me on the question of independence, on which we have had a useful debate.