NHS Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10:"Page 2, line 23, at end insert ““redress ordinarily to comprise-””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, concerns were raised in Committee that the Bill does not mention explicitly the making of an apology as obligatory under the scheme. In Clause 3(2), it currently provides that the scheme must provide for,"““(a) the making of an offer of compensation in satisfaction of any right to bring civil proceedings in respect of the liability concerned, and""(b) the giving of an explanation,""except in specified circumstances””." I offered to reconsider the drafting here. A 2002 MORI survey commissioned for Making Amends found that the main response wanted by 34 per cent of people affected by medical injury was an apology or explanation. In that light and from the points made by noble Lords in Committee, I consider it appropriate to provide in the Bill that in cases to which the scheme applies, it must provide for the giving of an apology in addition to the giving of an explanation and the making of an offer of compensation. Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 bring this into effect. Amendment No. 10 inserts the words ““redress ordinarily to comprise”” into Clause 3(2), while Amendment No. 14 removes the words ““except in specified circumstances”” and replaces them with,"““but may specify circumstances in which one or more of those forms of redress is not required””." I hope that this makes what we intend clear: that all three forms of redress will usually be required to be offered. This is the expectation. There may be exceptions, but ordinarily an apology, an explanation and compensation will be provided. I hope that this meets the previously expressed concerns of noble Lords over how often exceptions would occur. It is intended that the power provided by Amendment No. 14 to specify circumstances in which one or more forms of redress are not required will be used sparingly. However, there will be cases in which it may be appropriate to make use of the power. It is intended that the cases in which exceptions may be appropriate will be set out in secondary legislation on the scheme following full consultation with stakeholders. For example, there may be cases in which the patient makes it clear that they do not wish to receive financial compensation. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out in Committee, it may be inappropriate to make offers of compensation in such circumstances. On other occasions it may be wrong to offer an explanation—for example, in cases where someone is going through the redress scheme following the death of a relative. There may be issues of clinical confidentiality about which the patient’s relative is unaware and which it may be inappropriate to divulge. There are a number of these possible exceptional circumstances for which we have tried to provide and which we will specify in secondary legislation. I beg to move.