NHS Redress Bill [Lords]

I rise to support amendment No. 18, and to place on the record my gratitude to the Minister for having had, like the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), my first experience of a Government Minister actually listening to me—unlike at the current moment. The amendment might change only one small word—““may”” becomes ““must””—but that is the right thing to do, because it sends a stronger signal about the Government’s intentions and, as the Minister probably recognises, the central challenge here is how to generate trust in the Government proposals. Central to that is the perception of transparency and the sending of a signal that the Government understand what motivates people in this context. The Minister and other Committee members were very clear that a large part of people’s motivation is to try to make sure that what they suffered is less likely to happen to other people. An annual report will play a part in that process. I also congratulate the Minister on listening to the arguments made in Committee—principally by the hon. Member for Romsey—in favour of stiffening the requirements of explanations to include reports on further actions taken, where appropriate. May I press the Minister on one point? In Committee, he was concerned about the administrative burden that this might involve the system in. Is he any clearer on the figures—he did not have them to hand in Committee—as to what proportion of cases, on a current run rate of about 5,000 cases a year, are down to human error or basic actions that would not require a report of the kind under discussion?