NHS Redress Bill [Lords]

It will not surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s response. I do not deny his good intentions in wanting to create an alternative to going to the courts. The problem is that the scheme in the Bill does not reflect patient priorities. What patients want more than anything else is an explanation, an apology if due, and an honest assessment of the facts. Very often, compensation is a secondary consideration, but the Minister’s proposals risk putting compensation in front of explanation when it comes to the operation of the scheme. Patients want to ensure that the lessons have been learned for the benefit of others. I am sure that the Minister would not disagree with that, but if we are to achieve it, we need an open and honest examination of the facts. There can be nothing more open and honest than having an independent person from outside the trust coming in to oversee the investigation of the trust itself. I do not understand why the Government are so worried about someone coming in from outside to investigate the facts. If we are serious about changing the culture within the NHS, ensuring that it learns from its mistakes and that investigations are open and transparent, there is no better way than ensuring that the person overseeing the investigation is independent. Otherwise, what does the NHS have to hide? Again, with regard to the Minister’s comments about bureaucracy—it was a throwaway line, but he referred to it again—he was very wide of the mark. We are not proposing to create a bureaucracy. The Government have admitted that they are suggesting a two-stage process, and we accept that it is a two-stage process: the examination of the facts and then an assessment of the liability by the NHSLA. The infrastructure for the first, fact-finding stage is already in place. All we are suggesting is that the person who oversees the investigation must be independent of the trust. We are not suggesting the creation of a massive bureaucracy, and I suggest that the Minister does not understand that fact and that it is a question of who oversees the investigation itself. For those reasons, I am afraid that I have not been persuaded by the Minister’s arguments and I will press the amendment to a Division, to test the opinion of the House. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 265.