Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Howe (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on NHS Redress Bill (HL).


NHS Redress Bill [HL]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to ask a question. Despite the Minister’s explanation, I am a little puzzled as to why the wording has been chosen. Despite the reasons adduced by the Minister, there is a problem of whether the new clause has genuine legal force. How could one ever verify one way or the other whether the scheme authority or scheme members were abiding by it, or failing to do so? In practical terms, the provision is unenforceable. If so, it is bad law and should not be in the Bill. The whole point of the redress scheme is to provide an alternative to civil proceedings. The NHSLA is tasked at present with keeping disputes and complaints out of the courts. It does that successfully. No doubt it will continue to do so when the scheme is up and running. I cannot see why we need to state in the Bill that it must have regard to the desirability of redress being provided without recourse to civil proceedings. I am not sure what value that adds. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more on those issues.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c1257 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Compensation Civil proceedings Liability NHS Public appointments Negligence NHS Litigation Authority
Legislation
NHS Redress Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk