Clause 3
NHS Redress Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
John Baron (Shadow Minister, Health; Billericay, Conservative)
We have a lot of sympathy with amendment No. 15. However, clause 10(2)(i) refers to reports being produced and to lessons learned. Having said that, the hon. Lady has made a powerful case for amendment No. 15. The bottom line is that research has clearly shown that when something goes wrong, what patients want is often only an explanation, an apology and an assurance that the lessons have been learned. Compensation does not necessarily rank high on their list of priorities. Many patients just want to know that what happened to them will not happen to other patients in the health service. It is almost an altruistic approach: they are keen that lessons are learned for the benefit of others.
The open, independent fact-finding investigation that we propose reflects those priorities. Patient safety is promoted by ensuring that lessons learned are not lost. Amendment No. 15 reinforces that point and asks that a report be produced. Although, as I mentioned, reports are required in other clauses in the Bill, an individual report—rather than the annual report envisaged in clause 10—may be a worthwhile step.
It appears to many that the Government’s focus in the Bill on compensation does not reflect patient priorities. In some respects, their focus may subvert the purpose of the investigation. It also means that the importance of the explanation and any lessons learned risk being relegated. The production of a report based on an individual case may rebalance the situation somewhat. So I wholeheartedly concur with amendment No. 15 and am happy to support it.
I have more of a problem with amendment No. 18. The system in the Bill separates fact finding from fault finding. At the end of the fact finding, patients are at liberty to accept an offer from the NHS Litigation Authority, as determined by its internal procedures, or to go to a resolve-type scheme, to mediate in some other way or, as a last resort, to go to the courts if they wish to seek compensation. The crucial matter is that the facts, not the fault, are what is important under the scheme. In such circumstances, the report would not ordinarily be available. That is the way in which the law works. So, I am somewhat indifferent to amendment No. 18.