Clause 4
NHS Redress Bill [Lords]
12:15 pm
Sandra Gidley (Shadow Minister, Health; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
Amendment No. 21 was tabled because although we hear a lot these days about a patient-centred NHS, and about the patient being able to exercise choice, it seems to me from the Bill that the Secretary of State will decide which patients are eligible to bring forward the complaints.
It is not at all clear what sort of restrictions could be put in the way of a patient who seeks to bring forward a complaint under the scheme. The amendment gives individuals the right to bring proceedings, and there are no restrictions on that. I have given some thought to who one might want to restrict, if there were a problem in the NHS, and the only situation that I could think of offhand would involve a complainer, not exactly vexatious but with a history of making complaints against the health service, and who might have another agenda. Although someone might be annoying and an irritant, and might come back again and again, there may be an occasion when that person has a genuine complaint that needs to be looked into. I find it difficult to understand how the Secretary of State will restrict who will be eligible, but that provision is clearly in the Bill, and it could be quite heavy-handed and prevent people from coming forward. In the amendment, we seek clarification on who will be allowed to bring forward a complaint, and who will not, because that is just as important.
Amendment No. 16 gives an NHS patient or their representative the right to seek redress under the scheme if they feel that they have been harmed by NHS treatment and meet the eligibility criteria of the scheme. As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State and the scheme authority have the right to determine who can seek redress.
It is important to have transparency. One should also consider other cases in which a patient could complain but does not want to, or changes their mind. The NHS could learn lessons from pursuing the complaint in such cases. The other parts of the scheme—fact-finding and the provision of reports to establish what has gone wrong and the measures that should be taken—are important in the greater public interest. However, there should perhaps be a right not to continue if it is in the interests of the individual. That is the thinking behind amendment No. 17. I shall leave it for the Minister to provide clarification.