Clause 6
NHS Redress Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Andy Burnham (Minister of State (Delivery and Quality), Department of Health; Leigh, Labour)
It is somewhat fresher than it was this morning, but perhaps our discussion will generate some heat because we have hit the part of the Bill that relates to the substance of the disagreement on Second Reading. We have genuine differences over the way in which the scheme should be structured and the type of scheme that we are trying to create.
My amendments restore powers to enable a redress scheme to be established with the structure originally intended by the Government and reverse amendments made in the other place. Clauses 6 and 11, as amended there, would separate the fact-finding investigation under the redress scheme from the assessment of liability and quantum. The scheme authority would have no role in the investigation and provide no guidance or advice to scheme members about investigations. The opportunity to have a unified scheme would be lost.
Amendment No. 8, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), is even more clearly intended to confine investigation under the redress scheme to a fact-finding investigation, preventing consideration of issues of liability in law, both civil and criminal, rather than issues of tort alone. The amendment is in keeping with the amendments made in another place and entrenches the separation, rigidly splitting the scheme.
The main matter before us is clause 12, and I draw the Committee’s attention to amendment No. 6, which would delete it. It is important to spend some time on that to understand why the Government seek to remove the clause and restore the scheme to its original envisaged structure.
Clause 12 requires the Secretary of State to make provision for the appointment of patient redress investigators and for the Healthcare Commission to maintain a list of investigators and oversee them. The amendments made in the other place seem to intend that a panel of patient redress investigators should be created, but that is not specifically laid out in the clause. Indeed, it does not answer many other questions, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to give us some of the detail of the scheme envisaged. How many patient redress investigators do the Opposition have in mind? Who will they be? How will they go about investigating the facts? Who will pay their wages? Those are serious questions, and those who advocate the structure in clause 12 need to put the detailsbefore us.
There are several serious problems with the clause, not least that it adds an additional layer of bureaucracy and works against a primary aim of the Bill, which is to encourage and facilitate local learning.