Schedule 5
Health Bill [Lords]
6:30 pm
Stephen O'Brien (Shadow Minister, Health; Eddisbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 5, page 53, leave out lines 25 to 35.
Unlike in the previous clause, the amendments to this one are sequential rather than grouped. We had some discussion on that but, given that we are not under so much pressure, it will be easier to take them separately as I have prepared them.
On amendment 104, the Bill as drafted suggests that an action is to be treated as an action taken by the legal person of the provider. In other words, in terms of liability, an action is to be treated as an action taken by the provider if it is taken either by a person employed by the provider, a person acting on behalf of the provider, or a person to whom the provider has delegated functions. Those are quite common legal concepts. The provisions suggest that the conduct of individuals will not be considered or commented upon, which seems odd, both in itself and if and when we move to a fully registered work force.
We need to be clear that one of the potential key benefits of the process is that it is able to ensure that lessons can be learned from its findings on complaints. We are dealing with potentially extremely sensitive and vulnerable situations, and it behoves all of us to ensure that lessons are quickly learned. One of the most shocking recent absences in relation to adult social care is what has taken place at Stafford hospital, and the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was prayed in aid by some of the earlier amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. It is absolutely vital that we keep in mind how quickly we need to ensure that lessons are learned.
I also need to know, if I may press the Minister, what happens if a provider goes bust but the management team continue trading under another name. I assume that the body remains accountable, but there must be a question mark on the concept of being able to pierce the corporate veil. As a lawyer, I will not go into the detail of that, because I dare say that other members of the Committee are familiar with the concept at a legal level. While that is not a completely happy analogy, it helps promote my point, and I would like the Minister to comment on how far one can get behind the legal person of the incorporated or unincorporated body actually to get to some of the individuals involved.
The amendment raises the important principle of liability, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the schedule as drafted. I do not for a moment suggest that the amendment is particularly elegant or happy, but it has given me the opportunity to raise a point, and I hope that the Minister will offer some analysis and comfort on the issue.