NHS Redress Bill [HL]

I should like to take a minute or two to debate Clause 2 in its entirety, because like a number of other parts of the Bill it leaves open more questions than it answers. Again, the question is what the clause actually means. In essence, it says that the application of the redress scheme will be defined as the Secretary of State thinks fit. Subsection (2), which of itself is unobjectionable if the power to award compensation remains part of the scheme, provides a clue. It suggests that what is meant here is that the Secretary of State will determine the kinds of claim that the scheme will be allowed to admit. If that is correct, it would be immensely helpful to have some examples of those types of claim that are not going to be eligible. It does not seem right that the clause should be so very silent on the issue. The grounds for ineligibility should be spelt out in the Bill and not left to regulations. If we cannot have that, and if we cannot have the draft regulations before us—which I wish we did—we certainly need an indication of what the regulations are likely to contain. Perhaps I could spend a moment on the rather technical issue of tort, which I referred to earlier. We have already seen in Clause 1 that the redress scheme will apply and redress will be provided only where a qualifying liability in tort arises as a result of a breach of duty of care. That was not what the Chief Medical Officer recommended in Making Amends. We find in Making Amends the statement:"““Tort sits so uncomfortably in an NHS with an ethos of equity””." That is on page 118. The same page states:"““Even a reformed tort system is unfair””." On page 119, the Chief Medical Officer says that the recommendations,"““move the role of tort from its current central position to the outer perimeter of the NHS””." Those very clear and forthright statements, despite the arguments made in support of them, have now apparently been forgotten about altogether. Why are the Government now proposing that a qualifying liability in tort should, after all, form the centrepiece of the Bill? There must be a good reason and it would be helpful if we heard what it was.