I would like to pursue this matter a little. In the NHS, we have a history of explanations being anything but full—for instance, when explanations are given when a complaint is made—and for there to be a certain amount of defensive practice on the part of some, not all, NHS bodies. We accept that the thinking behind the Bill is to encourage a culture of openness. It therefore seems right not to leave this to regulations, but to put it on the face of the Bill precisely in order to encourage those who do not wish to give an absolutely full explanation. There are circumstances where, for reasons of confidentially, that may not be possible. But I press the Minister a little further on this. We have examples of practice on complaints which suggest that the inclination is not to give a full explanation when the opportunity arises.
NHS Redress Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Neuberger
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on NHS Redress Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c348GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:41:21 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277728
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277728
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277728