Amendment No. 16 removes Clause 3(4)(d), an explicit provision that allows the scheme to,"““specify an upper limit on the amount of financial compensation in respect of a particular matter that may be included in an offer under the scheme””."
That could cast doubt on whether the very general power in Clause 3(1) could be used to provide for an additional limit to be set for a particular type of damages—for example, a limit on compensation for loss of earnings or for special damages.
It is currently not intended to use the power set out in Clause 3(4)(d) in the first instance. The intention is that the scheme will provide for offers of financial compensation to be broadly equivalent to the level of compensation that would be provided in a successful claim before the courts, covering all heads of damages that would be covered by a court award, up to the single overall limit of £20,000. However, it is important to have flexibility in order to adapt the scheme in the light of changing circumstances, and so that the scheme can be refined once it has been reviewed after three years. As framed, this amendment could restrict flexibility to amend the scheme in future to impose a limit on the amount of compensation that may be offered in respect of any one head of damage; for example, as I have said, if a limit on compensation for special damages was desired.
The intention is that the scheme will provide for offers of financial compensation to be broadly equivalent to the level of compensation that would be provided in a successful claim before the court, covering all heads of damages that would be covered by a court award, up to the single overall limit of £20,000. I concede that, currently, it is not intended to use the power set out at Clause 3(4)(d). I am willing to consider further the possibility of removing Clause 3(4)(d) in order to make clear that it is intended that offers of financial compensation will be broadly equivalent to the level of compensation that would be provided in a successful claim before the court, covering all heads of damages that would be covered by a court award. Therefore, we will take this away and think a bit further about it.
NHS Redress Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Warner
(Labour)
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 c357GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:30:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277751
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277751
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277751