An accurate description would be that I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for part of the way. We, too, on these Benches find Clause 3 somewhat unsatisfactory for precisely the same reasons. Here, financial redress and compensation are put centre stage. The giving of an explanation, an apology or an assurance that, as far as is practicable, this kind of thing will not happen again is not part of redress under the scheme. But it is part of redress, which is why we would like to see these two functions separated. Although we do not necessarily want to go quite the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, we would like to see a separation. As we have said earlier and no doubt will continue to say as long as we discuss this legislation, we are still really concerned at the lack of independence in the thinking through of how this should take place. As it stands, we cannot support the clause.
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 c360GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:30:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277754
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277754
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_277754