NHS Redress Bill [HL]

The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set up a redress scheme for the NHS and to set out the detailed rules governing the operation of the scheme in a unified and easily accessible scheme scheduled to regulations made under the powers given in the Bill. It is intended that the scheme will be reviewed three years after implementation. Placing these rules in secondary legislation will allow the scheme to be more easily amended in the light of experience. It will also ensure that there is the necessarily flexibility to adapt the scheme in order to reflect the changing ways in which NHS services are delivered and limits the technical, administrative detail that appears in primary legislation. In doing this, the Bill follows the traditional structure of NHS legislation in setting out the overall framework in the provisions of the Act, but being less prescriptive in primary legislation about the detail of what the Secretary of State or NHS bodies must do. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee confirmed in its report that it considers the delegated powers that relate to England in the Bill are appropriate and subject to an appropriate level of scrutiny. Amendment No. 18 would mean that the scheme has to make provision in respect of all the matters listed in Clause 4(2) with regard to the commencement of the scheme. Amendment No. 25 has a similar effect in respect of Clause 6(1), requiring the scheme to make provision about proceedings under the scheme. The scheme has been developed through extensive discussions with stakeholders, and we consider it important to work with stakeholders in drafting the secondary legislation before publishing the draft regulations for further, more formal consultation. This will ensure that the scheme works effectively on the ground, but it is also important to have the flexibility to adapt, not only in drawing up the secondary legislation, but also in order to amend the scheme when it is reviewed three years after implementation. These amendments would restrict that flexibility and on these grounds, we must oppose them.