NHS Redress Bill [HL]

I shall conclude by saying that I do not think there is any divide between the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and me on the fundamental issues. I have an open mind on the less central features of the scheme, and I detect that the same is true of the noble Baroness. The Minister raised the important issue of culture change. He was right to do so. I shall clarify my position on this issue: the NHS trust involved cannot be divorced from the process of investigation, indeed, it must necessarily be involved in order to confront what has gone wrong and to learn from its mistakes. I would not suggest otherwise. But the answers that are given to the claimant at the end of the process will not be delivered by the trust. Under the Government’s proposals, they will be delivered by the NHSLA. It will clearly have been the supervisor of the process. Both in principle, and presentationally, that is a mistake. If the Healthcare Commission believes that it would have a conflict of interest as scheme administrator, I cannot understand why the same criticism could not be made with more force in relation to the NHSLA. Touching on Amendment No. 58 for a moment, the Minister pointed out to me that no judicial functions will be exercised here. I found that to be a revealing comment because the NHSLA is being asked to perform a number of functions that are normally performed by a judge in court, viz determining a qualifying liability in tort and assessing the quantum of compensation. It is an odd and invidious position for the NHSLA to be placed in, but I note what the Minister said. There is still a divide between us on the fundamental issue of principle. I undertake to reflect carefully on the points that he has made, but I am far from content with the position as he explained it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 28 to 35 not moved.]