NHS Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 37:"Page 3, line 40, at end insert—" ““(   )   A scheme must provide that any waiver of the right to bring civil proceedings in respect of a liability shall not prevent a person whose right is so waived from bringing civil proceedings where either— (a)   the severity of the injury or loss to which the settlement agreement relates (as defined in section 1(4)) has, in the opinion of the court, increased materially and beyond the extent which was foreseen by the scheme authority at the time of the settlement agreement; or (b)   an injury or loss (as so defined) not identified by the scheme authority at the time of the settlement agreement has arisen such that it may, in the opinion of the court, constitute a liability separate from that to which the settlement agreement relates.”” The noble Earl said: This amendment is, I hope, self-explanatory, but it is rather important. It attempts to address what could be quite a serious worry for anyone in receipt of an offer under the redress scheme as currently proposed. Let us suppose that you are the patient and an offer of compensation is made to you following an investigation of your grievance. It is one thing knowing that the injury or loss that you have suffered is over and done with. It is quite another if you fear that your injury may get worse over time. What are you to do with the offer that is on the table? The Bill says that by accepting the offer you are denied a second bite of the cherry by instigating legal proceedings on that same matter. But when does the matter cease to be the one that you complained about originally and become something discrete and separate which could form the basis of a separate claim? The amendment proposes that there could be two sets of circumstances which might be counted as exceptions to the waiver of the right to bring civil proceedings. The first is where an applicant, having accepted an offer under the scheme, finds that his condition materially worsens in a way that was not foreseen when the offer was originally made. The second is where, some time after an offer has been accepted, a different injury, not diagnosed at the time of the offer, but clearly associated with the same causal event, becomes apparent. The subsection refers to,"““the liability to which the settlement relates””." That wording is not altogether clear, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain whether either of the situations that I have outlined, were they to happen to anyone, would preclude that person from taking civil action subsequent to having accepted an offer of financial compensation under the scheme. I beg to move.