NHS Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 57:"Page 5, line 22, leave out ““Special Health””" The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 59 and 60, which have been grouped. I come to the comfort moment for the Minister, when I suggest what the body might be. Although I know that he does not like it, it is the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. Before that, let me deal briefly with Amendment No. 57, which would leave out the words, ““Special Health”” from the phrase, ““Special Health Authority”” on page five, line 22. That is to give the Minister a little more freedom as to precisely what kind of body that might be. It could be a body that is not a special health authority—it very likely will be, but it does not seem to us ab initio essential that it is. That is one reason that we thought it unnecessary to specify special health authorities in the Bill. I move on to what may be more significant: the argument about whether the Healthcare Commission could be the scheme authority and why we strongly believe that, given the choice between the NHS Litigation Authority and the Healthcare Commission, we would favour the Healthcare Commission. The Government came forward with the Bill; we are giving the Minister another option but, if he does not like it, we hope that he will come forward with a third option on which we could all agree. The way that the argument is going at present, we may not agree. We strongly believe that, although we can imagine a system in which financial settlements of redress are made at the end of the process, it must be a two-stage process. We do not believe that it is appropriate for the NHS Litigation Authority, which is fundamentally a central part of the NHS and is concerned with protecting NHS funds by ensuring that settlements are not too large, and so on, to be the full scheme authority. However, the Healthcare Commission has earned an enviable reputation for its independence and we believe that it is well placed to take on this task. The Minister has told me on several occasions that there are incredibly good reasons why the Healthcare Commission cannot do it. One argument is that the commission itself says that there would be a conflict of interests because it already deals with the complaints procedure. It is the court of last appeal on complaints. We know that complaints are being referred back by the Healthcare Commission to individual trusts fairly regularly. There are two points worth making. First, if one had to make a choice about which function the Healthcare Commission should perform—the complaints function or being the overarching authority for a redress scheme that was originally intended to be about not only negligence and tort but complaints and investigations—the commission is remarkably well placed to do it. Since I believe that at the very beginning we were talking not only about tort but about some forms of complaint, the Healthcare Commission is well placed in this respect. The other argument is that, as we have discussed today, particularly in relation to various amendments, it has become clear that some of the advice to the ordinary punters—the patients—is to be given by PALS and ICAS. Those are the bodies that give advice regarding complaints. I fail to see why it is not appropriate for the Healthcare Commission to deal with this process if it is okay for PALS and ICAS to deal with complaints and the initial stages. That does not some to be thought through. I feel strongly that it would be good if the Minister could tease this out a little more. We on these Benches are still not convinced that the Healthcare Commission could not be the overarching scheme authority. Lastly, Amendment No. 60 reinforces the same old point about independence. We want a scheme authority that is truly independent of these bodies and other persons, as defined in Clause 1(3). There is nothing new about that; it is simply that we want it in the Bill. I beg to move.