NHS Redress Bill [HL]

Clause 14(4)(d) provides that regulations made by the Secretary of State about the handling and consideration of complaints may provide for complaints that need not be considered. I think there is some misunderstanding here because in drafting the clause we envisaged the kinds of complaint falling within the provision to be, for example, those complaints which had already been dealt with. Amendment No. 67 would place the scheme member under an obligation to redirect complaints which need not be considered to the appropriate complaints authority. Where a complaint is made which raises matters that fall under the remit of other complaints procedures then this is dealt with in Clause 14(7). This provides that the regulations may make provision for matters which more properly fall under other complaints procedures to be dealt with as if the complaint had been made under those procedures. This will ensure that the complaint will be investigated as if it had been made to the appropriate authority. However, the intention that matters raised under the redress scheme complaints provision should be redirected, if appropriate, is a good intention. It raises issues of good practice which lie at the heart of the patient-focused complaints process. We have broad powers in Clause 14(4) for the regulations to make provision about the handling of complaints, about the procedures to be followed and the action to be taken. We could provide in the regulations for the body considering the complaint to refer other relevant matters to appropriate bodies. I will therefore take away the spirit of the amendment rather than the amendment itself and consider further the issues raised. Amendment No. 68 would insert a new clause to enable the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for an appeals mechanism in relation to decisions made under the redress scheme. I consider this to be unnecessary. The scheme already has a number of safeguards that adequately protect the interests of patients. It is intended that the patient will be given the opportunity to have any offer of redress independently evaluated by a solicitor, without charge to the patient, paid for on the basis of a flat fee by the scheme authority. The patient will receive advice on whether the offer is reasonable and equivalent to what they would have received through the courts. The intention is that patients and appropriate representatives whose cases are being considered under the scheme will also be able to access support at any time during the process from PALS and ICAS-type arrangements. Where people are unhappy with the administration of the scheme the Bill provides for a separate complaints procedure for the handling of complaints about maladministration of either the scheme itself or in connection with a settlement agreement entered into under the scheme. The secondary legislation will set out the detail of how this complaints procedure will work. Only complaints about maladministration in relation to the maladministration either of the scheme itself or in connection with a settlement agreement entered into under the scheme. The secondary legislation will set out the detail of how this complaints procedure will work. Only complaints about maladministration—I am sorry, I believe I have repeated a paragraph. I hope the Committee will forgive me. Under the scheme an offer may be made to satisfy the applicant’s claim. One of the purposes behind the scheme is to enable redress to be provided, where appropriate, without recourse to civil proceedings, but if an offer is not made, or is rejected, the applicant’s legal right to pursue a claim will remain in being, unaffected by the scheme and can be pursued through the courts in the ordinary way. The redress scheme, as envisaged, aims to provide a speedy and effective means by which to provide appropriate remedy to patients harmed by mistakes during their healthcare. It has in place a number of appropriate safeguards. An additional appeals mechanism would create a time delay in taking cases through the process and it would increase both bureaucracy within the process and the cost of that process. As both my noble friend Lord Warner and I have explained previously, we believe that alternative dispute resolution should be considered and it is intended that the scheme will, where appropriate, make full use of mediation to help in reaching an agreement to settle. Where this is not possible, the patient can pursue their right to sue for negligence through the courts. We are satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights. Under the scheme an offer may be made to satisfy the patient’s claim. One of the purposes of the scheme is to enable redress to be provided without recourse to civil proceedings, but if an offer is not made or if an offer is rejected by the patient, the patient’s right to sue for negligence will remain in being, unaffected by the scheme.