NHS Redress Bill [HL]

In the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the NHS Redress Bill said:"““We consider that the power in Clause 17 is so wide that if conferred on a Minister of the Crown in relation to England, it would be inappropriate, even if subject to affirmative procedure””." That is a strong and unequivocal statement. The committee is saying that the power delegated to the National Assembly in Clause 17 is not one they would consider appropriate to delegate to a Minister in respect of England. Why, then, should we agree to it? The power, we are told, can be used to override the common law and amend or repeal Acts of Parliament in their application to Wales, subject to certain excluded matters such as taxation. It is therefore, in the words of the committee ““exceptionally wide””. No specific justification has been given for it in the memorandum submitted to the committee, nor was the committee advised of any examples of Acts which might be overridden in the exercise of the power. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill tell us that this is a framework power—that is the heading of the clause—following the principles set out in the White Paper, Better Governance for Wales. In that White Paper, the Government set out their plans to grant further powers to the National Assembly. Not unreasonably, therefore, the committee makes the point that this Bill jumps the gun. Unless and until a Bill implementing the White Paper proposals has been scrutinised and passed by Parliament, and unless and until the National Assembly has been granted powers to make primary legislation, which they do not yet have, the powers in this clause look extremely difficult to justify. We need to hear why the Minister believes they should be approved. On a more detailed note, it is not clear to me, as I think it was not clear to the Committee either, why the clause is not more restricted in its scope. We are all aware that the Bill as it relates to England confines itself to hospital services and liabilities in consequence of acts or omissions by healthcare professionals. Clause 17 contains no such limitations, nor does it restrict itself, as do Clause 1(2) and 1(3), to particular types of body. Again, I believe it is appropriate to ask why that should be.