Compensation Bill [HL]

No, no, I always follow the noble Baroness. We seek clarification; that is what the debate on the amendment has been all about. There is no doubt that Clause 1 applies—the Minister has now confirmed this—to professional negligence. I am a little concerned that the NHS Redress Bill and various other provisions, rather than making it easier for doctors and others involved in healthcare, is making it complicated and difficult. My conclusion to the debate is that although the Prime Minister promised that,"““Simple guidelines should be issued””," it has become rather complicated. When Mr Blair said that simple guidelines would be issued, he was referring to what steps should be taken in the exercise of reasonable care or reasonable skill. He continued by saying that that will provide,"““reassurance to those who may be concerned about possible litigation, such as volunteers, teachers and local authorities””." The whole purpose was to try to clarify the law and make it simple so that everyone understood what were their obligations. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to consult the Law Commission, because we are in difficulty here in not having had the phrase tested in any way—certainly not in previously decided cases. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that it is unusual for us to spend so much time considering a clause that does not amend the law. We do not have a constitution, but I should have thought that it was incumbent on those involved in the passing of laws to decide whether the provision changes the law in any way. If it does not, what is the point of it? We have had a useful debate and, in the circumstances, I should like time to reflect on the points raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.