My Lords, I had hoped the Minister would not say that, because I do not accept it. For the life of me I cannot imagine how the appointment of a number of patient redress investigators could conceivably cost £41 million a year. In my view, a sum of a very much lower order would be involved. I suspect that the modelling carried out by the department related to the original proposal put forward by a number of noble Lords, which suggested that, over and above the investigative process undertaken by the hospital trust, there should be another layer of investigators. That, the Minister was right to say, would have created considerable bureaucratic cost. But I do not envisage that this fairly small band of investigators will be expensive to the health service, certainly not to that order of money.
As I have said, we are looking at a major matter of principle here. I take my steer from the Liberal Democrat Benches as well in proposing that we test the opinion of the House on this.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 125.
NHS Redress Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Howe
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on NHS Redress Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c1183 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:48:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301887
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301887
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_301887