Evidence submitted by Brian Raincock,
Managing Director, Resolve Services Ltd
I am the Managing Director of Resolve Services
Limited, part of the Access to Justice Group, which has pioneered
ATE Insurance and radical solutions to resolving low value claims
in particular, those involving clinical negligence.
I recently read with very keen interest the
Oral evidence given to the Constitutional Affairs Committee on
Tuesday 17 January 2006 and was considerably shocked at the many
inaccuracies in Mr Stephen Walker's evidence to the Committee.
In short, you were severely misled.
In Q208 James Brokenshire raised the issue of
the NHS Redress Scheme and issues of conflict. Mr Walker responded
and made this statement: "When we ran a pilot, which was
not identical but is a reasonable model, we found that people
accepted the offers we were making, with legal advice, every claimant
had legal advice, there was no question of our taking advantage
of unrepresented people . . ." The RESOLVE pilot was
designed, organized and run by Resolve Services Ltd (RSL) with
the reluctant co-operation of the Chief Executive of the NHSLA,
Mr Stephen Walker—I attach two letters by way of explanation.
It was not true that all offers made by the
NHSLA were accepted as a number required mediation by Resolve
Services Limited.
In Q213 James Brokenshire drew attention to
Mr Walker's "emphasis for things to be dealt with quickly".
In his response, Mr Walker replied: "All
I can tell you is that that was the target we had in the small
claims pilot that we ran a few years ago, and we pretty well achieved
that. There was some slippage. A dozen claims maybe did not get
done in the six months. That was awfully hard work for my staff;
they really had to jump through hoops. We had to change the way
we were working with independent experts, because they are not
used to working that fast either, but we did it. I am talking
about people owning up when they get things wrong. We might have
to put our hands up and saw we might need to slip to seven months,
I do not know, but by and large, yes, we can, if the will is there,
and both at trust level and within the managing organization,
whoever it might be, I think the will is there."
This is a totally misleading statement:
(a) The targets set for the RESOLVE pilot
were those set by (RSL). The NHSLA was obliged to comply by the
standards set for the Scheme.
(b) The only reason why the NHSLA staff had
to jump through hoops to comply was because RSL maintained the
pressure to complete claims within the six month timeframe set
by RSL.
(c) The relationship with the independent
experts was established by RSL, and the fact that the service
standards were met was entirely due to RSL, much to the surprise
of the NHSLA, and the fact that it worked had nothing whatsoever
to do with the NHSLA.
The reality was that the managing organization
was RSL and we did make it work, as well as maintaining legal
representation and independence for the claimant.
It was disappointing therefore that, in reply
to Q214, Stephen Walker rejected the idea of a statutory obligation
and then, to add insult to injury, claimed that the idea of targets
"came from us (the NHSLA) as we are not averse to targets.
That is an honest answer."
Regrettably, that answer is open to considerable
question!
The debate continued and the Committee—Q216
thereon—attempted to obtain answers to a number of penetrating
questions. Stephen Walker at no time referred you to the Evaluation
of the Resolve Pilot Scheme Report prepared by Professor Posnett
of the York Health Economics Consortium (attached)
Stephen Walker: "No, we have considered
it. That is the first answer. Under our pilot we believe that
almost all of the claims were claims which would not have been
made but for the existence of the scheme. We were told both by
the independent assessor who looked at the scheme only halfway
through—he did not look at the very end for various reasons—that
was the case, but I was also personally told, and I believe John
was too, by quite a number of claimant solicitors, that they used
the scheme for cases that they would not otherwise have (to use
their phrase) bothered with probably for economic reasons. I think
it is probable that we will see more claimants, and that comes
to the issue of striking a balance between on the one hand providing
access to justice for damaged patients, because no-one will be
paid unless they establish a legal liability, and on the other
hand cost, and that is always a balancing exercise. Fortunately,
it is one for the department, not for my organization, but, yet,
there is always a risk that if you help people to gain access
to justice it might cost you money."
Q221 Dr Whitehead: "It is not a concern for
your organization from the point of view of potentially reducing
the overall level of damages to claimants and also, of course,
the question of whether you will require additional staff to administer
the scheme? "
Stephen Walker: "We anticipate that
we will require, to begin with, very few additional staff because
the hope is, obviously, that many of the claims that we currently
deal with will transfer into this as it becomes more widely known
and its availability becomes seen as the way to deal with these
things. We are not making long-term plans at this stage, because,
first of all, as we have said several times, no work has been
given to the authority at this stage, but, secondly, because it
is impossible to guess what the shift in volumes might be. It
might be an increase, it may not, so it would be premature to
do that work at the moment. "
Q222 Dr Whitehead: "You could conceivably
have a situation where this scheme would be entered into and all
sorts of contingent funding will have to be sent your way subsequently,
shall we say? "
Stephen Walker: "The cost work that
has been done by the department has taken into account the possibility
that there will be more claims, and the department is content
that the matter proceed on that basis. "
Had Stephen Walker referred you and your Committee
to the report you would all have been better advised on the outcomes
of the Pilot and the predications as to the staffing and costs.
Your own Question 225 seems to have been a very much more realistic
summary of the facts.
You moved on to A227 and 228 where the answers
provided by Stephen Walker are without foundation. The simple
fact is that no lawyer can provide independent advice when presented
with a case so late in the day. Stephen Walker's answer to Q228
defies belief and shows only too clearly that the NHSLA cannot
and will not provide an independent decision on the matter of
damages to be awarded under the Redress Scheme.
In summary, therefore, and I do not deny a bias
towards our independently developed and delivered RESOLVE Scheme,
your Committee has been presented with a number of insupportable
conclusions from one who, from start to finish, was determined
to undermine the RESOLVE Pilot over which he now claims ownership
as well as its success.
Brian Raincock
Managing Director
Resolve Services Limited
February 2006
| 
