It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I trust that you will make allowance for my inexperience in steering Bills through Committee. The last Bill I steered through the House was the Intelligence Services Bill in 1994, and a little time has elapsed since then.

Clause 1 is the substantive part of the Bill. Everything is in the clause, apart from the bringing into force measures. This is an entirely straightforward Bill with a simple, non-partisan purpose. It has wide support throughout the health service, the ombudsman service and, I hope, all parts of the House. The clause seeks to increase the effectiveness of the health service ombudsman, who is the final tier of the national health service complaints system. It does so, primarily, by requiring that when the health service ombudsman takes action, they do so with a view to concluding their investigations into the complaints within 12 months. If that time scale is not met, they must provide an explanation to the complainant.

This legislative change was triggered by the Sam Morrish case. In June 2014, the ombudsman published a report on an investigation into a complaint by Mr and Mrs Morrish about the care and treatment provided to their son, who died of septic shock on 23 December 2010 at the age of three. Mr and Mrs Morrish also  complained about the way in which the national health service investigated the circumstances surrounding young Sam’s death.

In the three days before Sam Morrish died, his family came into contact with the Cricketfield surgery, Devon Doctors Ltd, NHS Direct and the South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. The ombudsman found that each of those organisations failed. In the report into Sam’s death, the ombudsman highlighted the lack of action being taken to save the lives of people who are suffering from sepsis. She stated that the case demonstrated that the failure to diagnose rapidly and treat sepsis can have tragic consequences. The ombudsman found that had Sam received appropriate care and treatment, he would have survived.

However, it took the ombudsman more than two years to investigate and report on the national health service’s handling of Sam’s case. During that time, a series of factual errors was made, which Mr and Mrs Morrish repeatedly had to correct. The Patients Association, which supported the Morrish family in their complaints, said that the ombudsman was not “fit for purpose”.

The ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor, personally apologised to the family and said she would meet them to discuss the case. She said:

“We took too long to investigate this case and made errors in the draft report. I recognise the family’s experience of us has contributed to their distress”,

which is putting it mildly.

Although the ombudsman is committed to this change, which will require them to meet a timetable and, if they do not, to explain why, future management may not be, and without legislative backing it will be difficult to enforce the proposed time limits.