Who will account to Parliament for all the unconstitutional changes that have been made if the Bill falls?
Filed Under (Coalition Government, Health and Social Care Bill) by Paul on 02-02-2012
One of the main arguments currently being used by those in favour of the Health and Social Care Bill getting through its last stages in Parliament is that most of the changes it would bring about have already started to happen. Those arguing for the Bill say that to stop it now would cause greater disruption than if the changes go ahead.
This is a good, practical argument. It makes sense to people who intuitively know that in their own lives when they are halfway through something – even if they know it was a mistake to have started it – that sometimes it’s better to finish it – and then have a think about what to do next.
Those arguing for the passing of the Bill do so for this very pragmatic, common sense reason.
The only problem with this argument is that in this context it completely undermines the sovereignty of Parliament.
The Bill to abolish PCTs has yet to pass through Parliament, but they have already been abolished.
The Bill to set up the National Commissioning Board is yet to pass through Parliament, but this illegal body already has a Chief Executive and Chair – and last week outlined its structure, where the staff are going to sit, and what they will do.
The Bill that will move public health functions to local authorities has not passed through Parliament, but most Directors of Public Health are already spending a lot of their time arguing about to whom within the local authority they should report.
I know there are all sorts of good reasons why the implementation of a Bill has to start before it is passed, but the speed with which these NHS reforms have been implemented – without legal certainty – is an exceptional example of the ‘need for speed’ that has characterised this Government.
But this is a very, very high risk argument to use. People have only to link the idea that we are half-way through implementation with the unfortunate fact that the Bill has not yet been passed and some will raise some constitutional issues.
The Government appear to be daring Parliament to assert itself against those who seem to see its agreement as a minor issue.