The Government’s controversial, and, in some quarters, much criticised, Health and Social Care Bill could pass onto the statute books by Easter given the required Royal Assent after a Labour call for MPs to postpone their final consideration of the major changes proposed until an assessment of the potential risks had been published and scrutinised was defeated in the House of Commons on 21 March by 82 votes. The Commons debate followed the House of Lords’ approval of the Bill on 19 March, although, since the original version was published, there have been around 1,000 amendments, including 374 suggested by the Second Chamber.
Labour MPs had called for its passage to be delayed until a policy document prepared by civil servants knows as a transitional risk register, which would potentially set out ‘the worst scenario’ that could follow the reforms’ implementation, had been made public, but the Government has refused to release the document. Health Minister Simon Burns told the Commons that ‘the question or risk’ has already been debated, and defeated in the House of Lords, adding that the Government had also published two impact assessments which he claimed ‘completely covered all aspects’ of the legislation.
Accusing the Government of ‘gambling on the future of the NHS in England without letting the public know the potential risks’, Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham (pictured), told the Commons: “The only hope that I can give people worried about the future of the NHS today is that this might be the end of the Bill, but is just the beginning of the campaign.” He pledged that Labour would overturn the changes if it won the next election.
Meanwhile UNISON general secretary, Dave Prentis, said the union would ‘continue to campaign hard to try and mitigate the Bill’s worst excesses’, warning that under the new health landscape proposed, patients would face a ‘two-tier’ health service, with the level of care they received dependent on where they lived.
The Bill’s chief architect, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, however, who has come under sustained attack from the plans’ many opponents over the past year, especially over concerns that the Bill could see ‘privatisation of the health service through the back door’, and render healthcare unaffordable for ‘the less well-off’, vigorously defended the proposals, dismissing the final Commons debate as ‘having no purpose’, and describing it as ‘political opportunism dressed up as principle'.
