NHS Bill E-Petition Debate Turned Down By Commons Committee

The Huffington Post UK  |  By Posted: 28/02/12 16:59 GMT  |  Updated: 28/02/12 16:59 GMT

Andrew Lansley

MPs will not be granted a special debate on the government's controversial health reforms on the floor of the Commons, despite an e-petition calling for them to be scrapped gaining more than 160,000 signatures.

The cross-party Commons backbench business committee, which allocates days for MPs to debate topical issues, decided on Tuesday to devote its one remaining day, 7 March, to a different issue - citing a lack of available time.

Labour MP Jonathan Reynolds and Green MP Caroline Lucas made the case for the e-petition to be granted a debate when they appeared before the committee on Tuesday afternoon.

The petition was started by a constituent of Reynolds, and he told the committee of fellow MPs that the NHS Bill had not been debated enough.

"This is the issue which is currently exercising the British people. If there is an issue the public want discussed, particularly through an e-petition, we can not be in a position of not having a debate," he said.

Under the current rules petitions reaching 100,000 signatures have to be considered by the committee for a debate in the House of Commons, but this is not guaranteed.

In rejecting the debate the committee noted that "significant parliamentary time has already been allocated to debate" the Health and Social Care Bill and that there will be further opportunity for MPs to consider the Bill when it returns from the Lords.

At the time the decision was announced, MPs were questioning health secretary Andrew Lansley on one aspect of the Bill in the Commons chamber.

Reynolds rejected the suggestion that he wanted the debate for partisan political reasons, noting that MPs from "nearly all parts" of the Commons were backing his bid for a debate.

However members of the committee raised concerns that no Tory MPs were supporting him. The committee traditionally likes to see MPs from all parties support a bid in order to avoid accusations they are merely allocating time to attack the government.

Philip Hollobone, a Tory member of the committee, noted that the fact that Reynolds was a parliamentary aide to Ed Miliband may "appear some people to inject an element of bias", although said he was not accusing Reynolds of that himself.

Lucas said that she had received 800 letters and emails on the subject of the NHS Bill in the last week alone. "It's the biggest political issue of the day," she said.

Instead the Commons will hear a debate on human rights abuses in Russia. The issue was championed by former Labour foreign secretary David Miliband and Tory MP Dominic Raab. It was also backed by every single living former British foreign secretary.

The committee picked the debate as it was "an issue of topical interest in the light of the forthcoming elections in Russia and that there was considerable cross-party support for a debate".

FOLLOW UK POLITICS

MPs will not be granted a special debate on the government's controversial health reforms on the floor of the Commons, despite an e-petition calling for them to be scrapped gaining more than 160,000 s...
MPs will not be granted a special debate on the government's controversial health reforms on the floor of the Commons, despite an e-petition calling for them to be scrapped gaining more than 160,000 s...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 161
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
02:54 PM on 02/29/2012
The NHS is admin/technical management heavy and it certainly needs to be radically reformed, as many of the higher paid posts within the admin/technical side are handed out on a plate to friends, favorites and family, by the existing management, regardless of their friends, favorites and family, previous skills or backgrounds.
02:37 PM on 02/29/2012
The Public should be aware that whilst the NHS was liable for medical negligence - a lot of Private Companies are Limited Companies. Limited Companies have Limited Liability - essentially - loop holes in the Law for Company Directors such that ordinary members of the public cannot bring a successful legal case against them. All the Directors have to do to protect themselves legally is to e.g. Change the Company Name, or transfer assetts. The British Public often do not fully appreciate how badly they themselves may be affected. One day, sadly, we all get old and/or ill - so this does affect everyone (eventually). It is a pity so many members of the public are not prepared to take action and join the protest/write to their MP. It's no good the public moaning after they let the Government get away with introducing this new policy.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
03:16 PM on 02/29/2012
Kris5 you are absolutely correct in what you say. As a lawyer I would naturally try to find a way through, doesn't mean it works 100% but a lot of the time it does. Company directors as you say are protected, but I am not sure how this could be approached from the angle of vicarious liability. We shouldn't forget the legal concept of, "...[those] at the heart of the matter...". Civil litigation is complicated, it includes the Civil Procedure Rules which are vast and complicated, because each sentence would have a myriad of case law surrouning it. However, that having been said, where there's a will there's a way. Aspects from the personal approach re. access to a director is possible, especially if a letter has already been written to the Chairman or CEO directly. Part II to follow.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
03:16 PM on 02/29/2012
Part II
This was easier before the last Labour Government allowed company directors to withold their home addresses from public record, held at Companies House in Cardiff. The whole idea of this had been to hold these people to account, but not any more, they don't have to do this, the last Labour Government made certain of that. It was the cozy relationship the last Labour Government had with big business, and those company directors lobbied and lobbied until the right to withold was granted. Now that has an affect on the access to write direct, but to be fobbed off with a call centre which calls itself the directors office, ie in other words customer service. Part III to follow.
02:26 PM on 02/29/2012
It's frightening, the Government are behaving like Dictators - arrogantly ignoring public opinion. I think the only thing that is going to stop this Government is if the general public get out on the streets in mass protest. The problem is, the British Public tend to be too reserved, so - it looks like the Government are going to get away with yet more privatisation. May God help us having to rely on people seeking profits when it comes to health care. Medical need will not come into it - decisions will be made on the basis of only whether it is profitable. Privatisation of the Railways, Water, Electricity,Gas and other essential services, we were promised would lead to better customer services, and a more competitive/customer focused service. However, all that happened with privatisation was that the Directors and Shareholders wanted to increase their salaries and profits and all our bills increased dramatically. When the NHS is privatised - it will be like all the Private Hospitals and the Breast Implants Disaster - the Hospitals wanted to take peoples money to put in the breast implants but dumped all their patients and didn't want to know when the breast implants were found to be faulty. Profit before medical need.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
04:21 PM on 02/29/2012
Kris5, well said, couldn't have said it better myself. Now I am not a political animal, as I have said so many times before, I suppose I would be classed as a floating voter. Having said that, I really believe there isn't a lot of point listening to anyone any more, because they do not tell you as it will be, they tell you so much, then they embroider what they had said previously, which paints an entirely different picture of what you previously believed they meant. They are all as bad as each other.

How is that rectified, maybe true coalition, a bit of each. There is no place for any ideology, ideology is, I paraphrase,

1) ideas reflecting social needs, aspirations of one group, also, and;

2) pure doctine or set of beliefs associated with a political stance.

None of these fit or are as such are able to answer todays problems in this Country. Society has changed, different approaches, cultures, and so forth. There has to be someone representing the views of all.

Maybe it would work, don't know, but I think the old style politics in this Country is
unfit for purpose.
01:35 PM on 02/29/2012
Actually, it's them that are on a different planet, we are on the right one. We have just got to change the way we are governed.
01:33 PM on 02/29/2012
Politicians introduced the petition Parliament scheme, probably because they thought it was a good democracy soundbite, with little chance of many, if any, proposals collecting 100,000 votes. Now it has, they wriggle to get out of honouring a firm promise, with little conscience or concern for what it does for democracy or their very low standing in voters' eyes.
When will they ever care? When will they accept radical change of their own culture is one of the reasons that is holding this country back? How about a petition to cahnge the governance of this country?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:43 PM on 02/29/2012
"Under the current rules petitions reaching 100,000 signatures have to be considered by the committee for a debate in the House of Commons, but this is not guaranteed"
Seems clear enough to me, politicians invariably do this, on the surface they give you something that sounds good but add caveats in the rules that actually allows the "promise" to be overridden, the key word in this case is "considered" but it does state that debate is not guaranteed, so effectively they only have to debate what suits them.
The right to see your medical records was similar........sure, you can see them but only if every GP that ever wrote in them gives their approval.
01:31 PM on 02/29/2012
Well human rights in Russia really going to effect people in the UK. MP's haven't a clue when it comes to what people think & want in the UK. It's about time they put the people first & party affiliations last
01:21 PM on 02/29/2012
When are coalition forces going to take military action to ensure the introduction of Democracy to the UK?
01:59 PM on 02/29/2012
Ha ha ha, nice one!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janno000
06:33 PM on 02/29/2012
they are all too busy shoring up the plutocracy we live in.
01:11 PM on 02/29/2012
I don't know why people are surprised at Cameron not allowing this debate. He is a LIAR and will only do things he wants to do. At the end of the day he wants to PRIVATISE the NHS and this is the first step to doing just that
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norman Mitchison
12:37 PM on 02/29/2012
Referendum on getting out of the EU and petition for debate on NHS? You must be on a different planet if you think they will do what the public want.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
04:26 PM on 02/29/2012
Correct as usual Norman:-) Which planet shall we choose, one in the aphelion?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Daisy May Boldock
Yorkshire..Gods Own Country
04:56 PM on 02/29/2012
Uranus sounds about right for these!
11:37 AM on 02/29/2012
Cameron launched e-petitions in August 2010. He said that members of the public could go online, put forward a proposal for debate and see if they could generate support. Those that gained 100,000 signatures would be debated in the Commons. He told parliament: "One of the points of the new e-petitions website is to make sure that if a certain level of signatures is reached, the matter will be debated in the House, whether we like it or not. That is an important way of empowering people." Oops.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:28 AM on 03/01/2012
I may be wrong but there's a vital couple of words missing and a twist that is absent, it should read........ "One of the points of the new e-petitions website is to make sure that if a certain level of signatures is reached, the matter will be considered for debate in the House, whether we like it or not. That is an important way of empowering people."
Any debate will only take place if the "committee" has "considered" the petition and approved it for debate in the House, then and only then. The phrase "whether we like it or not" has no substance, in advertising this would be termed a "puff"......a meaningless phrase used for promotional purposes. A further caveat is that a minimum of 100,000 signatures are received, not too high.....not too low.....seems reasonable.....an explainable figure!
A debate will take place "whether we like it or not"..but only IF the committee deems that it should be.
Richard Britton
British Socialist Global Realist
11:29 AM on 02/29/2012
we are slaves, we cannot change anything and our masters will do whatever they want with or without a mandate
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janno000
06:35 PM on 02/29/2012
only while we continue to allow ourselves to be slaves, the hardest part is getting people to realise that is exactly what they are,
11:08 AM on 02/29/2012
The fact that committee member Philip Hollobone (Tory MP) issued a statement claiming that because one of the members who presented the bill to the committee was a Labour MP introduced "an element of bias" say's it all. Of course, being a Tory MP representing the government that is pushing through this unwanted bill rejecting the application isn't biased in the slightest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redsquad
Shootin' from the lip
12:52 PM on 02/29/2012
"Hollobone"... what an appropriate name: Shallow and a think skull.

Cameron's own rules "presented the bill to the committee" - The petition itself was arranged by a GP. I guess in Tory minds, he's "biased" too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:54 AM on 02/29/2012
Yes, it's a much better idea to discuss human rights in Russia and why they won't allow the UN to murder Syrian civilians rather than discuss why they want to dismantle the NHS .
10:51 AM on 02/29/2012
It seems the Tory policy is to do as much damage as they can whilst in self elected office
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mickbono
huff is crap
10:37 AM on 02/29/2012
well you call a dictator a dictator & H U F F wont post your comment are they working for the dictator
10:53 AM on 02/29/2012
They work for Corned Beef and Argentina!! (See comments below).
What price the Falklands now!!