re: #care cap in #HealthAndCareBill, procedural point is that gov is trying to make significant unforced policy change by introducing an am. to its own Bill *at report stage* i.e. *after* committee stage, when detailed #scrutiny is - in #HouseofCommons - supposed to happen. 1/6
#HealthAndCareBill committee stage finished 2/11, but gov only introduced its amendment 18/11. Gov may point, rightly, to fact that report stage is now 2 days (original plan was only 1). But this is no substitute for committee stage, when a committee can take expert evidence. 2/6
In these circs, when new policy is added at this stage, MPs ought to have the option of getting a Bill re-committed to the Public Bill Committee so the new content can be scrutinised in detail - Andrew Dilnot can give his evidence to MPs instead of/as well as @BBCr4today. 3/6
The gov's behaviour over its #HealthAndCareBill amendment is poor practice. It suggests a gov that's rushed ahead with legislation without getting the policy properly nailed down & internal conflicts about it squared away. 4/6
The gov's late introduction of its #HealthAndCareBill amendment is in some respects worse practice than, but is certainly of a piece with, its late introduction of its unforced amendment to the #ElectionsBill to change the electoral system for mayoral elections. 5/6
The gov at least introduced its #ElectionsBill am. when that Bill was still in committee - but it was still after 2nd Reading, when House is asked to agree to the principle of a Bill. All this is worth bearing in mind when gov members say they're committed to parly #scrutiny /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
