My attention was caught by a sidelined comment at Prime Minister’s Questions last week. Focusing on the announced changes to Personal Independence Payment in light of a recent court decision, the Leader of the Opposition claimed it was his party that introduced parity between mental and physical health in the NHS, and suggested the Prime Minister offer her thanks for their doing so.
“The Rt. Hon. Gentleman asks me about parity between mental health conditions and physical conditions. It is this Conservative government who introduced parity of esteem in dealing with mental health in the National Health Service. How many years were Labour in government and did nothing about it? Thirteen years!”
“It was a Labour amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that resulted in parity of esteem being put on the face of the Bill. I am surprised that the Rt. Hon. Lady has forgotten that; she could have taken this opportunity to thank the Labour Party for putting it forward.”
Mrs May brushed off the challenge without comment, but I felt there was a point to be made. However, having now looked into the issue, it appears the amendment in question was actually proposed by a Crossbench Peer in the House of Lords. Labour did support the amendment, while government Peers originally opposed it on the basis that it was “legally superfluous”.
Illness was already defined as pertaining to both mental and physical health, so it was claimed it would therefore “suggest that there is a divide between mental and physical illness rather than a convergence”. On the bill’s return to the House of Commons, the government changed its position, accepting the “symbolic significance” of its inclusion.
Despite the falsehood, I would commend not just those Labour MPs, but Members and Peers of any party who work hard to add their own knowledge and perspective on bills in the legislative process. In this time of great political division, with government frequently facing “opposition for opposition’s sake”, proper cross-party engagement to build consensus on legislation is very important in building a country that works for everyone.
No more so than in the process of our withdrawal from the European Union, given the effective permanence of any actions taken by government. True support does not entail blind encouragement, but reasoned and thoughtful consideration of the decisions being made. This is precisely the role of the House of Lords, using their lifetime positions to offer experienced insight in support of the House of Commons, whose regular election ensures the pursuit of popular policy and the retention of a democratic mandate to overrule the Lords if necessary.
Another controversial amendment was passed by the Lords last week, attempting to secure the rights of EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit. The government currently intends to exercise its right to reverse the amendment when the Article 50 bill returns to the Commons next week, holding the opinion that any changes are not only superfluous, but damagingly restrictive. This has led many MPs and much of the media to demonise the upper house, repeating the ‘unelected’ mantra.
I trust wholeheartedly that the government’s plan is to make the rights of expatriate UK and EU citizens a top priority in negotiations, and I do have sympathy for its position. However, there is a need to put something in place to keep the extreme Brexit ideologues in check and lay down the foundation for a broader national consensus. The government should again accept the “symbolic significance” of its inclusion, sending a message about the kind of country we hope to be and how we think people should be treated, thus leaving the onus on the EU to do the same.
Andrew Bulman 