DONATE facebook-icon-copy twitterICON

999 Call for the NHS

A grassroots NHS campaign. Not affiliated to any of the political parties.

999logofinal_Pill_straight_360 999 Blog

By 999 Call for the NHS, Mar 7 2019 06:09PM

999 Call for the NHS is urging everyone to write to their MP to support NHS EDM #2013 which is an Early Day Motion called a “Prayer” Motion. It’s the only type of motion that can annul and stop secondary legislation.

This is urgent because the Department of Health has “quietly” introduced secondary legislation, in the form of a Statutory Instrument, to make major changes to NHS regulations that will damage the way in which GP/Primary Care and Commissioning works - and of course it will not benefit patients or staff.

We are asking MPs to use parliamentary procedure to call this legislation into question and annul the Statutory Instrument

Please visit our Prayer Motion page to find a LETTER TO MY MP template and more information. This is urgent we have until March 24th to get this annulled. It can be done.

Secondary legislation? What the Duck is all that about then?

In the light of raised eyebrows and lots of questions since we launched the Prayer Motion campaign - this blog post explains what secondary legislation is, when it was created and how it has been used and abused since it was introduced in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.

The Parliament UK website says that:

Secondary legislation is law created by ministers (or other bodies) under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament - the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. It  is used to fill in the details of Acts (primary legislation). These details provide practical measures that enable the  law to be enforced and operate in daily life. 

Most secondary legislation is created, 'made and laid' as a Statutory Instrument.

Statutory Instruments (SI) were intended as a device to allow Ministers to make minor updates and amend existing Bills without bothering the House of Commons (or indeed any part of parliament) - allowing ministers to deal with localised and/or minor issues and changes to law without time-wasting debates in the Commons.

That’s the theory. The practice seems to be a bit different.


The theory sounds like common sense, sort of... Until you notice the sharp upward trend in the use of Statutory Instruments through the Thatcher Years, into New Labour and the last ten years of this thing we call ‘Austerity’ government.

The red lines in the table below show a huge disparity between the number of actual ACTS (Primary Legislation passed in the Commons & Lords) and the number of Statutory Instruments.

By and large, because of the way they are made (the Negative Procedure), Statutory Instruments are only seen by ministerial committees. This means there is NO opposition oversight of or input into these legislative changes. In the case of this Statutory Instrument - it is not even required to have even nominal scrutiny by the cross-party-house Joint Committee of Statutory Instruments (Select Committee).

What’s the point of having Parliamentary opposition if it can’t oppose? To use the Mainstream Media’s classic line “where's the balance?” One party state, anyone?

Latest figures on the number of SI’s passing through unseen? The House of Commons Background Paper on Statutory Instruments (2016) says:

In the region of 3,500 SIs are made each year. Many SIs are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and simply become law on the date stated. Whether they are subject to parliamentary procedure, and if so which one, is determined by the parent Act.

On top of this,look at the size of these Statutory Instruments. Given the number of pages, can they really contain only minor amendments and non-vital pieces of policy making?

According to Bracknell: “Statutory Instruments vary enormously in their scope from substantial pieces of legislation to considerable numbers of orders temporarily restricting traffic on particular local roads.”

The full easy-to-read Bracknell report is here:

So we have to ask - are Statutory Instruments now a way of changing Acts and regulations without Parliamentary debate and proper scrutiny?

If so much paperwork filled with items, appendices and addendums is passing through the corridors of parliament unseen by most MPs and Lords, is it any wonder that we are crying out “Democracy? What Democracy?”

This concern applies with a vengeance to Statutory Instrument 2019 No.248 The Amendments Relating to the Provision of Integrated Care Regulations 2019. It contains pages and pages of guff.

You can see for yourself - and pay special attention to PART 9 & 10.

It's a good job there is an Explanatory Memorandum to SI 2019#248 - be warned it’s uncomfortable reading but at least it’s in an English most MPs and members of the public can understand - if they were given the chance to read it of course.

If you haven't already please help make this happen. Don't be confused by Parliamentary Procedure.

Write to your MP from our Prayer Motion Page

Many thanks.

By 999 Call for the NHS, Jan 24 2018 08:29PM

Secretary of State says Tory whips have tied his hands over delay to ACO contract

Reports that Jeremy Hunt has paused the creation of the first Accountable Care Organisations appeared to be unfounded after his evasive replies to questions at the Health Select Committee meeting on 23rd January 2018.

However, NHS England’s announcement on the 25th January READ ALL ABOUT IT of a 12 week consultation on ACO contracts says that until this is over “No ACO contract will be awarded in the meantime.”

Why couldn’t Hunt, as Secretary of State for Health, just inform the Health Select Committee of this simple fact? Instead of playing absurd games.

On 18th January, the Chair of the Health Select Committee, Sarah Wollaston MP, wrote to Hunt asking him to delay the introduction of the draft Accountable Care Organisation contract until the Committee’s inquiry into Sustainability and Transformation Plans and Accountable Care Organisations was completed.


Hunt's reply to Wollaston's letter and his performance yesterday in her Health Select Committee (both are on Parliament website) are master classes in evasion and obfuscation.

His letter says:

• he expects NHS E to announce this week a consultation on the prototype ACO contract before it is used by any CCG.

• He anticipates that a few “sites” (ie STPartnerships) “could be in a position to sign an ACO contract later in 2018” - implying that they would not now be doing that for April 2018

• In the light of the HSC inquiry and the Judicial Review that has been brought against ACO policy, he is considering the timing of secondary legislation for regulations to enable piloting of the draft ACO contract, that he had planned for Parliament to pass in February


in the Health Select Committee meeting (Monday 22nd Jan), Sarah Wollaston MP asked Hunt SIX TIMES to clarify the statement in his letter that he is considering the timing of secondary legislation for regulations to enable piloting of the draft ACO contract.

Hunt seemed either unable or unwilling to give a straight answer.   

First he avoided the question by saying that ACOs were not a vehicle for NHS privatisation, although he then admitted that a private company could lead an ACO, since he said the government is powerless to specify which type of body bids for NHS contracts.

Then Hunt tried to hide behind the Tory whips, saying that the timing of the regulations is really up to them.

Then Hunt claimed Brexit regulations were “going to take up pretty much all Parliamentary time when it comes to secondary legislation.”

His next gambit was to repeatedly (6 times) try to hide behind NHS England and its upcoming announcement that it will have a full public consultation into the new ACO contract.

He then said that the regulations could be passed, but they could be changed following NHSE’s consultation since “consultations can advise that regulations should be changed.”

Then he said he was “not necessarily saying regulations will be laid.”

Then he said “ We will listen to anything the Select Committee says, as we always do.” At which Wollaston laughed delightedly and asked no further questions.

Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw (Lab) promptly chipped in to ask Hunt if he didn’t regret using the term ACOs, since with its American connotations this was always going to be "a red rag" to the campaigners' "bull"?  Since good proportion of his Devon constituents are campaigning to stop the imposition of an ACO in Devon, this characterisation might not go down too well with them.

Bradshaw added that the ACO proposals are "sensible vertical and horizontal integration that could overcome the internal market and be very positive". At which point Hunt sat back for the first time in the meeting and smiled.

A more detailed summary of the Secretary of State's statements is downloadable in window on right.

Let’s be clear what ACOs are: new local NHS and Social Care organisations which are clearly based on the business model used by the USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system, where the state ONLY provides a limited range of “managed  care” to patients who are elderly or too poor or ill to afford private health insurance.

The NHS must continue to provide comprehensive healthcare to all who need it. But this is under threat from Accountable Care Organisations.

Our Judicial Review, to be heard in Leeds court on 24th April, challenges the lawfulness of the draft Accountable Care Organisation contract’s payment mechanism. 

Geared to meeting the £22bn+ funding shortfall by 2021 that the government is imposing on the NHS in England, the new ACO contract does not link payment to the number of patients treated and/or the complexity of the medical treatment they need, as is required by the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. Instead, payment would be based on a fixed budget for an area’s population.

The contract allows the Accountable Care Organisations to keep any unspent money left over at the end of the year, while also making them bear the risk of overspending.


This new payment mechanism is supposed to drive efficiency and incentivise Accountable Care Organisations to “manage demand”  for NHS and social care services, but we are concerned that financial decisions not clinical need would determine patients’ access to treatment.

This is what’s happened in other countries, where Accountable Care Organisations have cherry-picked treatments and patients that represent “good value for money”,  while failing to comprehensively meet patients’ clinical needs.

Steve Carne, one of the 999 Call for the NHS core Judicial Review team, said,

“We were really hoping that the Secretary of State would do the sensible thing and pause the introduction of the Accountable Care Organisation contract, as the Chair of the Health Select Committee requested.

We are puzzled and disappointed by his prevarication to the Health Select Committee. What can possibly be gained by sowing further confusion about the complex and contentious introduction of these new local forms of NHS and social care organisation?

We look forward to bringing our Judicial Review to Leeds Court on April 24th, which will begin to establish some clarity whatever its outcome.”



UPDATE NOTE: 25th January 2018. We've updated the blog with the news of NHS ENgland's upcoming consultatoin on Accountable Care Organisations

999 Bloggers

We need your help!

We are all volunteers and there is no polite way to say it. We always need some money to help make 999 a effective success.


Please think about donating.

No matter how big or small the amount every penny will go towards the Campaign



We are not aligned

to any political party.


We never have been.

We know it's going to take political legislation to bring back the NHS into public hands but we remain independent of all the parties in order to lobby and pressure all the parties. We are about people and the NHS they should be able to keep.


So to all MPs and politicians -   If the policy fits, we'll support it.  




If you have an article to share, a blog item you feel we could use please do get in touch.


This space was always intended as a grassroots venue for campaigners to raise their voices.


Contact Steve for more details.

RSS Feed

Editor of The Lancet


Agrees with an NHS Staff member with their cry for the resignation of the NHS England Board. He calls their preparations for the pandemic as SHAMBOLIC and a

"National Disgrace"


What do you think? Find out more and get involved.