Pub Date : 2024-04-25DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1079
NicholasRex Kilford
The United Kingdom (UK) Internal Market Act 2020’s ‘market access principles’ are capable of disapplying devolved legislation. Because that process qualifies the effectiveness but not the validity of that legislation, the UK Government contends that it leaves devolved competences intact and, therefore, respects the devolution settlement. However, this article argues that the use of disapplication to mechanise the market access principles has a deeper subordinating effect on devolved competence. This is because it suggests that devolved legislation is second-class, even within competence, and it implies that the settlement offers no protection for the effectiveness of devolved legislation, in stark contrast to the position accorded to Westminster. Further, disapplication also points to a less autonomous model of devolution, undermines legal certainty, and conceals significant constitutional changes from view. As such, far from neutralising the Act’s centralising tendencies, disapplication only exacerbates them.
{"title":"The market access principles and the subordination of devolved competence","authors":"NicholasRex Kilford","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1079","url":null,"abstract":"The United Kingdom (UK) Internal Market Act 2020’s ‘market access principles’ are capable of disapplying devolved legislation. Because that process qualifies the effectiveness but not the validity of that legislation, the UK Government contends that it leaves devolved competences intact and, therefore, respects the devolution settlement. However, this article argues that the use of disapplication to mechanise the market access principles has a deeper subordinating effect on devolved competence. This is because it suggests that devolved legislation is second-class, even within competence, and it implies that the settlement offers no protection for the effectiveness of devolved legislation, in stark contrast to the position accorded to Westminster. Further, disapplication also points to a less autonomous model of devolution, undermines legal certainty, and conceals significant constitutional changes from view. As such, far from neutralising the Act’s centralising tendencies, disapplication only exacerbates them.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"29 45","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140657698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-25DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1093
Christopher McCorkindale
Devolution is a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom (UK) constitution – a ‘new settlement’, as Tony Blair put it, that at once responded to the democratic demand to ‘[bring] decision-making … closer to the people who felt a strong sense of identity’ and also, in so doing, ‘to ward off the bigger threat of secession’. At the heart of that principle is respect for devolved autonomy; that, within the devolved sphere, it is the devolved authorities who are best placed to wield primary and secondary law-making powers free from interference from the centre. The constitutional safeguard for devolved autonomy is a political rule: that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature(s). Until the process to withdraw the UK from the European Union (EU) began, the convention was well defined, well understood and well respected. However, the UK Government’s centripetal approach to EU withdrawal and to the resulting realignment of the UK constitution has marked a significant step change. In this article I take seriously the claim made by the Institute for Government that the UK Internal Market Act 2020 is the most contentious example – a red flag symptom – of damaging new constitutional dynamics: the increased willingness of the UK Parliament and UK Government to intervene in devolved matters without devolved consent. At stake as a result is not only the efficient operation of the UK internal market but, recalling Blair, the very survival of the union itself.
权力下放是《联合王国宪法》的一项基本原则--正如托尼-布莱尔（Tony Blair）所说，这是一项 "新的解决方案"，既响应了 "使决策......更贴近具有强烈认同感的人民 "的民主要求，同时也 "避免了更大的分裂威胁"。这一原则的核心是尊重分权自治；在分权范围内，分权当局最有资格行使主要和次要立法权，不受中央干预。对分权自治的宪法保障是一项政治规则：未经相关分权立法机构同意，英国议会通常不会就分权事务立法。在英国退出欧盟（EU）的进程开始之前，该公约一直得到很好的界定、理解和尊重。然而，英国政府对退出欧盟以及由此产生的英国宪法调整所采取的向心力方式标志着一个重大的转变。在这篇文章中，我认真对待英国政府研究所（Institute for Government）提出的主张，即《2020 年英国内部市场法案》是破坏性新宪法动态的最有争议的例子--红旗症状：英国议会和英国政府越来越愿意在未经地方政府同意的情况下干预地方事务。这不仅关系到英国内部市场的有效运作，而且关系到欧盟本身的存亡。
{"title":"UKIMA as red flag symptom of constitutional ill-health: devolved autonomy and legislative consent","authors":"Christopher McCorkindale","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1093","url":null,"abstract":"Devolution is a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom (UK) constitution – a ‘new settlement’, as Tony Blair put it, that at once responded to the democratic demand to ‘[bring] decision-making … closer to the people who felt a strong sense of identity’ and also, in so doing, ‘to ward off the bigger threat of secession’. At the heart of that principle is respect for devolved autonomy; that, within the devolved sphere, it is the devolved authorities who are best placed to wield primary and secondary law-making powers free from interference from the centre. The constitutional safeguard for devolved autonomy is a political rule: that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature(s). Until the process to withdraw the UK from the European Union (EU) began, the convention was well defined, well understood and well respected. However, the UK Government’s centripetal approach to EU withdrawal and to the resulting realignment of the UK constitution has marked a significant step change. In this article I take seriously the claim made by the Institute for Government that the UK Internal Market Act 2020 is the most contentious example – a red flag symptom – of damaging new constitutional dynamics: the increased willingness of the UK Parliament and UK Government to intervene in devolved matters without devolved consent. At stake as a result is not only the efficient operation of the UK internal market but, recalling Blair, the very survival of the union itself.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"14 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140654154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-25DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1087
Gareth Evans, Tom Hannant, Simon Hoffman, Victoria Jenkins, Karen Morrow
This commentary builds on other papers in this special issue, identifying how tensions between UK and devolved institutions permeate a number of policy areas and how it affects devolved policy-making in those areas. It focuses on three discrete areas of law and policy: constitutional reform, human rights and environmental protection.
{"title":"Beyond UKIMA: challenges for devolved policy-making in the post-Brexit era","authors":"Gareth Evans, Tom Hannant, Simon Hoffman, Victoria Jenkins, Karen Morrow","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v75i1.1087","url":null,"abstract":"This commentary builds on other papers in this special issue, identifying how tensions between UK and devolved institutions permeate a number of policy areas and how it affects devolved policy-making in those areas. It focuses on three discrete areas of law and policy: constitutional reform, human rights and environmental protection. ","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"6 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140658881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-21DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1125
Dagmar Schiek
Following distorted perceptions of the role of people movement in the European Union (EU), the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom does not enable people movement to the same extent as other Association Agreements between the EU and its other neighbouring states. Even the much discussed Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (also Windsor Framework) largely ignores people movement, whose protection on the island of Ireland remains weak as a result. This note argues that forgetting the people matters, not only on grounds of the principles, but also for practical relations on the island of Ireland. The island of Ireland accordingly presents an astute case-study for the inherent problems of economic relationships between states which deprioritise person movements. It will start with summarising the principled relevance of free movement of persons, contextualise the state of affairs on the island of Ireland with the EU’s general approach to trade agreements beyond and within its neighbourhood, highlight the complexity of the state of affairs and illustrate its shortcomings through two current examples.
{"title":"People – the forgotten chapter? From the EU’s neighbourhood policy to post-Brexit Ireland (north and south) – and lasting damage to the integrative capacity of the EU Internal Market project","authors":"Dagmar Schiek","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1125","url":null,"abstract":"Following distorted perceptions of the role of people movement in the European Union (EU), the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom does not enable people movement to the same extent as other Association Agreements between the EU and its other neighbouring states. Even the much discussed Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (also Windsor Framework) largely ignores people movement, whose protection on the island of Ireland remains weak as a result. This note argues that forgetting the people matters, not only on grounds of the principles, but also for practical relations on the island of Ireland. The island of Ireland accordingly presents an astute case-study for the inherent problems of economic relationships between states which deprioritise person movements. It will start with summarising the principled relevance of free movement of persons, contextualise the state of affairs on the island of Ireland with the EU’s general approach to trade agreements beyond and within its neighbourhood, highlight the complexity of the state of affairs and illustrate its shortcomings through two current examples.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"62 s228","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140223143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-21DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1046
Kehinde Anifalaje
Although identity theft is not a new phenomenon in the banking industry, the internet, the use of databases in storing customers’ personal information as well as the ubiquitous nature of online transactions have heightened the issues of security and privacy concerns of bank customers. Of significant note is the increase in the risk of customers’ exposure to identity theft and the opening of the floodgates for unscrupulous and criminally minded persons to harvest customers’ personal information for fraudulent purposes with its attendant financial loss and reputational damages. This article examines identity theft within the banking and financial sector and the adequacy of the regulatory measures that have been deployed to combat it in Nigeria and the United Kingdom. It is contended that, despite the available legislation on identity theft in Nigeria with copious provisions to prosecute identity theft and the constitutional guarantee given to the privacy of citizens, the right to privacy of the citizens is still being constantly violated by identity thieves through unauthorised access to and damaging use of personal and financial data of unsuspecting victims. The article concludes that though, like any other crime, identity theft cannot be completely eradicated, it requires the concerted efforts of all relevant stakeholders to reduce its incidence to the barest minimum within Nigerian society.
{"title":"A legal approach to the protection of customers of banks and other financial institutions from identity theft in Nigeria","authors":"Kehinde Anifalaje","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1046","url":null,"abstract":"Although identity theft is not a new phenomenon in the banking industry, the internet, the use of databases in storing customers’ personal information as well as the ubiquitous nature of online transactions have heightened the issues of security and privacy concerns of bank customers. Of significant note is the increase in the risk of customers’ exposure to identity theft and the opening of the floodgates for unscrupulous and criminally minded persons to harvest customers’ personal information for fraudulent purposes with its attendant financial loss and reputational damages. This article examines identity theft within the banking and financial sector and the adequacy of the regulatory measures that have been deployed to combat it in Nigeria and the United Kingdom. It is contended that, despite the available legislation on identity theft in Nigeria with copious provisions to prosecute identity theft and the constitutional guarantee given to the privacy of citizens, the right to privacy of the citizens is still being constantly violated by identity thieves through unauthorised access to and damaging use of personal and financial data of unsuspecting victims. The article concludes that though, like any other crime, identity theft cannot be completely eradicated, it requires the concerted efforts of all relevant stakeholders to reduce its incidence to the barest minimum within Nigerian society.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":" 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140222211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-21DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1066
Pravar Petkar
The UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the Reference by the Lord Advocate of Devolution Issues under Paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 [2022] UKSC 31 not only confirms that holding a second referendum on Scottish independence is outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence but raises a series of important constitutional issues. These include the constitutional status of referendums, the importance of sub-state democracy and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament. Whilst the Court gives referendums more significance than they were previously thought to have, its reasoning invoking democracy and on parliamentary sovereignty suggests it has adopted a vision of the UK constitution in which UK-level authority is privileged over sub-state authority, to the detriment of subsidiarity and devolved autonomy.
英国最高法院在 "根据《1998 年苏格兰法案》附表 6 第 34 段提出的权力下放问题"（Reference by the Lord Advocate of Devolution Issues under Paragraph 34 of the Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 [2022] UKSC 31）一案中的判决不仅确认就苏格兰独立问题举行第二次全民公决不属于苏格兰议会的立法权限，而且提出了一系列重要的宪法问题。这些问题包括全民公决的宪法地位、次国家民主的重要性以及英国议会的主权。虽然法院赋予全民公决比以往认为的更重要的意义，但其援引民主和议会主权的推理表明，法院采纳了英国宪法的愿景，即英国一级的权力优于次国家权力，从而损害了辅助性和下放的自治权。
{"title":"Cracking a nut with a sledgehammer: the Lord Advocate’s Reference on a second Scottish independence referendum in constitutional context","authors":"Pravar Petkar","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v75iad1.1066","url":null,"abstract":"The UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the Reference by the Lord Advocate of Devolution Issues under Paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 [2022] UKSC 31 not only confirms that holding a second referendum on Scottish independence is outside the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence but raises a series of important constitutional issues. These include the constitutional status of referendums, the importance of sub-state democracy and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament. Whilst the Court gives referendums more significance than they were previously thought to have, its reasoning invoking democracy and on parliamentary sovereignty suggests it has adopted a vision of the UK constitution in which UK-level authority is privileged over sub-state authority, to the detriment of subsidiarity and devolved autonomy.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"216 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140222959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-21DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1025
Ruth Stirton
This article argues that section 173 of the Health and Care Act 2022 is a purely symbolic provision that will not effect any positive change to hospital food quality. In order to make this argument, I explore Murray Edelman’s work on the symbolic uses of politics and the literature on policy fiascos to explain why section 173 features in the 2022 Act at all. This is followed by a close analysis of what section 173 purports to do, which concludes that there is no substantive change to day-to-day practice as a result. This meets Lasswell’s definition of ‘political magic’. The article concludes with the argument that the only way to actually improve hospital food is to set aspirational standards and increase the budget to allow institutions to approach food provision in a holistic manner.
{"title":"Hospital food standards in section 173 of the Health and Care Act 2022: political magic with a soggy bottom","authors":"Ruth Stirton","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1025","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that section 173 of the Health and Care Act 2022 is a purely symbolic provision that will not effect any positive change to hospital food quality. In order to make this argument, I explore Murray Edelman’s work on the symbolic uses of politics and the literature on policy fiascos to explain why section 173 features in the 2022 Act at all. This is followed by a close analysis of what section 173 purports to do, which concludes that there is no substantive change to day-to-day practice as a result. This meets Lasswell’s definition of ‘political magic’. The article concludes with the argument that the only way to actually improve hospital food is to set aspirational standards and increase the budget to allow institutions to approach food provision in a holistic manner.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"53 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140444955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-21DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1024
Chay M Burt
Presently, within the United Kingdom, the House of Lords are engaged with the latest challenge to the blanket ban on any and all forms of assisted suicide. The Assisted Dying Bill [HL], which now resides in the Committee Stage, provides an exemption for medical practitioners assisting patients in self-administering medicine to end their lives. The Bill is identical to the previous Bill introduced by Lord Falconer. In light of developments within other foreign jurisdictions, the similarities and, perhaps more significantly, differences between the legislative pieces provide an interesting comparative discussion. The Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation has been in force since 2016 and has since been amended (March 2021). As Canada is somewhat further down the ‘legal road’ in regulating assisted dying, it may prove a fruitful endeavour to use the Canadian developments to assess and predict the possible trajectory of the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK. Features of the Bill reflect similar provisions that have been adjusted or removed in the Canadian legislation, features that are of significant importance and solemnity in the context of those wishing to access assistance in dying. Such examples include that it necessitates that the patient commit the final act, are expected to die within 6 months, and that there must be a ‘reflection period’. Statistical data reporting in Canada has given valuable insight to the provision of MAiD, including some of the features highlighted. The question becomes ‘should the UK Parliament be paying more attention to the Canadian developments in the context of domestic assisted dying Bills?’ Assisted dying is irrefutably embedded deep within many aspects of society. Whether there exists sufficient differences between the societies of the two jurisdictions will determine if the UK is being unnecessarily ignorant or responsibly contextual.
{"title":"Assisted Dying Bill [HL]: ignorance within the House?","authors":"Chay M Burt","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1024","url":null,"abstract":"Presently, within the United Kingdom, the House of Lords are engaged with the latest challenge to the blanket ban on any and all forms of assisted suicide. The Assisted Dying Bill [HL], which now resides in the Committee Stage, provides an exemption for medical practitioners assisting patients in self-administering medicine to end their lives. The Bill is identical to the previous Bill introduced by Lord Falconer. In light of developments within other foreign jurisdictions, the similarities and, perhaps more significantly, differences between the legislative pieces provide an interesting comparative discussion. The Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation has been in force since 2016 and has since been amended (March 2021). As Canada is somewhat further down the ‘legal road’ in regulating assisted dying, it may prove a fruitful endeavour to use the Canadian developments to assess and predict the possible trajectory of the Assisted Dying Bill in the UK. Features of the Bill reflect similar provisions that have been adjusted or removed in the Canadian legislation, features that are of significant importance and solemnity in the context of those wishing to access assistance in dying. Such examples include that it necessitates that the patient commit the final act, are expected to die within 6 months, and that there must be a ‘reflection period’. Statistical data reporting in Canada has given valuable insight to the provision of MAiD, including some of the features highlighted. The question becomes ‘should the UK Parliament be paying more attention to the Canadian developments in the context of domestic assisted dying Bills?’ Assisted dying is irrefutably embedded deep within many aspects of society. Whether there exists sufficient differences between the societies of the two jurisdictions will determine if the UK is being unnecessarily ignorant or responsibly contextual.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"46 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140444677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-21DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1022
Conor Francis Macis
Departing from Keith Syrett’s article in this issue, this commentary critically considers the place of organic ideology in population health interventions, using water fluoridation provisions contained in the Health and Care Act 2022 as an example. It demonstrates that liberal capitalist and neoliberal capitalist conceptions of the state as protector ground these provisions and, in so doing, it shows that population health interventions must be grounded in resonant politico-philosophical ideas prior to considerations around the opening of a policy window. This comment concludes by noting the need for further work to grasp the positive and negative role of appealing to organic ideology in public health law, regulation and policy.
{"title":"Unearthing organic ideology in population health interventions: the case of water fluoridation provision in the Health and Care Act 2022","authors":"Conor Francis Macis","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1022","url":null,"abstract":"Departing from Keith Syrett’s article in this issue, this commentary critically considers the place of organic ideology in population health interventions, using water fluoridation provisions contained in the Health and Care Act 2022 as an example. It demonstrates that liberal capitalist and neoliberal capitalist conceptions of the state as protector ground these provisions and, in so doing, it shows that population health interventions must be grounded in resonant politico-philosophical ideas prior to considerations around the opening of a policy window. This comment concludes by noting the need for further work to grasp the positive and negative role of appealing to organic ideology in public health law, regulation and policy.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"6 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140442291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-21DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1068
Mary Guy, Okeoghene Odudu
References to National Health Service (NHS) ‘privatisation’ can be found in UK parliamentary debates since the early 1980s, but it remains not well understood as a concept and can certainly be distinguished from the standard definition of ‘privatisation’, meaning taking into private ownership. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that the characteristics of ‘NHS privatisation’ include clear links with the evolving interaction between the NHS and private healthcare, a relationship which can be traced back to the inception of the NHS in 1948.By juxtaposing primarily the debates of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA 2012) and the Health and Care Act 2022 (HCA 2022), it becomes possible to gain at least two insights into ‘NHS privatisation’ in the English NHS. Firstly, it enables us to understand whether, and if so, how, ‘NHS privatisation’ may be changing with the reversal of the controversial HSCA 2012 competition reforms by the shift to integration now enshrined by the HCA 2022. Secondly, we gain a greater understanding of how ‘NHS privatisation’ has developed as a criticism capable of being invoked by diverse political parties and thus able to shape the development and implementation of NHS reforms. Thirdly, ‘NHS privatisation’ may operate to inhibit more radical NHS reform in opposing directions by reference to the NHS Bill and the NHS (Co-funding and Co-payment) Bill. Finally, ‘NHS privatisation’ can be understood in terms of questions of accountability and the dynamic between market and state.
{"title":"Understanding ‘NHS privatisation’: from competition to integration and beyond in the English NHS","authors":"Mary Guy, Okeoghene Odudu","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v74i4.1068","url":null,"abstract":"References to National Health Service (NHS) ‘privatisation’ can be found in UK parliamentary debates since the early 1980s, but it remains not well understood as a concept and can certainly be distinguished from the standard definition of ‘privatisation’, meaning taking into private ownership. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that the characteristics of ‘NHS privatisation’ include clear links with the evolving interaction between the NHS and private healthcare, a relationship which can be traced back to the inception of the NHS in 1948.By juxtaposing primarily the debates of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA 2012) and the Health and Care Act 2022 (HCA 2022), it becomes possible to gain at least two insights into ‘NHS privatisation’ in the English NHS. Firstly, it enables us to understand whether, and if so, how, ‘NHS privatisation’ may be changing with the reversal of the controversial HSCA 2012 competition reforms by the shift to integration now enshrined by the HCA 2022. Secondly, we gain a greater understanding of how ‘NHS privatisation’ has developed as a criticism capable of being invoked by diverse political parties and thus able to shape the development and implementation of NHS reforms. Thirdly, ‘NHS privatisation’ may operate to inhibit more radical NHS reform in opposing directions by reference to the NHS Bill and the NHS (Co-funding and Co-payment) Bill. Finally, ‘NHS privatisation’ can be understood in terms of questions of accountability and the dynamic between market and state.","PeriodicalId":509896,"journal":{"name":"Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140442576","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：