Save our NHS, legal review - for those not otherwise in receipt

[dipsydoodle]

In just one week, your MP has to vote on massive changes to our NHS. But 38 Degrees members now have something our MPs don’t – thorough, independent legal advice about what these changes really mean.

Our expert legal advice is sobering. Despite the “listening exercise”, the government’s changes to the NHS plans could still pave the way for a shift towards a US-style health system, where private companies profit at the expense of patient care.

Conservative MPs like yours are being told by their bosses these changes fit with party ideology. But many would be horrified to know that the NHS would be subject to European competition laws and front-line services could be held up with procurement red tape. Let’s work together to show them the evidence right now!

If enough of us email now, it could tip the balance:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/email-your-conservative-mp

Our independent lawyers identified two major problems in the new legislation:

The Secretary of State’s legal duty to provide a health service will be scrapped. On top of that, a new “hands-off clause” removes the government's powers to oversee local consortia and guarantee the level of service wherever we live. We can expect increases in postcode lotteries – and less ways to hold the government to account if the service deteriorates.

The NHS will almost certainly be subject to UK and EU competition law and the reach of procurement law rules will extend across all NHS commissioners. Private health companies will be able to take new NHS commissioning groups to court if they don’t win contracts. Scarce public money could be tied up in legal wrangles instead of hospital beds. Meanwhile, the legislation lifts the cap on NHS hospitals filling beds with private patients.
So who are MPs going to listen to when casting their vote – you, or lobbyists from private health companies? This is our NHS, and it’s up to us to defend it. Email your MP now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/email-your-conservative-mp

It’s pretty extraordinary what we’ve managed to achieve together already. Nearly half a million of us have signed the petition to save the NHS. And after Andrew Lansley announced the last round of changes, thousands of 38 Degrees members immediately chipped in to get top independent legal advice on the new plans.

Barrister Rebecca Haynes found that the government's plans could pave the way for private healthcare companies and their lawyers to benefit most from changes, not patients. Another barrister, Stephen Cragg, found that we were right to be worried that Andrew Lansley was planning to remove his duty to provide our NHS.

This is the conclusion of a top legal team paid to have no other interest at heart but yours.

MPs vote in just seven days. Seven days to not only get the evidence, but be convinced there’s way too much public concern to ignore it. The good news is, with over 800,000 of us now armed with expert legal advice, we are just the people to speak up. Our message is clear: we have the facts, so politicians can’t hide behind spin. Let’s give MPs from all parties the mandate they need to think again and vote against these changes to the NHS.
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/email-your-conservative-mp


Thanks,

Johnny, David, Cian, Becky, Hannah, Marie and the 38 Degrees team.

[non sociopath skin]

1. Luckily I don't have a Tory MP.

The Skin

[dipsydoodle]

2. Yes but I do

Bit of fuck up that one. Given the local level of of support for the Lib Dems it was anticipated that giving Clare Ward the boot would give us a Lib Dem MP to accompany our local council.

That failed.

[non sociopath skin]

3. Now had the alternative MP mailing for opposition MPs.

Sent and receipt acknowledged.

The Skin

[non sociopath skin]

5. Not surprisingly, Ian Lavery has emailed me to tell me he's opposing the bill.

He's a good 'un.

:fistbump:

The Skin

[dipsydoodle]

8. Did you get exactly the same reply as # 6 below

.

[non sociopath skin]

9. No, I got the exact opposite!

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

4. Thanks. Just got this also from 38 Degrees

Will send her an e-mail, though I am not sure what good it will do (a useless Tory twit). Still, one can but try.

[dipsydoodle]

6. I got this reply

Thank you for contacting me about the NHS reforms and the 38 Degrees campaign.

I am deeply committed to the NHS which is why I am pleased that Prime Minister has said that it is a major priority of this Government.

Our reform plans were examined in detail by the independent NHS Future Forum, which comprised the country’s leading doctors, nurses and NHS experts. They concluded that the twin demands on the NHS – of an ageing population and of rising costs of new treatments and technologies – meant that reform of the NHS was needed. They also recommended significant changes to the Government’s original plans, which we have accepted. These significant changes have addressed many of the concerns originally raised by 38 Degrees and others.

I am unsure as to the basis of the latest concerns expressed by 38 Degrees. First, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill, “removes the Secretary of State’s duty to provide”. However, 38 Degrees’s own legal advice states that the Secretary of State has never had such a duty to provide. Therefore, the Health and Social Care Bill makes no changes to the Secretary of State’s duty to provide, because it never existed in the first place.

Second, 38 Degrees suggests that the Health and Social Care Bill opens up the NHS to competition law. However, once again, 38 Degrees’s own legal advice states that competition law already applies to the NHS.

I hope you agree with me that 38 Degrees’s concerns are without foundation, as their own legal advice has confirmed.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Kind regards,

Richard Harrington MP

[LeftishBrit]

7. Humph

What that seems to be saying is: "We could privatize the NHS even under the existing loopholes, so why are you complaining about our changing the law to make it even easier?"

[LeftishBrit]

10. In case anyone's interested, I just now got this screed from Nicola Blackwood

Obviously a form letter, as she doesn't answer most of my specific concerns:



Thank you for contacting me about the Health and Social Care Bill. As you will know, the Bill passed through the Commons earlier this month after a lengthy and comprehensive debate. There has been a great deal of constituent interest about this issue, and also some incorrect information about these reforms, and I believe it is important to clarify them here.



First and foremost, let me assure you once again that I am deeply committed to the NHS.



With two parents who worked in the NHS, I believe passionately in the NHS. It is our most precious national asset. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase investment in the health service by more than £11 billion over the next four years. Let me reassure you that I want to protect the core values of the NHS, that patients will get the highest quality of care that is free at the point of delivery.



I am a great advocate of the National Health Service and I believe that Government should continue to explore ways of improving the service that the nation relies on. That is why I have stayed involved in important healthcare issues since my election, including fighting for Oxford's children's heart unit. However, enormous financial pressures, increasing costs of drugs and a rapidly ageing population loom large on the horizon, threatening to undermine our health service unless we act now. If we do not deal with the challenges today, we will face a crisis tomorrow.



These changes are about involving a wider group of professionals in the commissioning of health services, introducing stronger safeguards to protect against competition where it would damage patient care, and a safe transition, building on the approaches that have been tried and tested by previous Governments. I even wrote to every GP surgery, care home and Trust in the constituency to ensure that I heard the full range of local views about these proposed changes, and I ensured any concerns were brought to Minister's attention.



I appreciate that you may continue to have concerns about the Bill. But the independent NHS Future Forum, composed of the country’s leading doctors, nurses and NHS experts, concluded that the twin demands on the NHS, namely the ageing population and the rising costs of new treatments and technologies, meant that reform of the NHS was needed. They also recommended significant changes to the Government’s original plans, which were accepted. I am very pleased that these significant changes have addressed many of the concerns originally raised by 38 Degrees and others. The Future Forum confirmed that there is widespread support for the principles underpinning the Government’s plans: more patient choice, more control for doctors and nurses on the frontline; a focus on quality for patients rather than narrow process targets; and more clout for members of the public.



The Future Forum confirmed that this bill will not privatise the NHS, which I would not support. They also confirmed that there is nothing in the Government's proposals which would change the core values of the NHS: Providing free care to all, funded from general taxation, and based on need and not ability to pay. The Government has even made an addition to the text of the legislation, stating that NHS care must be free at the point of use and this legislation cannot introduce user fees.



There have been specific concerns raised by organisations on the removal of the Secretary of State's duty to provide. There is no significant change to the current position. The Secretary of State’s core duty remains the same under the Health and Social Care Bill as it has since 1946. The Secretary of State for Health will have a duty to promote a comprehensive health service, and he also retains the existing duty to provide key services, as outlined in the NHS Act 2006. The Government has made it clear that overall accountability for the NHS will remain with the Health Secretary.



The Bill will transfer responsibilities from PCTs to GP consortia, and not further from the Secretary of State. Of course, there is no secret that the Bill would affect other changes in this area, in line with the Government view that an efficient and comprehensive NHS for the 21st century must do away with top-down management and return real power to local people and professionals, about which I have heard support from national organisations like the Royal College of Surgeons and from NHS professionals locally.



A second concern raised by some campaign organisations is that the Health and Social Care Bill opens up the NHS to competition law. However domestic competition and procurement law already applies to the NHS, and there will be no change between the present competition regime and that which will be brought into being if and when the Bill becomes law.



A third concern raised to me is that of equality of care. One of the core principles of the NHS is that it delivers care of the same standard regardless of someone’s wealth or where they live. I fully support this principle, and the Government is taking a number of steps in support of this. First, it has retained the right of all patients to have access to nationally-approved drugs, regardless of where they live. This is a crucial safeguard, introduced by the previous Government. However, I believe that this Government should go further and I welcome the development of national ‘quality standards’ which will set out the level of service patients should expect wherever they live. In addition, the Government’s plans to increase transparency in the NHS will shine a light on where services are not delivering the standards of care other areas are delivering – helping to drive up standards across the country.



Different areas of the country will of course put in place different NHS services tailored to the needs of their local populations, as has always been the case. However, I hope I have reassured you that all areas of the country must do so in the context of national rules and clear, national standards that will help to ensure the fairness in the NHS we all want to see.



While I have had concerns and continue to raise points of disagreement with Ministers about these proposals, I am very disappointed in the high levels of misinformation and outright scaremongering that has occurred about these reforms. I hope this reply helped to explain some of the facts about this Bill, and I assure you I will continue to make constituents' specific concerns known to Ministers as this Bill moves through the House of Lords. Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.



Kind regards,

Nicola