Judith Jolly writes: Lib Dem Brexit health win in the Lords

In the midst of all the Brexit chaos, I want to take a moment to reflect on a significant and unreported win for the Liberal Democrats against the Conservative Government. 

A few months ago, a Bill was introduced into Parliament which seemed fairly uncontroversial – it’s aim was to replicate our reciprocal healthcare arrangements with other countries in the event of Brexit (either in a deal or no deal scenario). However, the Conservative Bill went much further than replicating healthcare with EU countries and was is in fact much more threatening. It opened up health deals with the whole world, one of our fears being that that in Liam Fox’s frantic attempts to sign a trade deal, the Tories were planning to put the NHS on the table as well.  As a result, Sal Brinton, Jonathan Marks and I – along with members of the Labour Party and the crossbenches spent weeks challenging the Government to limit the application of the Bill – with great success! 

One of the privileges of being members of the European Union, is that no matter where we are in the EU, our health needs are safeguarded when we need medical attention. Under EU agreements, the UK has participated in a variety of reciprocal healthcare arrangements with other countries, with the result being that all citizens and visitors are protected. 

The Liberal Democrats with cross-party support worked to amend the Bill significantly. We were clear that this Bill must only allow ministers to replace the health deals we already have with the EU, the EEA and Switzerland. 

The Bill’s scope was extraordinarily wide, and the powers included were unjustifiable. In November, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described its scope as “breath-taking”. 

The Bill had a worldwide scope, it did not just apply to EEA countries and Switzerland – countries we will need to establish healthcare arrangements with in the event of Brexit. We made sure to limit this. 

Not only did Liberal Democrats feel that worldwide powers were being snuck through in the guise of Brexit legislation and were unnecessary, but there was a genuine fear that this was an attempt to allow the NHS to be used as part of trade arrangements when creating new trade deals with countries such as the USA or China. We were witnessing the Conservative Government attempting to steal powers for ministers in Whitehall which could see them selling our NHS down the river. 

Another issue was the vast Henry VIII powers included in the Bill. If the Bill had been left unamended, the Bill would have given vast powers to the Secretary of State to modify legislation without any real scrutiny or ability for Parliament to restrict the use of the powers. 

We also considered issues concerning devolution, cross-border health arrangements, and the use of data, putting them on a firmer footing. 

Simply put, the Bill did not make provision for adequate parliamentary oversight and it was too wide and unfocused in what it covers. 

Liberal Democrats in the Lords felt so strongly about the sweeping powers Government was trying to award itself, that we gave the Conservative Government an ultimatum. Either improve the Bill and accept our changes, or the Lords will vote against the passage of the Bill. This is a measure that is rarely used in the Lords and is saved for the most serious issues. 

In the end however it was unnecessary as the Government accepted the numerous changes laid down by the Liberal Democrats. We curtailed significant powers, restricted powers to EEA member states and Switzerland, and also made improvements to the use of data, consideration of devolution and cross border health arrangements.  

Up and down this country people rely on our hard-working doctors and nurses to care for us when we are in need. The NHS can often be the difference between life and death. The Liberal Democrats demanded better for our health service, and we achieved better. 

* Baroness Judith Jolly is Co-Chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Health and Social Care.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMartin 21st Nov - 3:50pm
    John Marriott: That seems a fairly rational answer, though I am sure you can see that it would be very unlikely to be accepted, but...
  • User AvatarSandra Hammett 21st Nov - 3:32pm
    Watching Politics Live in our BBC mandated 4 minutes of coverage Andrew Neil and panel were questioning whether our campaign as been to presidential, falling...
  • User AvatarBarry Lofty 21st Nov - 3:29pm
    John Marriot, I happen to be in the same age group as you and have always voted Liberal/Liberal Democrat but have not put my principals...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 21st Nov - 2:56pm
    To all those who bridle to my comments let me just say that I joined in the old Liberal Party in 1979 and also joined...
  • User AvatarPeter Watson 21st Nov - 2:50pm
    @Charles Pragnell "The view is that a second referendum is the only way out of this mess. However if you ask graduates , or business’s...
  • User Avatarnvelope2003 21st Nov - 2:46pm
    Keeping fares down was tried in the 1950s to keep commuters voting Conservative. Unfortunately all the money needed for investment in an out dated system...