WordPress.com



BLYTH MP FAILS TO SUPPORT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD PROTECT THE NHSSee below 3 emails:> Top email - from KONPNE to Blyth MP Ian Levy, 9th August 2020 - our huge concern and disappointment that he chose to vote AGAINST protecting the NHS in the Trade Bill> Middle email - from Ian Levy MP to KONPNE, 21st July 2020 - - attempting to justify his position> Third email - our initial email from KONPNE to Ian Levy, 19th July 2020, requesting his support in protecting the NHSIt is not too late: we are now counting on Ian Levy to support NHS Amendments, after the Bill has been through the Lords in the autumn 20209th August 2020Dear Mr LevyI write further to your email dated 21st July 2020 (below) and further to your voting on the Trade Bill at the Report Stage / Third Reading on Monday 20th July 2020. "Keep Our NHS Public North East" are extremely concerned that you chose to vote against protecting the NHS when Amendments were tabled. In particular, Blyth members of our group are disappointed that you voted in this way. As you are aware, an Amendment to the Trade Bill was put forward which aimed to protect the NHS from control from outside the UK and a further Amendment would have allowed more parliamentary scrutiny of deals (Lucas and Djanogly, respectively). Our analysis of your voting at that time clarifies that you stood back when you had an opportunity as Blyths current representative in Parliament and, indeed, as an ex-NHS worker, to stand up for the NHS. Johnson had promised to "keep the NHS off the table", but he has clearly gone back on his word and you are one of the MPs who have supported this betrayal. If the Bill goes ahead as it stands, the UK will be at risk of higher drug prices, private companies will be able to sue the government if it tries to limit their ability to profit from our healthcare, and it opens the gates for Trump to get his hands on our NHS. These dangers will be compounded by the fact that Parliament won't necessarily have any say or information about future trade deals until the deal is negotiated and signed off.We reject your main stance regarding your inaction on the 20th, as outlined in your email (below) "The NHS is already protected by specific carve outs, exceptions and reservations in EU trade agreements and I know that my Ministerial colleagues have no intention of lowering standards as these trade agreements are transitioned." Your identification of "no intention" is nebulous, it carries no weight and is certainly not binding for the future; rhetoric around the NHS "being off the table" and "not for sale" also carries no legal standing; inclusion in a party manifesto provides no legal protection. When it comes to health, our priority is patient care and not the profits of private companies, and it is clear that there should be a clause which explicitly states that the NHS will be exempt from the provisions of any future trade agreement. This clarifies the situation from the outset. It follows that, if you maintain your stance that "the NHS is not for sale", then you must vote for the appropriate Amendment to be put into legislation.The actions of this Government and associated MPs regarding this matter has caused much unrest within the general public, and within the health and social care sector. You may be aware that Dr David Wrigley (Deputy Chair of the British Medical Association, representing all doctors in the UK, 22nd July 2020) writes "The pandemic has served as a significant reminder of just how important the NHS is to us here. It is disappointing that MPs voted against Amendments to the Trade Bill last night that would have gone some way to protecting the health service and public health in trade agreements. This Trade Bill provided an important legislative opportunity to protect the health and social care sectors by safeguarding future options to roll back the privatisation of the NHS and allow for future scope to restructure towards a more collaborative model" , you may be aware that 500 NHS and public health professionals have signed an open letter, demanding that legal guarantees are in place to provide specific protections to the NHS in any future negotiations with countries such as the US. This letter was instigated by a local doctor and member of "Keep Our NHS Public North East" and signatories include Prof Maggie Rae (President of the Faculty of Public Health) and Prof Anthony Costello (former World Health Organisation director), together with frontline hospital doctors, nurses and GPs, as well as more than 40 professors. This letter warns that, unless explicitly excluded in the Trade Bill, the UK healthcare system will be exposed to "unavoidable and irreversible marketisation". is now time for the Lords to demonstrate their support for the NHS. MPs need to do much more than provide a public clap on a Thursday night, and our organisation is following the situation closely, including all subsequent Amendments and voting patterns. "Keep Our NHS Public North East" and the residents of Blyth are counting on you to accurately represent local wishes regarding this crucially important matter in the autumn.John WhalleySteering group memberKeep Our NHS Public North EastOn Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 10:57, LEVY, Ian <ian.levy.mp@parliament.uk> wrote:Dear Mr Whalley,Thank you for your email about the Trade Bill.There has been a lot of speculation and indeed misinformation about the Trade Bill. I am grateful to you for taking the time to get in touch and allow me to opportunity to comment.At its core, the Trade Bill is a continuity Bill. It cannot be used to implement new free trade agreements with countries such as the US. Instead it can only be used to transition the free trade agreements that the UK has been party to through EU membership. All these agreements have already been subject to scrutiny as underlying EU agreements, through the European Scrutiny Committee process or equivalent.I should be clear that Free Trade Agreements cannot change UK law. Parliament will retain the right to reject any domestic implementing legislation necessary for a trade treaty. By blocking any change to legislation, should it be required, it can also block ratification of the Treaty.In addition to this, Parliament will retain, through the CRAG process, the right to block any negotiated treaty from being ratified. This is in line with similar systems such as Canada. It goes further than countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where Parliament cannot directly block ratification of a trade treaty.To allow for independent scrutiny, the Government has also made clear that any trade treaty will be made public before ratification, and Parliament will be able to act, should it choose to do so, having seen all the draft text of the agreement. Where time allows, provision will be made for a report to be drafted by the relevant Select Committee who will also be able to request a debate in the House of Commons before ratification takes place.The Government has been clear that they will not compromise on UK standards. Our manifesto, to which we were all elected individually and collectively less than 8 months ago, is clear that in all future trade negotiations, the Government will not compromise on our existing high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.All imports must meet our strict food safety standards and will continue to have to do so. All food safety legislation will be carried over into UK law when we leave the transition period. Parliament retains final say over such legislation, it can block any changes should it wish to do so. These import standards include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products and set out that no products, other than potable water, are approved to decontaminate poultry carcases. Decisions on these standards are a matter for the UK and will be made separately from any trade agreement.For those who ask why we just do not ban anything which does not meet our production standards as part of the Bill, amendments which prevent the import of agricultural products that don’t meet our domestic production standards – even where they meet our high food safety standards – could have negative effects for UK food supply, UK food manufacturers who rely on imports, the price of goods in the shops and the ability of developing countries to sell to the UK.The NHS is already protected by specific carve outs, exceptions and reservations in EU trade agreements and I know that my Ministerial colleagues have no intention of lowering standards as these trade agreements are transitioned. The very purpose of these transitioned agreements is to replicate as close as possible the effects of existing commitments in EU agreements. Indeed, I can reassure you that none of the 20 continuity agreements signed have resulted in standards being lowered.Overall, I believe this approach in the Trade Bill strikes an appropriate balance. It respects the UK constitution, ensuring that the Government can negotiate in the best interests of the UK, while making sure that Parliament has the information it needs to effectively scrutinise and lend its expertise to trade policy.With best wishes Ian Levy Member of Parliament for Blyth Valley==================================Sent: 19 July 2020 13:28To: LEVY, Ian <ian.levy.mp@parliament.uk>Subject: Trade Bill - URGENT - Monday 20th JulyDear Ian,I am a member of the Steering Group of "Keep Our NHS Public North East", and I am writing on behalf of the members of our group who live in your constituency. You will be aware that the Trade Bill has now reached Report Stage and the third reading, and will be debated on Monday. It is crucial that you give yourself the powers to scrutinise and make sure that the NHS is kept out of all future trade deals. Conservative MP Jonathan Djanogly has tabled the amendment New Clause 4. I'm writing to ask you to vote for it tomorrow, Monday 20th July.84% of us want our NHS in public hands. 1.2 million have signed the petition asking for our NHS to be protected from a Trump trade deal.If the government brings a deal that will open up our NHS to more private company involvement, make it impossible to reverse current levels of privatisation or increase drug prices, it will be very difficult MPs to stop that deal from being ratified under the current system. Other amendments that create explicit carve-outs for the NHS have been rejected at Committee stage because they tie negotiators’ hands. MPs are now the last defence against trade deals that would damage our NHS.Please sign this amendment and give yourself the power to stand up for your constituents against trade agreements that would open up our NHS to more corporate control, higher drug prices, and privatisation. Djanogly's amendment for scrutiny has been backed by ten other Conservative MPs so far, as well as MPs from other parties including Labour, the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.You can read more from Jonathan Djanogly MP here about why this amendment is necessary are three reasons to vote for this amendment:1) SovereigntyThe Trade Bill is NOT, as some are trying to argue, a “continuity bill”. There is nothing "continuous" about Brexit. We are in new territory and we should be actually taking back control, not giving it away, for the sake of ourselves and the future of this country.Some are claiming that existing EU commitments are being replicated and the Trade Bill is business as normal. This is not reassuring. Firstly, the new draft Free Trade Agreement with the EU, published in May this year, does not include protection for the NHS.Secondly, what about future agreements? The Trade Bill is the only legislation that covers the UK’s approach to trade deals. This bill is the only chance available for MPs and their constituents to have democratic control over the content of future trade agreements. Amendments were added to previous versions of the same Bill (in the last parliament) which did cover new trade agreements – the same could be done here to guarantee our democratic scrutiny. Finally, it’s worth noting that EU member states have democratic powers to approve EU trade bills that MPs are not giving themselves in the UK parliament. Why do we in the UK not give ourselves the same level of democracy as in the EU?2) Protecting our NHS from TrumpWe need MPs to give themselves the powers of scrutiny so they can *guarantee* protection for our NHS as negotiations progress. Otherwise there will be nothing they can do to safeguard the future of our NHS in trade deals, after everything that nurses and doctors have done for us all in this pandemic.Trump believes healthcare should be run by private companies and he initially said the NHS would be ‘on the table’ in trade deals before rowing back.The US has more negotiating clout than us. Its economy is six times larger than the UK’s, and 13% of the UK’s exports are to the US, compared to only 3% of US exports to the UK. Meanwhile the US has some of the best-developed negotiating capacity in the world, having concluded 12 bilateral trade agreements and one multilateral agreement since 2000. The UK, on the other hand, is building its trade capacity for the first time in over 40 years, while attempting to forge its future relationship with the EU at the same time.Safeguarding health is legally extremely complicated. If MPs are determined to keep the NHS safe they must give themselves powers to safeguard our health services in trade deals, powers to hold our government to account for negotiations with Trump and with other countries too.3) Democracy and scrutinyWe live in a democracy – there should be a presumption of transparency – with MPs, civil society and the public having the right to input. “Public consultations”, “open briefings” and “updates for MPs and peers” are not enough when it comes to crucial trade bills that determine the future of our grandchildren. Right now, government can negotiate trade agreements in secret, without transparency, public oversight or a vote in parliament. There is no guarantee of debate and it is not clear how MPs could raise objections. It is not technically possible for parliament to outright reject a trade agreement if the government wishes to persist. There is no role for the devolved administrations in scrutiny of trade agreements. While trade policy itself is reserved, many areas of policy that trade deals may impact on are devolved, for example: health, environment, food, farming, public procurement and the provision of public services. Your constituents and our organisation are monitoring the progress of the Bill and all voting patterns, and we are relying on you to stand up for our NHS and for our democracy.Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you,John WhalleySteering Group Keep Our NHS Public North East ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download