Sat, 18th July Cardiff 23°
Nation.Cymru wordmark
Advertisement

Opinion

Plaid Cymru wants to stop Trump getting hold of our Welsh NHS - why won't Labour help us?

By NationCymru
Donald Trump. Picture by Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Delyth Jewell AM, Plaid Cymru AM for South East Wales

At election time, the NHS often dominates debate. But the reason why the future of our beloved health service is so starkly at stake in this dark December election is just this: if Boris Johnson gets his Brexit deal, there’ll be little to stop parts of the NHS being privatised in order to make way for a trade deal with the US.

In the Senedd today (Wednesday), Plaid Cymru is holding a debate that’s aimed at ensuring that this privatisation can’t happen to our NHS in Wales. Unfortunately, Welsh Labour seem unable to put politics aside and are on course to water down the motion down.  Why is this?

We’ve known for months that Donald Trump wants the NHS to be on the table in future trade deal negotiations, and documents released last week showed that Whitehall is preparing the ground for allowing full market access for US drugs in the NHS. You can almost hear the big pharmaceutical companies’ cash registers ringing in delight.

If this nightmarish future comes into being, NHS funds would be diverted from frontline services, and patient safety could be compromised by deregulation and a race to the bottom with standards. It would be unconscionable for us to allow this to go ahead. Especially when we know what actions are needed to stop it.

Most people understand that certain policy fields like health and education are devolved, and that responsibility for these areas lies with the Welsh Government. So far, so good: you’d expect that this would mean that no such threat to the Welsh NHS could go ahead.

Damningly, however, there is a little-known (and, until now, unused) provision in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in Section 82 which allows the UK Government to interfere in these devolved fields if international obligations are in question. That means that a UK Government Minister could be allowed to ride roughshod through devolution and compel the Welsh Government to comply with an international trade deal – including one that puts the NHS up for privatisation.

And I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t trust the Tories with our NHS.  I never have and never will, but this latest threat is one that strikes at the very heart of our health service.

[mid-content-banner]

 

Vote

It’s for this very reason that Plaid Cymru AMs are calling for Section 82 of the Wales Act to be repealed – so that no Westminster government could force any Welsh Government to comply with their bogus and dangerous trade plans. We’re also calling for devolved parliaments in the UK to be given a veto over trade matters that affect devolved fields.

After all, there are some countries where even regions within nation-states are given a veto in these circumstances, such as Wallonia in Belgium. If a Belgian region can have this right to block dangerous deals from affecting their citizens, why on earth shouldn’t the nation of Wales have that same right?

It’s baffling to me that the Welsh Government look set to vote against these measures in our debate this afternoon.  Let’s make no mistake here: Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are a threat to our NHS in Wales.

I think we should take every step that we can to protect this national institution from destruction. I can only hope that Labour will change their minds before it’s too late.

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News

13 comments

Plain citizen

Complying with international trade treaties if Wales had to approve or could veto any one of the myriad regulations would give real power to our elected representatives. They could hold the uk to ransom and demand extra funding for anything in order to be bought off. Could be interesting times ahead.

Reply
Jonathan Gammond

Wallonia is almost half of Belgium. Comparing the UK's lopsided devolved and not devolved constitution and the Belgian constitution is like comparing a pomegranate to a bunch of grapes. Consequently saying Wallonia has the right to x or y doesn't tell us much. It might be best to avoid the Belgian approach considering the overall picture.

Reply
Ken Davies

The principle remains the same surely. The point is that Section 82 should be repealed. We do not need a precedent.

Reply
Huw Davies

(Devil's Advocate)Why would Trump want the NHS? He is, at heart, a businessman whose God is profit. The NHS will never make a profit from the funding given by every UK Government. When he said he wouldn't want it 'even if it was handed over on a silver platter', I think he was actually saying it wasn't worth his while to take it over and turn it into a profitable business. The US people are used to the idea of paying for health care, the UK are into the fifth generation of people getting healthcare free at the point of delivery. Changing us to a cash for health care mentality would be a major wall to break down and none of the political parties would dare try. Look how Boris is close to a panic attack because Trump is here and look how he has got Trump, (who says he's not interfering at all!) to proclaim he has no interest at all in taking over the NHS. I think it is more probable Trump will renegotiate the price of drugs, equipment etc. paid to mainly US based companies. After all, it is always America First. As such I'm not convinced we need to expend much time and energy defending the NHS from Trump. I think he's had a good look and sees the NHS as a failing company with too many problems to make it worth taking over! Certainly we need to be very wary of future hikes in the costs of drugs as that seems the easiest way for the US to profit from the NHS.

Reply
Plain citizen

These are really interesting points, The NHS currently buys drugs from big US Pharma but as a monopoly purchaser the profitability for manufacturers is low. When we get scare stories about drug shortages it's because manufacturers prefer to sell them to other markets where profit (therefore return on investment) is higher, so we shouldn't complain. Corbyn's plan to build from scratch a big UK drug manufacturer is nonsense, if he'd said he was going to do it in cars and take on (say) Toyota, he would be laughed at. The NHS problem is structure and management. As the national religion it cannot be criticised. The problem is health outcomes are far worse than other systems especially in Europe where a public/privately insured service appears to work better. The Welsh NHS has worse health outcomes than the English so we should be careful what we blindly wish for.

Reply
jr humphrys

Tories will introduce "Nurse" - surgeries as a first line, or online (that should put a few wrinklies off ). Should anyone actually make it to a health centre, the nurse is who they will see first. People with money will see a doctor straight away. Johnson has said what he thinks of the lower orders so once in power he will joke and flannel his way to winkling us out. Trump said he will not "interfere in UK politics", but "Boris will do a great job", and "Brexit is a good thing".

Reply
jonesy

THis is a total red herring and fodder to an electorate who are politically iliterate- can you give us some policies that matter please, instead of scaremongering ,both Plad and Labour

Reply
Huw Davies

The "other HD" agrees with much of the comment made by the Devil's Advocate above. If the USA Big Pharma wanted the NHS, I'm sure the Tories would contrive a means of selling it on, but points about the huge cultural and social changes involved are valid. Also it might prove to be too big a pill for Big Pharma to swallow ( forgive me, I couldn't resist that one !). The biggest challenge for next few decades is to save the NHS from itself. It remains wasteful, but such is its elevated sacred status that we are not allowed to call out the waste of resources, especially time and materials. Equally important is the need to get Joe Public to moderate, or best quit, a whole raft of bad habits - smoking, drinking and substance abuse as well as self abusive dietary patterns. That is a big uphill challenge especially when people who should know better spend too much time justifying bad habits on the grounds of "disadvantage". Shovelling fast foods and high sugar drinks down your neck costs MORE than eating a mix of veg, greens and fruit but it is an addiction or becomes one if allowed to be fed.

Reply
Sibrydionmawr

Do you drive? If you do, then of course you'll realise that it could cost the taxpayer money if you have an accident and have to be admitted to hospital for treatment. Now there might be extenuating circumstances, such as you live in a rural area with no, or at least a very limited public transport. But if you live in a more urban area, there is no need to drive you car because there is regular and frequent public transport, so you don't need to be so selfish, causing not only traffic congestion, but also local pollution of the air that we all breath, and which causes thousands of premature deaths every year. Or maybe you're a fine and upstanding citizen who takes pride in the national team, who, after a a little too much exuberant post match imbibing, falls over on an uneven pavement slab. of which there are thousands in our lovely capital city. This requires a visit to A&E, thus using valuable resources. Of course you have a point, if we all were super careful, then the savings to the NHS would be massive. You're also completely correct about malnourishment being a huge issue, but you do know that the issue is far deeper than the superficial blaming of poor people. Most of the disadvantaged know full well that their diets aren't the best, but they are caught in a cycle of deprivation and poverty that is far more than just them as individuals. Many people who are thus disadvantaged live in communities that have lost all hope, that literally have nothing, and which are food deserts, with the only shop being the local open all hours convenience store that will, at best, have a very poor selection of 'fresh' vegetables that were probably out of the ground for a fortnight when they arrived at the wholesalers in Cardiff or Swansea, and which will also be pricey as sales will be low, and spoilage/waste quite high. People remain addicted to things like smoking and drinking and poor diets for a whole host of reasons, but it has been discovered that it is in areas that are particularly disadvantaged that these problems are the most deep rooted. Perhaps a 'eat, drink and be merry' approach to life, as the prospect of a long life in a place where all hope has been lost is just too much to bear? Similar problems are found in Native American and Australian communities where all hope has been lost, despite the do gooders constantly preaching at them to sort themselves out, adopt a Protestant work ethic, be more like white people. or in the case of Wales and the wider UK be more like the petty bourgeois. If people have work, it's likely to be skivvy work that's part time, and quite possibly zero hour contract as well, thus necessitating taking on more than one job, thus really messing up one's time management, so meal breaks become little more than a quick supermarket meal deal eaten on the hoof, and then maybe later an energy drink to keep them going. When they eventually finish work, it'll likely be a visit to the local takeaway or chippy, as they are quite literally too knackered to cook, and all they want to do when they get home is to be able to relax for a little before retiring for the night, ready to repeat the next day. You seem to suggest that sorting out the problems are as easy as making a simple set of choices, but it's far more complex than that. It has to start with the people themselves, and the first thing they need is hope. They need to be approached and asked what it is they want, and then to be helped to achieve this. Soon, I think you'd find that lots of things would significantly change and not just in terms of better health outcomes. Yes, the NHS needs to change the way it operates, and adopting a preventative approach, such as is the case in Cuba, (it's wonderful what you can do when you have a superabundance of doctors and healthcare workers) which manages to keep the population healthy on a budget that is a fraction of even the NHS spend, which, even in it's current 'wasteful' state is still one of the most cost effective health systems in the world.

Reply

In reply to Sibrydionmawr

Huw Davies

Some interesting points raised there. If you are a driver you could get involved in an accident. You may be at fault or it may be the fault of the other party. Both parties should be insured. Accordingly the NHS & Ambulance Services, and possibly Fire and Rescue Services should be at liberty to levy charges for their services to recover costs. Insurance companies would have to sort out eventual liability but just as they do when funding repairs to cars they should fund the repairs to people. Lots of drunks attend rugby matches and other events. Some fall down, others become violent and fight. Whatever the nature of the incident the NHS should be at liberty to levy charges. If the injured person is proved to be a victim of assault then that charge should be recovered from his/her assailant. No sympathy from this quarter as I have seen some of the stupid buggers that turn up at A&E with broken noses and/or skins full of alcohol. If they can afford a day on the sauce they can pay for medical attention, or else moderate their behaviours. As for the cycle of deprivation I am mostly in agreement with you there. Indeed part of the NHS' "preventative effort" should be support for people who are visibly under pressure, like they attend food banks regularly or are finding it tough feeding their family unit on benefits. Information, even coaching, can help because one of the key things is for people to know that others are taking a key interest. Effort invested at early stages can reap major gains later on the physical health side and on the general wellbeing of individuals. The issues that stem from a highly disrupted work style, if they have work, are so obvious that it beggars belief that no-one in government has moved to tear up zero hours contracts and other short term intermittent work patterns. So it may suit a small fringe minority people who are only seeking a bit of income on the side while they do other things but it seems to me that the vast majority of people working in these arrangements do not do so out of free will. Enabling people to get c.35 hours work for a decent hourly rate would be a good start, and the knowledge that that sort of regime is once more available should rekindle a measure of motivation. For instance in an ageing society there is a need for a much larger workforce to provide a wide range of caring services ranging from cleaning right up to qualified nursing level posts and beyond in some specialised cases. If the entry points into this sector paid a decent living wage then people would see scope for advancement if there was a structured training pathways to enable them to advance. The same should apply in other sectors. In manufacturing people should be able to see ways of advancement by absorbing more skills and making a decent living instead of being an appendix to a machine for ever or until its thrown out and the worker goes with it. Personal choice remains a part of all this. You may have read my initial comments as implying that is the top and bottom of it. Not so. In expanding my thoughts, and there is scope for even more expansion if you need help going to sleep, I trust that you will better appreciate what I'm getting at. I acknowledge that I am quite intolerant of certain behaviours yet can see where there is real need for change as opposed to repetitive application of failed remedies.

Reply
Adam Watkins

Edit: Ignore.

Reply
Walter Hunt

Parliamentary arithmetic may sometimes force the English to accept interference from their "Celtic" conquests. But does anyone honestly think the English would willingly hand over a veto on trade deals to the Scots, N.Irish or the Welsh as soon as they repatriate the power from the EU? The government in London will not give up the right to interfere in any devolved administration or dependency. OK, they did in the Caribbean Associated States, then followed the embarrassment of Operation Sheepskin, Anguilla, 1969.

Reply
jr humphrys

Let's get Exit Brexit done, then.

Reply

Leave a reply

Replying to jonesy Cancel

THis is a total red herring and fodder to an electorate who are politically iliterate- can you give us some policies that matter please, instead of scaremongering ,both Plad and Labour

Comments are reviewed before they appear.