Campaigning in the Lords
The Health Reform Bill is now in the hands of the House of Lords.
There is no Government majority in the Lords and party discipline is weak, as Lords are not vulnerable to pressure from the Whips. There is a Government majority in the sense that the Coalition outvote Labour by 80 votes - because by definition the cross benchers are not a political group or whipped in any way. Every one has to be convinced on every vote. Cross benchers do not all attend and they do not all vote. They have to be persuaded to do so on each issue Many are elderly or unwell, so turnout for votes is often low. The Lords works by argument, not pressure. In June 2011 there were 217 Conservative peers, 243 Labour, 92 Liberal-Democrat, 152 Crossbench, 24 Bishops and 27 others.
The committee stage begins on 25th October and days and dates will be allocated depending on how many amendments there are - and there will be lots of them so it could take some time - but no one knows how long. We should know in advance which section of the Bill will be discussed on a given day and amendments in respect of each section need to be produced before that day.
This is a marathon not a sprint.
What the Lords team needs:
- actual proposed amendments to the Bill - along the lines of "In clause 183 (b) delete 'shall' insert 'must not'. Any supporting arguments need to be concise - no more than 500 words
- political pressure in marginal constituencies - local radio, TV, newspapers - about how the Bill will affect that area and those services
- building up relationships with peers. Many of those who voted with the government clearly had reservations about sections of the Bill. Many peers are involved with health organisations of various kinds - commercial, NHS and charitable - and we need to build on these relationships. Inviting a peer to visit a health facility, some clinicians or a group of patients to talk about how the proposals in the Bill will work would be very helpful. Don't neglect the Conservative peers.
The Government hope that Committee Stage can be completed by Christmas. Report Stage will be four or five days, probably in January and is when most of the Divisions will take place, followed a week or so later by 3rd reading. Depending on how many votes the Labour Opposition and cross benchers win, there may then be ping pong between the Commons and the Lords.
As soon as timetables are known they are published on the whips' website.
38 degrees have a useful tool for contacting the nobility, the TUC want you to Adopt a Lord, and Peer Pressure have produced a league table of Peer's opposition. We plan to publish a selection of letters sent to the Lords. We think a personal approach is what works best. Many Lords have personal interests in some aspect of health. Try to find something that matches their interests.
Many Lords have no email address so you may have to use the old fashioned way. Write a letter to them at
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
But make it a real personal letter. Standard letters are a waste of time and paper. They'll go straight in the bin.
Letters to the Lords
Paul Bell
London SE4 1PB
3rd October 2011
The Baroness Parminter
House of Lords
Dear Baroness Parminter,
I am writing this letter to you to urge you to reject the Health & Social Care Bill. I do not do this lightly and it is the first time I have written to a member of the House of Lords. However, I want to share my story with you and ask that you think it about it when you go to vote.
I have cancer, Leukaemia to be precise, and while I am currently in remission, I am frightened by the changes proposed; I have to take daily medication that makes my immune system weak. This is quite a shocking statement for a forty-year old man to admit, but I am, as this government is on a determined path to bring in American style healthcare to this country.
I used to live in the United States; I worked for a charity that campaigned to end hunger and poverty not just in the developing world, but also in the United States. Speaking with sick and poor Americans, they said time and time again three chilling words – ‘pre-existing medical conditions’. What this meant, and means now when you take out travel insurance, is that existing conditions such as diabetes, cancer, a hole in the heart, high blood pressure, I could go on, are a ‘get-out-clause’ for insurance companies whose motivator is not to treat the sick based on clinical need, but on how to make the most profit. Bonuses and incentives are paid if less people are approved for medical treatment.
Ask yourself, do you really want that in the United Kingdom? Now I know, Tory ministers especially, will say that this is not the case, but consider what is really happening:-
- Funding is already being squeezed, waiting times are increasing and hospitals have stretched budgets.
- With slower, less focussed treatment, the public will become increasingly disenchanted with the NHS based on their experiences; experiences that will become vocalised.
- These experiences will then be shaped into a call for a change, a quicker more responsive health care system.
- Then in steps the private sector, already boosted by GPs commissioning services from enlarged, more capital rich companies, who will then call for a health insurance based system.
- A domino effect will begin, with more services transferred to multi-national companies whose motivator is to make profit; the stock market does not reward companies on how many hip operations performed or tumours removed, but on perceived profitability.
- The final logical step is to then bring in health insurance for those that can get it.
But what about the rest of us? Do you know someone with cancer? What about an older person, a child from a poor family, an asthma sufferer? We will not get treated. I will not get treated.
This is the reality of daily life in the United States. If you want further evidence, then there are plenty of resources on the internet. However, a closer to home example, is to get a quote for health insurance to travel abroad.
Earlier this year, I looked at travel insurance for myself to spend 12 days in Hong Kong. With all of my medical conditions, the quotes ranged from £980 to £1300 for 12 days. And the added special dose of humanity was a clause that stated all pre-existing conditions would be assessed to see if they had a contributing factor to the claim. In reality this meant, if I had a heart attack for example, I would not be covered as diabetes is linked to heart disease.
I appeal to you as a fellow human being to reject these proposals. I believe that health care is a basic human right. Please join me and millions of people like me, along with future generations that do not want the words: ‘You have cancer…’ followed by, ‘…your insurance does not cover you for treatment’.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Bell