A delay in agreeing a post-Brexit transition deal could put NHS patient care at risk as more health businesses will divert money towards contingency planning for a “disorderly” withdrawal from the European Union, a senior MP has said.
Commons Health Committee chair Sarah Wollaston said health services and business, including those manufacturing and distributing medicines, “remain in the dark” about Britain’s exit from the EU.
Many are planning for a worst-case scenario because “time is running out” for a transition deal to follow the UK’s formal exit in March 2019.
Britain and the EU are hoping to reach agreement on a “status quo” transition period of around two years at March’s European Council summit of country leaders.
And Ms Wollaston warned in a letter to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt: “If the announcement, and details, of a transition period is delayed beyond March 2018, more businesses will be forced to invest money in contingency plans at the expense of this funding going towards advancing patient care.
“This is an unnecessary cost and distraction, which should be avoided.”
She also called on the Government to agree with the EU a joint public statement on protecting the interests of patients in the event of a “no deal” Brexit which would see the UK severing its ties with the European Medicines Agency, which regulates the supply of medical products.
“A joint statement would allay fears of a disorderly exit and honour the commitment both sides have made to protect patient safety,” Ms Wollaston said.
“Failing this, and in the event that agreement to a transition is not reached by the end of March, the Committee seeks a commitment from the Government to make its own statement about the UK’s unilateral preparations for a no deal situation.”
The Government should also publish its contingency planning for healthcare, Ms Wollaston said.
She argued this would strengthen the UK’s negotiating position by demonstrating a “credible fall-back position” and allow public scrutiny.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here