On 26 July 2021, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee (PACAC) launched an inquiry into the elections bill, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson for Yorkshire Bylines. It is the latest of 13 ongoing inquiries that the House of Commons committee is currently undertaking. The topics being covered by these inquiries include ‘The work of the Cabinet office’, ‘The role and status of the Prime Minister’s Office, ‘Covid 19 vaccine certification’ and ‘The work of the Electoral Commission’.

Scope of the elections bill parliamentary inquiry

The committee aims to look at a number of elements of the controversial bill. These will include:

• provisions on voter ID
• the Electoral Commission
• membership of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission
• undue influence and electoral intimidation
• the regulation of expenditure for political purposes
• information to be included in digital election material
• overseas voting
• voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens
• changes to postal and proxy voting

Although the government claims the measures proposed in the bill are “necessary to protect the integrity of elections”, the committee recognises there has been criticism from a wide range of organisations, not least, the Electoral Commission itself. Witnesses at the ongoing PACAC inquiry – ‘The Work of the Electoral Commission’ – have already complained of “a complete lack of consultation” on the new proposals.

Committee chair, William Wragg, who was elected to the role in January 2020, spoke of the need to scrutinise the proposals carefully and test the government’s claims. He said:

The elections bill is not all bad, though most of it is

Understandably, much of the criticism aimed at the elections bill relates to the plans for mandatory voter ID at polling booths. This requirement, which the government ‘justifies’ as an aid to (non-existent) fraud prevention, is likely to disenfranchise already marginalised groups.

But one aspect of the bill will have the opposite effect and will enfranchise a group of voters who have long been arbitrarily denied their voting rights – UK nationals who have been living abroad for more than 15 years (of whom I am one). It is therefore a bitter pill for this group to swallow, as our enfranchisement comes at the expense of others equally deserving of a say at the ballot box.

I will not dwell on the many and varied reasons this bill is an abomination. Hopefully, there will be plenty of voices arguing their own case for electoral democracy for others. But I hope that the return of voting rights for Brits abroad – an unfulfilled promise of many a Conservative Party manifesto – is a government promise we can all hold them to.

The call for evidence

The committee is inviting individuals and organisations to submit evidence before 6pm on Tuesday 31 August. Any evidence submitted must be “directly related to the provisions of the Bill or tangential matters on which the Bill is silent”. Currently, the committee is not actively seeking evidence on wider electoral matters.

The committee has provided full instructions on presenting evidence – how to upload it, size, content and what happens to your evidence once submitted. Usually, any evidence received is published online and may be quoted in any future reports. Submissions should not have been published in advance, including in articles, on websites or in blogs.

As chair of the campaign group Bremain in Spain, I will shortly be submitting evidence of our own regarding overseas voting. In our report, we highlight our issues and concerns and make recommendations suggesting ways in which the government could go even further to restore our voting rights, and to restore trust. In addition, we will be supplying many testimonials from our members explaining ‘why my vote is important to me’.

Of course, we will be delighted when the 15-year rule is scrapped and we are all finally able to participate fully in British democracy, but the restoration of our voting rights alone is not enough.

It is important to look at how overseas constituents are represented in parliament. Understandably perhaps, an overseas voter who has not lived in a constituency for a number of years might not be top of their MP’s priority list. MPs may have little or no understanding of the issues that Britons abroad face, especially with all the post-Brexit complications. Dedicated MPs for overseas voters, as they have in France, would be a welcome development.

In addition, we must ensure that the postal voting system, which has so badly let us down in the past, is overhauled and made reliable. To have gone to the trouble of having registered to vote and completed a ballot, only to then have that ballot fail to be counted, is almost worse than not having a vote at all.

It’s all about the timing

The Electoral Commission has recommended longer lead times for postal voting – or better still, the ability to vote online or in the country of residence. Some countries, like Spain and Italy, allow their overseas voters to cast their ballots at their local embassy or consulate – a move that would be most welcome by British citizens abroad. Meanwhile, the online voting system in Estonia is setting records in participation, with over 31 percent of voters completing their ballots online in the 2017 general election.

The biggest concern regarding timing, though, is with regard to the general election itself. The government has stated that these rights will be restored in time for the next ‘scheduled’ election in 2024. However, there has been speculation of an early election in 2023, even from Labour leader Keir Starmer. It is therefore vital that contingency plans are in place to ensure that having got this far, Brits abroad are not denied the right to vote in yet another general election solely because the government moved the goalposts.

The elections bill returns to parliament on 7 September for the second reading in the House of Commons. Due to its controversial nature, it is likely to generate much debate – in parliament and, hopefully, in the media.

Our democracy is under threat from a government that avoids scrutiny like the plague. It is therefore vital that we take every opportunity afforded us to present evidence to ministers and encourage close examination of government plans and actions. If you think the elections bill is a travesty then tell the committee, but please don’t throw the overseas voting baby out with the bathwater.

In June 2005 we moved to the Southern Costa Blanca of Spain, a region the World Health Organisation declared as one of the most healthy climates in the world, writes Bremain Council member Mike Phillips for Kent Bylines. My wife Anne, as a pensioner, was able to register with the Spanish Health Service. She obtained her national identity SIP health card that confirmed her right to health benefits in Spain.

Although I had four years until my pension, I applied for an E106 health application from the UK Pension Service. I was then able to “jump on my wife’s back” to apply for my SIP card. There was a reciprocal agreement with Spain that the UK would refund Spain annually according to the number of UK residents in Spain registered for health care. UK pensioners who are resident in Spain benefit from this agreement.

Our local access to Spanish Healthcare

In 2002 the Spanish National Healthcare System had been decentralised to the 17 regional Comunidades of Spain,. This gave them autonomy to develop the healthcare information technology infrastructure needed to improve its access to the population, whether living in urban or rural areas.

We had a small clinic with one doctor in our village plus a private doctor, a private dentist and two pharmacies. In our local, administrative town there is a larger Centro Salud (Clinic) with emergency services and a wider choice of doctors and dentists. In Torrevieja, 30 minutes’ drive away, there is an established private hospital and a newly constructed Universitario Hospital that opened in October 2006.
Because of her partial mastectomy my wife suffered from lymphedema of the left arm. We sought advice from our local doctor that we were doing all we could to manage the problem. He made an appointment for us with an Oncologist at the new hospital. This is when we started to discover that, when the Spanish National Health Service has recognised a problem, it follows it through to a final cure

Our early, personal experience

The first step was a 3D scan of Anne’s left arm to create a personally fitted lymphedema sleeve. Also, a course of lymphatic drainage, plus further tests to determine whether any metastasis of the cancer had occurred. It had. They found numerous small nodules in her neck. This led to a series of regular scans and a change of hormone therapy. If the new hospital didn’t have the appropriate CAT or MRI scanners at this stage, they referred her to a specialist hospital in the city of Elche.

Test results were available rapidly to the Oncologist and personal doctor via internet technology. We were also able to log on to our own health portal website to request and check appointments. We could post questions to our doctor and read our medical reports. Prescription charges vary slightly from region to region but in Comunidad Valenciana have been free. Except for one brief period when you could claim back the 10% charge.

Private Health Care

Anne also developed bursitis, tendonitis and frozen shoulder in her right shoulder at this time. I couldn’t bear the agony and constant pain she had, so we visited Pastora, our private doctor who treated the whole person and not just the ailment. Within days she arranged an operation in a private hospital in Murcia, outside our administrative health region.

Within 24 hours the pain was gone. I could even have stayed with her in her room overnight. As I hadn’t been wise enough to take out private medical insurance when moving to Spain it cost me €4,000: a small price to pay to see the smile back on Anne’s face.

Further National Health experience in Spain

Now it was my time. In 2018 a routine blood test gave a high prostate level. A series of scans and a biopsy followed that confirmed cancer, but only in the prostate gland. They referred me to the private hospital for a series of 40 radiation treatments, mainly in the early hours of the morning. They had the latest technology that allowed the beam and dose to be accurately focussed and controlled. It was used fully and they did not charge me for it as the National Health hospital had referred me.

After five sessions a week for two months my prostate level had dropped from 39 to 0.02. They then gave me six monthly injections and a daily pill for 18 months to prevent the cancer returning. I wrote to my Oncologist thanking him and all his staff for their dedication. Foremost for the high-quality standards and pursuit of world beating medical technology that Hospital Quiron demands.

My wife’s emergency

In late September 2019 she developed severe stomach pains and could hardly speak. I dialled 112 for an ambulance and she was kept in hospital overnight for observation. The following morning she had an emergency operation for peritonitis (a one inch split in her stomach) and was put into a coma.

I contacted our twin daughters in Australia who booked the first flights possible and alerted the other children in England. The twins arrived just as Anne came out of the coma. When she was ready to be transferred to a normal ward it was to a private room. That meant that I and our girls also could moved in. It is part of Spanish culture that a family participates in aftercare and they make provision for it.

This cured the peritonitis but she was very weak and needed assistance with breathing via an intelligent ventilator she did not like. When we thought she was stable I sent the girls home to be with their young children for a long planned family holiday. But it was not to be. Less than two weeks later they were on another flight from Queensland to Spain.

Reflections on Spanish Healthcare and the NHS

It is sad to watch the UK NHS being undervalued and underfunded. The only apparent, future strategy seems to be to slowly sell off major elements to offshore businesses. By comparison, I only have praise for the Spanish Healthcare system.

If I have any criticism it is that, sometimes, there is a communication gap between doctors and nurses. This is mainly due to the legal responsibility of doctors for the care of their patients. Some nurses may be reluctant to take action without the sanction of a doctor. On the other hand, I’ve seen even student nurses visit a patient, not because it is time to do so but because he/she wanted to.

In March 2020 Spain had 3.9 doctors per 1,000 population, UK had 2.9. About a third of the 300,000 doctors in the UK come from other nations, of which just under a third are Indian and Filipino. Is this sustainable under the current immigration policy? The World Economic Forum and Bloomberg consider the Spanish Healthcare system the 7th best in the world. It is the most efficient in Europe and amongst the top worldwide with Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore.

If you’re thinking of moving to Spain, concern over healthcare should not prevent you. Just do your homework as in everything. Read for example an article written for local Spanish media by Sue Wilson MBE, Chair of Bremain in Spain prior to the last UK election.

Links for further information

Guidance from the UK government

An update from British Embassy, Madrid on health care post Brexit

Latest updates from British Embassy, Madrid on the Bremain in Spain website

Last weekend saw my home region of Spain – the Valencian Community – brace for the first real ola de calor of the 2021 season, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson for Yorkshire Bylines. Warm air from the Sahara brought temperatures of over 40 degrees Celsius, with the threat of forest fires raised to ‘extreme’. The heatwave was also responsible for rising humidity levels on the coast, affecting atmospheric conditions and damaging air quality.

The threat of wild fires ravaging the countryside is a very real one, and not just in Spain. Recent fires around the world, such as in Greece, America and Australia, have highlighted the urgency of climate change action, and the dangers of inaction.

July saw extreme weather conditions across the globe, including unprecedented levels of flooding and landslides. On 11 August, Syracuse in Italy recorded the highest temperature ever experienced in Europe – 48.8 degrees C. This was beaten only by the highest temperature ever recorded on the planet – 54.4 degrees C (130 degrees F) – in Death Valley, USA in July (source National Centers for Environmental Information).

COP26 climate change conference just 10 weeks away

In ten weeks’ time – from 31 October to 12 November – the UK will host the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow. A glossy brochure, entitled ‘COP26 explained’, starts with a quote from Prime Minister Boris Johnson:

The brochure describes climate change as “the greatest risk facing us all”. Many would agree. They may, however, disagree with the claim that “the UK has a lot to be proud of when it comes to acting on climate change”.

COP climate goals

The stated goals of COP are to:

• Secure global net zero and keep 1.5 degrees within reach
• Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats
• Mobilise finance
• Work together and deliver

COP president, Alok Sharma, says that the UK is “leading the way” on climate action. He told the Observer the world is “dangerously close” to running out of time adding, “we can’t afford to wait two years, five years, 10 years – this is the moment”.

However, Sharma has recently been criticised for travelling by plane to over 30 countries in the last seven months. The aim of the visits was to discuss climate change commitments with world dignitaries, but to do by plane when he is supposed to be leading on environment policy was labelled ‘hypocritical’ by many. And to do so in the midst of a pandemic, and then choose not to quarantine on his return, only added insult to injury.

Despite warning that the consequences of failure would be “catastrophic”, Sharma insisted that the UK would persevere with its plans to license new oil and gas fields.

Greta Thunberg not impressed

Following the publication of a recent “dire” report by a US science panel, environmental campaigner, Greta Thunberg announced her intention to attend COP26. She said she hoped the report would be “a wake-up call”. It would take massive pressure from both the public and the media, she said, for appropriate action to be taken.

Thunberg has long been critical of the inactions of governments around the world to tackle the growing climate crisis. Previous scientific warnings have seemingly been ignored, and actions have failed to live up to the hype.

In an interview with @Reuters, climate activist @GretaThunberg called for action to fight climate change after a dire report on global warming was released by the U.N. science panel https://t.co/jJipEZK8xd pic.twitter.com/lI6oRSbcA2

— Reuters (@Reuters) August 9, 2021

The environment bandwagon

I don’t doubt that many government ministers around the globe are genuinely concerned about the climate crisis we face. But, I suspect there are many more that have jumped on the environment bandwagon simply because they can no longer avoid it, or think it’s a vote-winner with the young.

As for our own government, it seems a regular occurrence for them to be hot on the rhetoric, but cold on the follow through. Whether on Brexit, covid, or climate change, our political representatives are all mouth and no trousers.

We are increasingly used to seeing them follow a different set of rules to the rest of us, and to putting their own interests ahead of the needs of the country, or the planet. How can we have any confidence that they will take the necessary tough steps to reverse, or even slow down, the damage that we are inflicting on the world?

In five weeks’ time, I will celebrate being 68 years old, or young, depending on your outlook, and probably your own age. Brexit and covid aside, I am the happiest, most contented I have ever been in my life, and probably the fittest and most active too, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Do I enjoy the pastimes expected of your average 67 year old? Probably not, but then who gets to decide what anyone of any age should be doing, wearing or saying?

Age has always been relative. My 90-year-old mother does not regard herself as old. She has an active brain; old people are those with more years on the clock, and less faculties, than she has. This has been the case, in her mind, for the last 40 years. But to me, she is elderly, as she’s the oldest member of our family, and older than me. Similarly, those under 30 would, I’m sure, regard me as old, but they’d probably say the same of those ten years younger than me too.

Plan to deny care to the elderly

So, when I read the report last week in The Telegraph, saying that the government had made plans for people in their seventies to have treatment withdrawn in favour of “end of life pathways” in certain circumstances, I was rather taken aback. How could my government – and let’s be clear, this was a government discussion, far more than an NHS one – consider treating me and my peers differently based solely on when I was born?

Although the response from Number 10 was that this proposal “never represented agreed government policy”, it rather begs the question – how close did it come to being policy?

The documents in question relate to government planning for a flu-like pandemic under Exercise Cygnus. According to Dr Moosa Qureshi, who obtained them, these plans were a surprise to medics who were kept in the dark. Dr Qureshi has long campaigned for ‘pandemic transparency’, having recently succeeded, after a lengthy legal battle, in securing the release of government documents.

Two documents relating to the Government's planning for a flu-like pandemic under Exercise Cygnus have finally been disclosed following a long-fought legal challenge by @DrMQureshi who is represented by Tessa Gregory and Carolin Otthttps://t.co/4re1jSgneT pic.twitter.com/FyGo90F5ik

— Leigh Day (@LeighDay_Law) July 31, 2021

A “scandal of monumental proportions”

The plans referred to in article, suggesting elderly care home residents should be refused hospital care, were created in 2017/2018. They were discussed as proposals for action – or rather lack of it – in the event of a pandemic.

How this played out in practice, with the horror stories from 2020 of elderly hospital patients being sent to care homes without covid testing and without treatment, is still fresh in our memories. Between March and June of 2020, a staggering 28,186 ‘excess deaths’ were recorded in care homes in England alone.

Amnesty International described government decisions, which put tens of thousands of older people’s lives at risk, as “shockingly irresponsible” and a “scandal of monumental proportions”. Amid government failures during the pandemic, older people in care homes had been “abandoned to die”, while 400,000 other care home residents – many extremely vulnerable – had been put at greater risk

Triple lock on pensions under threat

The elderly have always been an easy target, and perhaps a popular one, for any government wishing to save money. Even now, a row is brewing in government over the triple-lock on pensions.

The triple-lock guarantees the state pension will increase each year in line with:

a) the cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Price Index

b) increasing average wages, or

c) 2.5 percent – whichever is the highest.

Average earnings are expected to be the highest of the three options by some considerable margin, perhaps as high as 8 percent.

Maintaining the triple lock is a government manifesto promise, but Chancellor Sunak has hinted at its suspension, despite government ministers warning of potential damage to the party. Good to know they are thinking of themselves, rather than the pensioners that would suffer as a result of any cut.

Has the government even looked at the international pension figures lately? The UK is certainly not world beating on the pension front, with one of the lowest rates in Europe

It’s not called National Insurance for nothing

I get that the young have it tough, whether as a result of years of austerity, Brexit, covid or government policy in general. I get that they might believe that anyone of a certain age has had the best years of their life and that the young shouldn’t have to carry the financial burden.

But there are two sides to this. Pensioners are not all wealthy. Those – like myself – living solely on a state pension are living on low incomes, having worked hard for decades to pay for that income. Or at least, that’s what we were led to believe all our working lives.

I always regarded paying my taxes, and especially paying National Insurance contributions, as my paying my dues and funding my future protection. It’s not called National Insurance for nothing, and as with any ‘insurance’ policy, I expect it to come good when it’s needed.

Who gets to decide when my life is considered no longer worth protecting or, indeed, saving? Where do you draw the line? No more care once you’re over 70? 80? 90? What about the disabled, or the mentally ill? There would be uproar (or at least I hope there would be), should the UK government decide that certain people with certain long-term illnesses should have their care removed.

The withdrawal of anyone’s care, for whatever reason, should be entirely the choice of the individual, their families and the medical professionals directly responsible for their treatment. It should not be the responsibility of governments to decide who is too old or too sick to get the care they need or deserve.

Age should not define us

Treating the elderly differently, solely based on their age is the thin end of the wedge. What next? Deny treatment to the overweight, those with unhealthy lifestyles, the drinkers, the smokers?

I might be old enough to be your mum, or your gran, but my age doesn’t define me, or the life that I lead. Whether I choose to take part in activities that would be considered inappropriate for my age is nobody’s business but my own.

Age is so much more than a number. It’s about knowledge, experience, maturity, wisdom and caring less what others think. None of that may matter to the government, but they should think twice before upsetting a growing sector of the population that have largely supported them in the past.

This country has seen enough division over the last five years to last a lifetime. Let’s not add age to the list of topics that divide us.

Thursday last week, the UK government made the long-awaited travel rules announcement: from 4am on 2 August, European citizens who were fully vaccinated would no longer have to isolate for ten days if travelling to the UK from amber list countries, with certain requirements of course, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Ryan Burton.

This news was particularly celebrated by British nationals living in Europe who are desperate to see family. However, true to form and within a few hours, it was then announced that there would now be an amber+ list, and that Spain may be placed on that list. Several hours later, more news emerged that in fact France was to be placed on the amber+ list and not Spain.

Travel rules mixed messaging

Here we go again. As a resident in Spain myself, I have not seen two of my children for 18 months, the other for 11 months, and this is not uncommon. Plans have had to change multiple times and this utter confusion and mixed messaging is now becoming infuriating. I reached out to fellow Brits in Spain for their thoughts on the latest news and the difficulties they face. Feelings are certainly running high. People are hurt, disillusioned, and desperate to see loved ones.

Hilary Walker told me:

For some time now, EU countries have been recognising NHS vaccine documents and allowing double-vaccinated British tourists to come into Europe. When they arrive back in the UK, there is only a test on day two and no isolation required.

Different travel rules for British nationals in the EU

For British nationals living in the EU however, it has been a very different story. The British government have for some reason been unable to reciprocate these arrangements to EU citizens and therefore even if they’re fully vaccinated, they would be required to isolate if travelling to the UK. This has been a source of anger, anxiety, and deep concern to British nationals living in Europe.

CA (who wished to remain anonymous) said:

The impact of isolation

One of the pandemic’s main trials for humanity was isolation, particularly from family. Everyone felt the effects to some degree but for those who are separated from family because they happen to live in another country, it has been even more challenging. Many British living in Europe haven’t seen their families since the beginning of the pandemic. Feelings are running high in these communities and frustrations are growing.

HJ (also anonymous) told me:

Contrast in messaging between EU and UK

For many living in EU when we look over to Britain, it is not a pretty sight. Measures here in Europe, certainly in Spain, have been clear and concise throughout. Most of us feel that there has been a high level of social responsibility and seriousness from the government.

When we look at our home nation, we are dumbfounded by what is going on. While variants happen and no country should be entirely blamed, let’s face the facts. Europe’s third wave was caused in the main by the Kent (Alpha) variant. It was far more transmissible, originated there likely because measures were so lax, and it quickly spread to Europe.

Julie Ley Gibbs talked of the stress and confusion, and the feelings of missing family:

Rise of the Delta variant

Spain, France, and other countries are now seeing dramatic rises in the Delta variant. The Delta variant originated in India yes, but it is widely accepted that the reason 99 percent of infections in the UK are now the Delta variant is because Boris Johnson thought more of a trade deal with India than the health of his nation and did not place India on the red list when it should have been.

Rita Vost told me, “We haven’t seen our family since June 2019 and it’s killing me BUT I have just read that a huge percentage of people arriving from Spain are testing positive. How the hell can this be true when everyone has to have a PCR test before travel? I don’t believe this Government!”

While everyone has had to put up with covid restrictions and rearrange plans, it is clear from elements of the British media that the UK seems to expect to be treated differently to the rest of the Europe. Every time Europe even considers bringing in tougher restrictions on British travellers there is an immediate backlash, which ultimately seems to take on a form of ‘Brexit revenge’ when in fact Britain’s nickname ‘plague Island’ should give the reality away

Brexit games?

The Daily Express wrote on Friday 30 July : Europe “is poised to trigger a new travel war as revenge for Lord Frost’s Brexit hard balling”. Please, the only Brexit games being played are by the British government and their right-wing supporting media. Their childishness and exceptionalism seem to know no bounds. The UK government is far more likely to implement policy based on jingoism and sheer incompetence. When you have been used by your government as political pawns for years, the behaviour becomes easy to spot.

France being placed on the amber+ list has added to the mistrust. On GISAID – a database that collates genetically sequenced Covid-19 samples from around the world – 14.2 percent of Spanish submissions and 1.9 percent of French submission were the Beta variant. It again makes no sense.

Grazia B said:

Bitterness and disappointment

So, while British nationals living in Europe are delighted that eventually the UK government seems to have got its act together and reciprocated to EU citizens what it should have done weeks ago, the whole fiasco has left a lot of bitterness and disappointment.

There is very little trust that the government guidelines are thought through, follow data and science, and are not based on political gameplay rather than practicality. Of course, every country has to make health decisions based on what is best for its citizens. But this doesn’t seem to be what the UK government is doing.

To many from the outside looking in, we see Britain as the sick man of Europe who hasn’t been able to get a grip on the pandemic at any point. And for that we are all being made to pay the price.