DONATE facebook-icon-copy twitterICON

999 Call for the NHS

A grassroots NHS campaign. Not affiliated to any of the political parties.

999logofinal_Pill_straight_360 999 Blog

By 999 Call for the NHS, Mar 7 2019 06:09PM

999 Call for the NHS is urging everyone to write to their MP to support NHS EDM #2013 which is an Early Day Motion called a “Prayer” Motion. It’s the only type of motion that can annul and stop secondary legislation.

This is urgent because the Department of Health has “quietly” introduced secondary legislation, in the form of a Statutory Instrument, to make major changes to NHS regulations that will damage the way in which GP/Primary Care and Commissioning works - and of course it will not benefit patients or staff.

We are asking MPs to use parliamentary procedure to call this legislation into question and annul the Statutory Instrument

Please visit our Prayer Motion page to find a LETTER TO MY MP template and more information. This is urgent we have until March 24th to get this annulled. It can be done.

Secondary legislation? What the Duck is all that about then?

In the light of raised eyebrows and lots of questions since we launched the Prayer Motion campaign - this blog post explains what secondary legislation is, when it was created and how it has been used and abused since it was introduced in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.

The Parliament UK website says that:

Secondary legislation is law created by ministers (or other bodies) under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament - the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. It  is used to fill in the details of Acts (primary legislation). These details provide practical measures that enable the  law to be enforced and operate in daily life. 

Most secondary legislation is created, 'made and laid' as a Statutory Instrument.

Statutory Instruments (SI) were intended as a device to allow Ministers to make minor updates and amend existing Bills without bothering the House of Commons (or indeed any part of parliament) - allowing ministers to deal with localised and/or minor issues and changes to law without time-wasting debates in the Commons.

That’s the theory. The practice seems to be a bit different.


The theory sounds like common sense, sort of... Until you notice the sharp upward trend in the use of Statutory Instruments through the Thatcher Years, into New Labour and the last ten years of this thing we call ‘Austerity’ government.

The red lines in the table below show a huge disparity between the number of actual ACTS (Primary Legislation passed in the Commons & Lords) and the number of Statutory Instruments.

By and large, because of the way they are made (the Negative Procedure), Statutory Instruments are only seen by ministerial committees. This means there is NO opposition oversight of or input into these legislative changes. In the case of this Statutory Instrument - it is not even required to have even nominal scrutiny by the cross-party-house Joint Committee of Statutory Instruments (Select Committee).

What’s the point of having Parliamentary opposition if it can’t oppose? To use the Mainstream Media’s classic line “where's the balance?” One party state, anyone?

Latest figures on the number of SI’s passing through unseen? The House of Commons Background Paper on Statutory Instruments (2016) says:

In the region of 3,500 SIs are made each year. Many SIs are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and simply become law on the date stated. Whether they are subject to parliamentary procedure, and if so which one, is determined by the parent Act.

On top of this,look at the size of these Statutory Instruments. Given the number of pages, can they really contain only minor amendments and non-vital pieces of policy making?

According to Bracknell: “Statutory Instruments vary enormously in their scope from substantial pieces of legislation to considerable numbers of orders temporarily restricting traffic on particular local roads.”

The full easy-to-read Bracknell report is here:

So we have to ask - are Statutory Instruments now a way of changing Acts and regulations without Parliamentary debate and proper scrutiny?

If so much paperwork filled with items, appendices and addendums is passing through the corridors of parliament unseen by most MPs and Lords, is it any wonder that we are crying out “Democracy? What Democracy?”

This concern applies with a vengeance to Statutory Instrument 2019 No.248 The Amendments Relating to the Provision of Integrated Care Regulations 2019. It contains pages and pages of guff.

You can see for yourself - and pay special attention to PART 9 & 10.

It's a good job there is an Explanatory Memorandum to SI 2019#248 - be warned it’s uncomfortable reading but at least it’s in an English most MPs and members of the public can understand - if they were given the chance to read it of course.

If you haven't already please help make this happen. Don't be confused by Parliamentary Procedure.

Write to your MP from our Prayer Motion Page

Many thanks.

By 999 Call for the NHS, Jun 19 2017 03:25PM

999 Call for the NHS exists to stop and reverse NHS cuts and sell offs, and to restore the NHS as a publicly owned, funded, run and provided health service that is free at the point of need and provides the full range of care and treatments to everyone, based on their clinical need.

We also campaign for social care to be fully publicly funded and provided and available to all who need it in order to live independent decent lives - not just as “a means-tested privatised, residual service for those with substantial needs”.

This requires adequate funding. But none of the three main parties’ 2017 Manifestos commits to this.

Given their “austerity” record over the last two Parliaments, it’s not surprising that the Conservative and LibDem manifestos offer little in the way of increased NHS and social care funding.

However, it’s disappointing that Labour - on closer inspection - have also failed to commit to enough NHS and social care funding to pull the services out of crisis.

In his critique of the Labour NHS manifesto, Shropshire Defend Our NHS campaigner Pete Gillard said

that its failure to commit to adequate NHS funding levels was down to John McDonnell’s insistence on a balanced budget: READ FULL STATEMENT

On social media, Labour’s failure to commit to adequate NHS funding has been defended on the grounds that, had Labour committed to adequate NHS funding, the resulting media attacks on Labour as the party of tax and spend would have totally wrecked the party’s chances of winning the election.

Well, Labour didn’t win the election despite playing safe with its insistence on a balanced budget; and is it really credible that the late surge in support for Labour, which led to a hung parliament, would have been forestalled by a commitment to proper NHS funding?

Surely such a commitment would have found favour among these voters and could have pulled in even more, given the wide public support for the NHS and its importance as an election issue?

Bernie Sanders points out – the specifics of NHS policy notwithstanding - that Labour massively strengthened its position precisely by campaigning against the Establishment and not kow-towing.

The (positive) argument needs to be: Don’t hold back!!! Don’t be timid and sacrifice your own chances.

Of course, unless the NHS Reinstatement Bill is passed - which would stop and reverse NHS privatisation - more funding would mean more money going to profiteering companies. The need to pass the NHS Reinstatement Bill goes without saying. Too bad it’s not in the Labour manifesto, which merely commits to making the NHS the preferred provider and stopping excess profits being taken out of the NHS.

Funding the NHS and social care properly is economically beneficial - as well as morally right.

As NHA Party member Naveen Judah stated at the first Save Our A&Es public meeting in Halifax in March 2014, NHS spending has a “multiplier effect” – so that for every £1 of NHS funding, more recirculates in the economy.

When the government pays for public services it puts money in the pockets of public employees, who spend it in shops, on rent, on holidays – in short, in the private sector. It also fills the order books of the private sector – with railway lines, and lightbulbs, books for schools, hospital equipment….

The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills – A Study by Dr David Stuckler and Dr Sanjay Basu – found that the multiplier effect for health spending is greater than 3 – so each £1 generates at least a £3 return.


When governments spend they boost the economy – and ensure the provision of affordable essential services for all. Government spending boosts the healthy circular motion of the economy. Money goes out into the public domain and comes back in via public spending and taxes.

Before the June 8th election, the well-respected Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang called on voters to reject “tax and spend” myths about the economy that the mainstream political parties are still hung up on:

999 Call for the NHS extend this call to all NHS campaigners.

For some facts we all need to get our heads around, please check out this post. It will be worth it.


999 Bloggers

We need your help!

We are all volunteers and there is no polite way to say it. We always need some money to help make 999 a effective success.


Please think about donating.

No matter how big or small the amount every penny will go towards the Campaign



We are not aligned

to any political party.


We never have been.

We know it's going to take political legislation to bring back the NHS into public hands but we remain independent of all the parties in order to lobby and pressure all the parties. We are about people and the NHS they should be able to keep.


So to all MPs and politicians -   If the policy fits, we'll support it.  




If you have an article to share, a blog item you feel we could use please do get in touch.


This space was always intended as a grassroots venue for campaigners to raise their voices.


Contact Steve for more details.

RSS Feed

Editor of The Lancet


Agrees with an NHS Staff member with their cry for the resignation of the NHS England Board. He calls their preparations for the pandemic as SHAMBOLIC and a

"National Disgrace"


What do you think? Find out more and get involved.