House of Commons · Westminster Hall
16 November 2020 · 10 other contributors · 13,119 words
Opened by Martyn Day SNP Linlithgow and East Falkirk
Responding minister: Greg Hands
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Martyn Day raised concerns about trade deals and the nhs in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key points
Key requests to Government
The lead MP urged for a legally binding commitment ensuring the NHS is not on the table in any future US-UK trade negotiations, emphasizing that this would provide the necessary assurance to those who have signed the e-petition. He also questioned the lack of parliamentary scrutiny and democratic process in approving such deals.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Concerned about the potential impact of a UK-US trade deal on the NHS, Martyn Day highlighted that the petition had received just under 112,000 signatures. He noted that despite government assurances, there was doubt among the public due to previous inconsistent commitments and actions regarding the protection of the NHS in trade deals. The timing of the petition launch post-government objectives publication further fueled these doubts.
Bill Esterson expressed concern about the impact of future trade agreements with the US and CPTPP on the NHS. He cited worries over market access, data privacy, and potential privatisation driven by negative list systems and ISDS clauses in trade deals. Will the Minister give way?
The Government have failed to secure trade deals with the EU, roll-over agreements with various countries like Canada and Turkey, and new deals globally. Only 17% of export growth from a deal with Japan will go to British firms while 83% goes to Japanese exporters, worsening our £3 billion trade deficit with Japan. Concerns about negative lists, standstill clauses, ratchet clauses, and ISDS in potential US trade deals could negatively impact the NHS, increasing medicine costs and risking data privacy.
The Government have repeatedly asked the public to trust their promise that the NHS will not be for sale in any future trade deals with the US, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. An amendment supported by over 400 doctors and health professionals failed due to a lack of Conservative support. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 has incentivised NHS outsourcing and privatisation; since then, private companies have been awarded £15 billion in NHS contracts. Research shows the US healthcare system is inefficient and wasteful, with nearly half of working-age Americans underinsured or without coverage.
Clarifies that the Trade Bill does not involve privatization of the NHS and reassures petition signatories. Criticizes fearmongering about the NHS's future, noting past Labour initiatives such as the private finance initiative and Hinchingbrooke Hospital. Emphasises the importance of data sharing for healthcare improvements while addressing patient fears. Highlights the need for a nuanced debate on the NHS's long-term needs.
Davison addressed the concerns about NHS privatisation, stating that it is a myth and reassured constituents. She emphasised the importance of trade deals with the USA, mentioning Equus Leather's exports to the US market and potential benefits for farmers in Teesdale and Weardale. Davison highlighted the north-east region's potential benefit from UK-US trade deal, stressing the department's efforts on scrutiny and parliamentary approval for future deals.
Jim Shannon expressed his commitment to protecting the NHS, emphasizing its importance to constituents and family members. He shared a personal letter from a constituent diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukaemia Stage 4, highlighting the excellent care received and the need for legal protection against trade deals impacting the NHS. Shannon also compared NHS care to American healthcare, noting that treatment in America can be contingent on having insurance, whereas the NHS ensures treatment regardless of background or prognosis.
The Member expressed concerns about constituents' fears regarding the impact of trade deals with the United States on the NHS. He cited statements from US politicians and lobbyists advocating for market access to the NHS, highlighting potential risks such as price controls removal and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. The MP criticized the lack of legal protections in the Trade Bill and warned against negotiating a deal at any cost.
The NHS in Scotland is valued highly, with public service ethos rewarded by a satisfaction level of 78%, compared to the UK average. The MP questions why explicit protection for the NHS isn't included in primary legislation if the Government is so confident about assurances given. Historical context and current government conduct raise trust issues regarding trade deals.
She supports an e-petition with over 110,000 signatures against trade deals that threaten the NHS. She criticises the Government's approach to healthcare and mentions a report by right-wing think-tanks advocating for competition in healthcare services, questioning why these individuals are advisers to the Department of International Trade.
Asked to give way, but no specific content provided for summary.
Government Response
Greg HandsIt is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for opening this debate, as well as the more than 110,000 members of the public who raised this topic, which is hugely important to us all. There have been a lot of rumours, confusion and misstatements about this subject, so I am more than happy to set the record straight. The NHS is not on the table in any future trade deal with the US or any other country, nor are its services or the prices it pays for drugs. Decisions on how to run public services, including the NHS, remain under UK Government control and no trade deals will change this. The UK's Trade Bill ensures continuity of existing agreements without affecting future negotiations. ISDS clauses in trade agreements cannot override Parliament's authority or force changes to the law; there is no successful claim against the UK through ISDS courts, and the US does not have a trade agreement with the EU that would affect this situation. The Government are clear on their commitment to protect public services such as the NHS. The Trade Bill maintains existing protections for data privacy and public services while allowing exemptions in future negotiations if necessary. No trade deal could be ratified without Parliamentary scrutiny, meaning any changes to the NHS or other public services would still require domestic implementing legislation. It is crucial that we focus on the benefits of trade rather than fears and threats; a strong economy supports essential public services like the NHS. The Government will work with partners around the world to create beneficial trade deals while maintaining high standards for data protection and protecting our national health service from any risks or changes that could undermine its future sustainability.