Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Earl of Dundee and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I will make a couple of apologies. The first is to my noble friend Lady Thornton. She is absolutely right about our colleagues in the House of Commons anticipating this problem and the wide powers in this Bill. I accept her correction. Indeed, it was my noble friend who alerted me to the powers in the Bill and got me involved—she may be regretting it now, but I am grateful to her. I apologise also to the Minister for not being able to get to the meeting that she arranged with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I was invited, but we had a very long Labour group meeting yesterday. I will not go into any of it in any detail whatever, because I am bound to total secrecy—but you can imagine what fun it was.

I want to deal with the distinction between negative and affirmative instruments. In my previous speech I expressed concern that statutory instruments are being used more and more, and inappropriately. Here, at least affirmative resolutions are better than negative instruments. As things stand, the Secretary of State has very extensive powers through this Bill. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, they are of “breath-taking scope”. If all future legislation relating to the Bill were to be laid through a negative procedure, parliamentary accountability and scrutiny would be further—and substantially—undermined. Introducing the made affirmative, as per the amendment, would be in line with the majority of other legislation. Crucially, the Government could not legislate in the knowledge that they would not face parliamentary scrutiny. The Government argue that the absence of scrutiny will relate mostly to administrative actions. However, given the breadth of the Secretary of State’s powers, the negative procedure could easily be misused.

In her concluding remarks at Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, said that she had heard,

“noble Lords’ preference for wider use of the ‘made affirmative’ procedure, which I will reflect on more as we head towards Committee”.—[Official Report, 5/2/19; col. 1487.]

We are in Committee now, so will she tell us the result of that reflection—or will we have to wait further to find out about it? The BMA echoed this stance and insisted that,

“any new powers granted to the Secretary of State are proportionate, subject to thorough scrutiny, and that all regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament”.

I hope that we will get that assurance.

I return finally to that wonderful speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on Tuesday— I have quoted from it twice or three times already. He said:

“I will try not to bang on any longer”.


I will try not to bang on too long as well.

“If we had time and exit day was further away, I should propose that this Bill should be sent packing back to the Government to redraft it and produce a Bill that is constitutionally acceptable”.


“Hear, hear”, I say to that.

“That option is not open. The healthcare of our citizens in Europe, and EU citizens here, must continue and survive”.—[Official Report, 19/2/19; col. 2172.]


That is what we face. It is a gun pointed at our head: “If you do not agree to this, we are going to go out of the European Union with a bang and our people will suffer”. That gun is being put to our head. It is a pity that it is, otherwise I would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in getting rid of Clause 5 altogether. In the meantime, all we can do is try to improve it a bit, and I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the statutory instruments will be of the affirmative nature rather than the negative one.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 34. Reflecting concerns about the wide scope of regulations, it seeks for them to be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedures. That, in turn, would enable Parliament to exercise more scrutiny.

However, this aim should perhaps be viewed in three different contexts. The first context is reciprocal healthcare arrangements between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The second is arrangements between the United Kingdom and countries outside the European Union. The third is other possible ways and means, apart from affirmative or negative procedures, for redressing what so far may appear to be an imbalance, with too many powers given to the Secretary of State and too little influence assigned to Parliament.

On reciprocal healthcare plans between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the Minister will be right to caution that we should retain negative procedures. After a healthcare agreement is in place, those would be better able to avoid uncertainty and time delays in order to protect the interests of all direct participants within the new scheme.

Yet reciprocal healthcare arrangements between the United Kingdom and the European Union are a different matter. Does the Minister concur that in that regard there is a strong case for replacing the use of parliamentary negative procedures with affirmative ones, and that to do so would provide a more acceptable balance between the influence of Parliament, which becomes greater, and not putting people at risk within the new scheme?

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Earl of Dundee and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9 in this group, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, has indicated, differs from Amendment 6 in only one respect: through its reference to the European court. It is intended as a probing amendment.

It may have been implied that post Brexit we will not have recourse to the ECJ for arbitration or any other purpose. However, so far, that has not been clarified. Is my noble friend able to comment?

Could it be that we might come to use the ECJ for dispute resolution all the same, even if such were to be confined to reciprocal healthcare only? If not, how confident are we that, compared with the ECJ, an alternative system of arbitration will not be much more expensive—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, warns—and perhaps much less efficient? Who will the judges be? Where will adjudication take place? Will it be an open process?

If, as the Government have indicated in another place, the ECJ must keep a limited role in any case—this being for an accurate interpretation of EU law—might it then follow that it should therefore be retained more widely?

That would be the case not least if, as a result and compared with alternatives, this were to emerge as a cheaper and more convincing way for achieving competent arbitration in reciprocal healthcare disputes in the United Kingdom and the EU.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, there is very little I can add to what my friend the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said. If there is not a role for the ECJ, what system will there be? If there are disputes, how will they be resolved? I would like to hear what the Minister suggests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, it is encouraging that on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I are on the same page. We agree in relation to this. I declare my interest as chair of Age Scotland, which is concerned with the interests of older people in Scotland. Amendments 18 and 19 deal with travellers with long-term medical conditions, and pensioners. These are particularly vulnerable categories in the case of the noble Lord’s amendments. We are suggesting that the current provision in respect of healthcare for UK citizens with long-term medical conditions travelling to the EU, and for EU citizens with such conditions travelling to the United Kingdom, should remain the same. This would create an essential legal commitment for those travelling to the European Union, who would otherwise have to face astronomical insurance charges that could price them out of travelling altogether.

There may be one or two Members of this House over the age of 75. If they have tried to get travel insurance to a non-European country, I think they will have found that very difficult. The banks often give insurance as part of having your account with them up to the age of 75, but after that Age UK or Saga—I again declare my interests—may be the only two companies or organisations which can provide insurance for such older people, particularly those with long-term medical conditions, so we are in a difficult area.

The cost of overseas medical treatment varies according to the country and the type of treatment needed but the costs for those with long-term illnesses are inevitably much higher. If we do not put arrangements in place, often families will go away without some of their older relatives being able to go. The costs add up extremely quickly; as we know from countries where we do not currently have healthcare agreements, they can be thousands of pounds. As we heard in previous debates, we do not currently enjoy reciprocal health arrangements with most of the world. This means that, at the moment, the EU and EEA countries present the only realistic travel option for many people with health conditions. It is a tragedy for them that they may not have that option after 29 March.

Take those who have kidney dialysis, for example. There are 29,000 who get kidney dialysis, usually on about three days a week. At present when they travel to the EU, they need to book slots in units near where they stay. The EHIC allows them to do that, but in the event of no deal, UK citizens would be required to pay for those slots. That could cost anything between €250 and €350 for each session—something like €1,000 a week, which will be impossible for most people. The Law Society of Scotland has reported that more than a quarter of disabled adults already feel that they are being charged more for travel insurance, or simply denied it, because of their condition. That is at the moment but it would be as nothing compared with the post-Brexit scenario. The Association of British Insurers has written to all of us, I think. It is supportive of this amendment, stating that it,

“would encourage detailed agreement with the EU to be sought in order to provide certainty for travellers with long-term medical conditions”.

If the ABI supports it, I would hope that the Government will, too.

I turn to healthcare provision for pensioners. There are currently 180,000 UK state pensioners and their dependants living abroad, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. They are mostly in Ireland, Spain, France and Cyprus. Under the S1 scheme, the UK provides healthcare for all those British people abroad. The S1 covers not only pensioners but some others with exportable benefits, such as frontier workers and posted workers, for an initial period. It is estimated that UK state pensioners and their dependants made up about 75% of the total cost of £468 million in 2016-17.

The UK Government have said on their website that the S1 will be invalid with effect from 30 March. But the website offers no sensible advice—I hope that the Minister will—or alternatives to UK pensioners resident in the European Union, who are totally dependent now on the S1 for their medical care. British in Europe, which is the coalition of UK citizens in Europe, said:

“The maintenance of this scheme from March 30th in the event of No Deal is absolutely vital for those it covers. It is quite literally their only life-line. It is their NHS. They moved to the EU confident that they would be entitled to healthcare for life, based on this scheme”.


In fact, when I was in France last weekend, some people talked to me about it and they were deeply worried about their future. This is understandably causing alarm among all these citizens.

After Second Reading, I received an email from a British citizen living in Germany who had written to the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that the Minister may have seen and even replied to his letter. He said:

“Any decision by the German authorities giving us a token right to stay after a No Deal Brexit would be pointless if we did not have the financial means to do so”.


I heard a pensioner in France say that she would be in difficulties in this way as well. This Brit in Germany went on to say that,

“most pensioners will have paid national insurance contributions and taxes into the UK system all their working lives. I continue to pay all my taxes into the UK. For what? Even if I could afford an extra €400-500 premium monthly for public health insurance … I should not have to”.

Of course he should not have to. He continued:

“If I am unlucky enough to require hospital or medical treatment after 29th March, the UK Department will be receiving the relevant invoices or will have to provide details of how they will be reimbursing me for my national insurance contributions”.


He has paid for it and is getting nothing in return. He said:

“Otherwise, it would just amount to the UK Government pocketing our contributions”,


and he is right on that. He also said:

“UK expat pensioners are innocent people caught in the middle of this debacle. We can’t just go out next month and top up our income if we are a bit low in funds. Please don’t play political games with people’s lives and livelihoods. If we must leave the EU”—


incidentally, as everyone knows here, I do not think that we should—

“then at the very least, please ensure Citizens’ Rights are properly protected”.

In cases where UK residents are not eligible for permanent residency, there will in some countries be potential for a voluntary opt-in to public health insurance schemes but that will vary from state to state and generally involve additional costs. In Spain, for example, there is a public health insurance policy if you have lived in that country for more than five years. However, it costs €1,900 for those 65 and over and €700 for those under 65. These are costs which British citizens in Europe do not currently incur. For them, it will be another Brexit tax. These innocent citizens will be caught out in this way because of Brexit. The Government must offer them some hope; otherwise it will be a really sorry situation.

[The Earl of Dundee]

My Lords, in this group, I support Amendments 18 and 19, which were addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. As with a number of earlier amendments, here there are two specifications, each of which serves a clear and useful purpose: giving assurance without applying any onerous impositions.

In their forthcoming negotiations, the Government will clearly seek to protect current arrangements, in this case including those affecting travellers with long-term medical conditions as well as those for pensioners.

Be that as it may, incorporating these categories in the Bill would give much-needed comfort to direct participants as it would to others desirous of protecting them. If that is a positive effect, there is really no downside. That is avoided through Amendment 18, which states:

“It shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government”.


Post Brexit, those words will encourage the Government to replicate what already obtains without forcing that eventuality against insurmountable difficulties if any such should happen to intervene.