The National Health Service

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Matt Western

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

I cannot give way because of time.

It is this legislation that now exposes our NHS to foreign competition and undermines our public healthcare system. It is Donald’s door into our NHS. Some 170,000 people already know this, and they have signed a parliamentary e-petition calling on this Government to introduce safeguards that will protect it from new trade deals. Trade agreements lock in privatisation, and open up access to foreign investors and speculators. That is why we need safeguards.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the great threats to our NHS is a trade deal with the US that, as happened in Australia 10 years ago, will drive up the price of medicines significantly?

[Barry Gardiner]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

In 2007, Slovakia wanted to move from a private health system, modelled on the USA’s, to a system more like ours. Slovakia was sued for millions of euros by a Dutch company that thought the move might affect its future profits. Trade deals often contain clauses that give foreign investors the right to sue Governments for decisions that might affect their profits. These investor-state dispute settlement—ISDS—clauses are common in modern free trade agreements.

Policy decisions such as legislating for the plain packaging of cigarettes have been subject to ISDS claims. Labour believes the UK should be free to make public health policy based on the health needs of the British people. We should not have to bend to some company that is profiting from keeping our people ill, whether from tobacco, polluted air or too much sugar.

More than 750 cases are known to have been brought under ISDS clauses in other countries, and more than half resulted in compensation for foreign investors or in financial settlements out of court. Labour will not sign up to any free trade agreement that uses these ISDS-style rules, which are wrong in principle and, even where they are not used, can lead to regulatory chill.

Incredibly, the right to sue the Government under these ISDS clauses does not extend to our own UK companies, only to foreign companies in separate private courts. Labour has confidence in our courts and thinks foreign companies should have no greater rights of redress than British companies.



Free trade agreements also typically include market access clauses and national treatment provisions. These would set out the extent to which overseas businesses can operate in our markets, and they would insist that we afford at least the same treatment to foreign businesses as we do to our own businesses. In the past that was done by listing all those services that had been agreed. If an NHS service was not on the list, it could not be the subject of foreign competition. Agreements used to set out only those services that we were prepared to open up to competition, but modern trade agreements do not work that way.

Instead, modern trade agreements adopt a negative list system that says every service is opened up to competition unless it is placed on the negative list. Anything missed off the list is automatically open to competition. Once missed, a service can never be put back on the list. Any new service that comes as a result of technological or scientific breakthrough, if it is not on the list, is automatically open to foreign competition.

Imagine if we had agreed a negative list before the age of the internet and before digital technology had changed how patients can be screened and tested. If we lose our capacity and skill to provide these services directly, we will become a captive market and vulnerable to the abuse of private monopoly and spiralling costs.

Governments cannot intervene where there has been a clear failure in the sector or where patient health has been compromised. We need legal guarantees that no such negative list trade agreement will be concluded. That is why Opposition Members sought to introduce measures into the Trade Bill to achieve this protection. Conservative Members voted down every single one.

When their lordships secured essential provisions for proper scrutiny of trade agreements and a defined parliamentary procedure for ratification, what did the Government do? They abandoned the Bill entirely. Now they want to bring back the same legislation, but without those safeguards.

A potential deal with the US is of major concern to those who care about our health service. The American model is renowned for its pursuit of profit and its indifference to the poor. The US ambassador told national TV that the NHS would be on the table and that the US had already looked at all the components of the deal. President Trump confirmed it, and the Office of the US Trade Representative has published its list of negotiating objectives for any such deal. One objective is to stop the NHS using its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. The US Secretary of Health and Human Services actually said that the US would “pressure” other countries in trade negotiations so that Americans pay less and we pay more.

The USA wants to stop the UK regulating the pharmaceutical industry unless the US industry has agreed. So much for taking back control. In one of their first acts after establishing the Department for International Trade, this Government opened three new offices in the US, in Raleigh, in Minneapolis and in San Diego—biopharma hubs where major healthcare providers, biotech, pharmaceutical manufacturers and health insurers are headquartered. What made those cities so attractive if it was not an attempt to attract players from those sectors into our NHS? The Labour party created the NHS. We will not allow this Government’s trade agreements to damage it. Under Labour, the NHS will remain a universal service, free at the point of use, and based on medical need, not ability to pay.

Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Matt Western

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I was particularly struck by what Elspeth Macdonald, the deputy chief executive of Food Standards Scotland, said. Perhaps my hon. Friend agrees with her. In giving evidence, she said:

“The principal issue with the Bill that causes us great difficulties is the way in which it constrains the ability of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and consequently our ability, to act and regulate in ways that are considered appropriate for businesses and the public in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2018; c. 95, Q172.]

[Barry Gardiner]

I thank my hon. Friend, because that evidence is absolutely apposite to the new clause. All we are seeking to do is assist the Government in any future negotiations they may have as they seek to roll over agreements to corresponding agreements. We want to make it easier for them to persuade a trading partner that there will be no problems in implementing the agreements.

The Joint Ministerial Committee has already been the vehicle for similar engagement in respect of EU negotiations on the withdrawal deal, by way of sub-committee, establishing a clear precedent for a similar sub-committee in respect of trade agreements. That would be extremely helpful. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Bill ensures that a similar forum is legislated for to ensure that the democratic will of the entire population of the country is represented fully throughout the trade agreement process and without threatening the devolved competencies.

I take this opportunity to remind the Government that they must not allow the Bill to afford Ministers of the Crown powers that would undermine the competence of the devolved authorities and the devolution settlements. While instituting a formal consultation framework through the JMC would go some way to protecting the rights of the devolved Administrations, it would not and cannot be considered as addressing the other concerns presented by the Bill, which I have previously adverted to in our proceedings. If the Government fail to address those concerns, the Labour party will return with further amendments.

Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Matt Western

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Barry Gardiner]

Earlier today, Members of the Committee may have tapped into their emails. If they are like me, they would have received 1,700 emails in less than 24 hours, because we are members of this Bill Committee.

The email was clearly a standard email. The subject heading was, “Amend the Trade Bill to protect democracy”, and it began, “Dear Trade Bill Committee Member…”, which is why I assume that most hon. Members in the Committee have received it. It has probably taken us all a great deal of time to sift through, perhaps from some of the child protection cases that have been brought before us and need urgent attention. That in itself is a concern. However, the fact that 1,700 people have emailed each one of us about this Bill shows the level of public concern that exists about its failings.

The Member’s explanatory statements make clear that these two amendments together have the effect of expanding the remit of clause 2, to include those international trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU trade agreement. That means that they would have the effect of expanding the remit of the Bill itself, to include all the trade agreements that the UK will negotiate with its trading partners or, as we would see it, they would have the effect of restoring the Bill to its proper proportions.

On Second Reading, I mentioned that we believe the Bill to be highly negligent in restricting its focus only to those future UK international trade agreements where a corresponding EU trade agreement already exists. The Government repeatedly told us that the Bill would provide the basis for this country’s future trade policy once we had left the EU. The background notes to the Queen’s Speech of last June were unequivocal in stating:

“The Bill will put in place the essential and necessary legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the European Union.”

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a key piece of legislation? As he has been articulating, the amount of public interest in it—not just simply through the democratic process—shows that the public are seeking far greater scrutiny and visibility of the trading negotiations and legislation to be formulated and widened through the Bill. There is an expectation that it should be, and there is a void in the Bill. As was mentioned by the witness from the CBI, this is such an important opportunity and there is an expectation that scrutiny and consultation should be included.

[Barry Gardiner]

Yes, I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what those of our constituents who wrote to us earlier today were getting at. The gentleman from the CBI who gave evidence only two days ago posed a very pertinent question to the Minister on two occasions—at the beginning and the very end of his remarks. He pointed out that the Minister and the Government have said repeatedly that they will bring forward legislation in the future to put in place what we now think should be here. They give no assurances of that though. What the CBI, supported by the International Chambers of Commerce, said was: if not now, then when?

The Minister is keen to suggest the importance of passing this Bill is that we are pressed for time, and we are. But if we are pressed for time on the need to have trade agreements that correspond to existing agreements in place by the time we leave the European Union, surely we are also pressed for time if we are to have, as the Government have suggested they could have on day one, new trade agreements in place ready to go. Where is the legislation to facilitate that? This should be that legislation and it is not.

By choosing to focus solely on providing continuity with pre-existing EU trade agreements, the Bill has gone back on the promise that the Government made in the Queen’s Speech, and in other places on other occasions. The opening words of the Bill identify its scope perfectly clearly:

“A Bill to make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central tried to elicit comment on that point from the witnesses this morning. The Bill bears no qualification to suggest that we should be focusing only on a subset of the broader whole. The issue before us is explicitly the implementation of the UK’s future international trade agreements, which is why we consider the two amendments to be essential to restoring the Bill to its correct proportions right from the outset.

It was highly revealing that several witnesses from the business community voiced their concern at the failure of the Bill to address so many essential aspects of our future trade policy, which are precisely the aspects on which their members desperately want clarity, so that they can start making the necessary investments and operational decisions on how to take on board the new realities. Was it not depressing to hear business leader after business leader in our witness sessions saying that, because there is not that clarity, businesses are now having to execute their plan B? They are being precipitated into taking decisions to make investments abroad in order to safeguard their trading future. That is not good for this country, yet in this Bill we could set out clearly how we will achieve that.

I was concerned and taken aback to hear how angry some businesses are about the Government’s mishandling of the whole process of informing them what the Bill is about and the Government’s abject failure to take on board any of the business community’s input into the official consultation. It came up time and again. It is hardly surprising when we consider that the Bill was already printed before the consultation on the White Paper informing it had run its course. The consultation closed on 6 November, and when we went into the Table Office on the morning of 7 November, copies of the Bill were available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I absolutely agree. It was shameful. The Cabinet Office circulates principles of Government consultation that make it clear that, when they consult, they should take notice of the responses. Nobody can persuade me that between 12 midnight on 6 November last year and 8 o’clock the following morning, all the consultation responses had been sifted, considered, documented and incorporated into the ministerial view that emerged in the Bill as printed. That is not consultation.

In that regard, we should all commend the representative of the CBI who spoke to us and gave the understatement of the year in his answer to my question during the second witness session on the Government’s mishandling of the consultation process. When he ventured his verdict, he said after much thought and deliberation that

“the optics were not ideal.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 34, Q79.]

They really were not.

I confess that I was not prepared for the level of anger from business in our oral evidence sessions, as industry representatives lined up alongside trade unions, civil society, legislators and academics to announce—to denounce, actually—the Government’s failure on every aspect of this Bill.

[Matt Western]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply the failure to consult that has frustrated and angered so many in the business community? As we heard earlier, many businesses are so worried and uncertain about the future that they are having to take out extensive warehousing facilities. We have seen that across the southern part of the UK, where warehousing is now at a super-premium because they do not know what is happening, what is going on or what is around the corner. That is coming at a great cost to UK businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

A plausible case. Elements of the Bill go far too wide, including the Henry VIII powers, which we will come on to later. We believe that the way in which the Government have sought to use Henry VIII powers in this legislation is too wide and unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is right: that was one of the subjects of debate in our Second Reading deliberations. One other key criticism made by many Labour Members in that debate was that the Bill not only did the few things that it did badly, but failed entirely to do the one thing that it should have done properly. That is, to quote the Queen’s Speech policy paper, to

“put in place the essential and necessary legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the European Union.”

There are many deficiencies in the Bill. Some relate to the widening of powers that it gives to Government, whereas others relate to the narrowness of the Bill.

[Matt Western]

Are we not simply taking the opportunity to ensure that this important legislation is comprehensive? It is about widening the remit of the Bill as regards the coverage of trade agreements without widening the powers of a select few.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for saying incisively what I was trying to convey to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. My hon. Friend is entirely right. We want a comprehensive Bill that is fit for purpose and does the job that business expects it to do. This Bill does not do that. We want it to do what the Queen’s Speech promised it would, but we do not want the Government to use the Bill to abuse their powers and widen the powers available to them.

Let me speak first to amendment 3, so that what we seek to achieve through it is clear. The amendment expands the Bill through paragraphs (a) to (d) to include new trade agreements that do not correspond to any prior or existing EU agreement. Paragraph (a) relates to free trade agreements as defined in the Bill under clause 2(7): namely, agreements that are notifiable under the relevant articles of the principal WTO goods and services agreements—that is, article XXIV of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and article V of the general agreement on trade in services. Paragraph (d) relates to international trade agreements that the Bill leaves undefined as being

“other than a free trade agreement.”

Dr Lorand Bartels, a witness on the first day of the Committee, noted in his oral evidence the Bill’s failure to define that second category. We will certainly endeavour to address that failure through a subsequent amendment to the Bill. For both categories of trade agreement, our amendments point ahead to the requirements of parliamentary scrutiny that will pertain to them. Let me say at this juncture that we consider the two types of trade agreement to be materially different in that regard.

As we heard from numerous witnesses, the modern generation of free trade agreements are comprehensive in scope. They range far beyond the narrow focus on mutual tariff reduction that characterised the multilateral trade agreements negotiated under the auspices of GATT in the 40 years after the second world war. They reach behind the border to address regulatory issues at the heart of our society, including issues of public health, social standards, labour rights and environmental standards, among many others. Those were precisely the reasons why we had such a comprehensive debate on the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Livingston.

These are international treaties that introduce binding obligations on future generations and thus cannot be repealed as domestic legislation can be repealed. That is why in all our interventions we have proceeded according to the principle that there must be maximum parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight of free trade agreements to ensure that we get them right, rather than storing up the prospect of irreparable harm at a later date.

The other international trade agreements covered by the Bill, to use its phrase—that is, the ones that are not free trade agreements—include such ancillary agreements as mutual recognition agreements, according to the explanatory notes. There are many more such agreements, and they tend to be far more narrowly focused than free trade agreements, so we have proceeded on the assumption that they will not require the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. That is a deliberately pragmatic approach I have adopted to ensure that future Administrations can make progress in agreeing such deals where necessary, but we will ensure that there is sufficient potential for scrutiny in all cases to guard against any potential harm from those other agreements.

As well as drawing in the new UK trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU trade agreement, amendment 3 speaks to the new UK trade agreements that correspond to a prior or existing EU trade agreement—that is, the ones that the Government would like to restrict us to in this Bill. Again, let us agree from the outset that they will be new trade agreements, even if they correspond to agreements that the EU had previously negotiated with the third country in question. Ministers have done their level best to suggest that the new UK agreements will just be rolled over or grandfathered from the pre-existing EU deals. The delegated powers memorandum issued alongside the Bill by the Department for International Trade is unequivocal: these will be new agreements, on two counts. First, the agreements will be legally distinct from any pre-existing trade deals the EU may have negotiated—that was underlined by witnesses to the Committee, such as Dr Holger Hestermeyer—and secondly, and even more important, these new trade agreements may include

“substantial amendments, including new obligations.”

It is vital to read the Bill on this point. To qualify for the waiving of scrutiny foreseen in the Bill, a UK trade agreement need bear no resemblance whatever to the EU agreement it seeks to replace. Do I think the Government are likely to waive that scrutiny? No. Is the legislation effective in allowing the Government to do that? Yes. Under clause 2(3) and (4), there is no requirement for the UK agreement to match or mirror the EU’s existing agreement in any way, shape or form. It can be a wholly new departure with wholly new obligations, since all the Bill requires is that the other signatory and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement—not a corresponding one or a similar one, but “a free trade agreement”—before Brexit takes effect.

Trade Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Matt Western

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Q Finally, would you very much like your sector to be involved in any TRA?

Jonathan Hindle: Very much so, yes. We would certainly welcome having someone on that TRA that understands our sector and all the nuances and complexities that have been alluded to—absolutely.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Very briefly, Mr MacIntyre-Kemp, I understood your example about chlorinated chicken not to be because you did not realise that this Bill was not about doing a trade deal with America, but to be talking about the need for the devolved Administrations to be involved in determining what are in those trade agreements, because of the way in which they may impact upon the implementation of what are devolved competencies. Do you believe—and do you believe that it is the Scottish Government’s position—that there should not only be consultation but consent at that level for the trade agreements before they are implemented?

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes, exactly, and as food safety is a devolved issue in Scotland—