Department of Health and Social Care

Debate between John McDonnell and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The debate we have had so far highlights the issue at hand. This is an immense change to the way in which we will determine the delivery of drugs to the NHS, and one of my fears is that it will begin to weaken the existing controls. I think it politicises the process, because what will happen now is that Ministers will be able to determine the thresholds. In addition, I am concerned that decision making in the negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies has been transferred from NHS England to the Department itself. There will be real concerns that when we look for objective advice from NICE, the system that we have will now be politicised. I say to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that it behoves the Government to ensure that we have a proper debate on this issue.

I welcome the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), because I find them interesting, just as I have found the contributions from Members across the House. The costs have been set out today, and there is a vast range of figures. This could be resolved if the Government just published the impact study that we have all been asking for.

Members have emphasised that when No. 10 said very clearly that any additional costs would have to come from the NHS, we wanted to have a debate so that we could ask, “Where from? What areas of service will be reduced?”

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The NHS will carry out screening and evaluation of newborn babies for spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, which causes spinal cord deterioration. It is a devastating genetic condition. The evaluation will start in October in England, but not in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. Does my hon. Friend agree that the will must be found to ensure comprehensive cover for all nations? We can have no more delays. We need action now to save the lives of children and prevent trauma for families.

[John McDonnell]

That is an incredibly relevant point in this debate. Many of us have examples of that, which is why we need to have a wider debate about the supply of drugs, their effectiveness and how they are evaluated. I thought we had a relatively objective system, but the deal throws that objectivity into question.

Figures on the scale of deaths have been bandied about. I want to hear the Government’s view and their proper analysis of that, because we have to engage with the reports from Karl Claxton, Andrew Hill and so forth, as others have mentioned.

The justification for the Trump deal was that it would increase UK exports to the US and increase overall investment in drugs in this country. I have yet to see any published evidence of that; in fact, the Government have not brought forward any evidence.

I also say to my hon. Friend the Minister, and this is political, that I remember the commitment given by the Prime Minister and the former Health Secretary that the NHS would not be on the table in any Trump deals. This deal does put it on the table, because it has consequences not just for the supply of drugs, but for investment in the NHS and decision making about what our constituents can access. It relates not only to what level of drugs they can access, but—if there are reductions in other expenditure—to whether they will get access to a GP or A&E, or get the care services for which we have been advocating for quite a while.

I thank the people who have been providing us with briefings on this issue, such as Global Justice Now and Just Treatment, which I have worked with over the years. They want to engage in the debate with the Government and to bring their expertise to the table, so I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to bring in those organisations before we move forward with implementation. This is my worry and that of those I have worked with: Kamran Abbasi, the editor of The British Medical Journal, has said that the deal

“will end up harming vulnerable people to boost the profits of already obscenely profitable drug companies.”

I do not want to support a deal that does that.

Human Rights: Supply Chains

Debate between John McDonnell and Peter Dowd

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate, which is much needed. Also, it is not often that I thank an Everton supporter for anything, but thank you very much, Mr Dowd, for stepping into the breach.

A number of organisations have been working incredibly hard with me and other Members on a number of fronts relating to this issue for some time. I thank the Corporate Justice Coalition, which is a large coalition of organisations. I thank the TUC and my own union, Unison, for circulating briefings. I also thank Anti-Slavery International; ActionAid; Sarah Benn Gordon, who put together a range of information for me; and the wonderful House of Commons Library.

The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is an excellent piece of work, not surprisingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) has gone, but he is a specialist in Aristotle, and we can see the logic in the report. I have read the Government’s response and want to make sure that I have it clear; the Minister can clarify later in the debate. First, the response says that the Government share the Committee’s concerns and accept that there are real worries about global supply chains and that we have to ensure that, as a country, we are not complicit. Secondly, it states that

“the Government is actively exploring options to strengthen protections.”

Thirdly, it states—as hon. Members have noted—that their response will be based on the trade strategy review that was launched some time ago, which aims to ensure that we have responsible business conduct in supply chains and companies operating in the UK.

I found it interesting that the Government’s response listed exactly the same concerns, about

“human rights, labour rights, the environment, and anti-corruption”

and said that there has to be due regard to the costs of implementation. It then listed the Departments engaged in the review as

“the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Cabinet Office”.

There was no reference to the Treasury whatsoever—nor, seemingly, to the Financial Conduct Authority or the Bank of England.

The small point I want to make is that the finance sector seems to have been excluded from the whole debate. It is certainly not covered in any of the reports so far. We need to be concerned. It is not just about goods in; our concern is about finance out and the scale of investment by the City and by our finance sector, unfortunately, in abusive business practices around the globe. That investment is sometimes funded by money that has been laundered into the City and then laundered out. I remind people that only a few years ago the City of London was described as the “Russian laundromat” due to the Russian oligarchs’ money that was coming in and then invested in a whole range of schemes that abused human rights and brought about environmental degradation.

That is why I want to know whether the finance sector will be included in the overall review. At the moment, we largely rely on the EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive to cover the finance sector. The problem is that the omnibus proposed in 2025 watered down the role that would play and the requirements within it. There is also a finance exemption. A large section of the finance sector is completely exempt, so investment and lending are largely exempt in terms of the requirements on due diligence. It also excludes down- stream partners—the companies they invest in.

Additionally, there is no reference to shadow banking at all. Shadow banking is going on at the moment virtually unregulated. There is other legislation, such as the EU sustainable finance disclosure regulation, but there are various interpretations of how asset managers could comply with that. In addition, we have a situation where compliance is virtually voluntary. Certainly, it is unclear and unmonitored.

We then rely on treaties and memoranda of understanding, but the standards that relate to human rights abuse and labour rights abuse are not consistently applied in treaties. A report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I served on at the time, found that treaties and memoranda of understanding are virtually devoid of parliamentary scrutiny. We never debate treaties on the Floor of the House. There is no central register of memoranda of understanding from which we could get some comprehension of what they cover and so on.

As a result of that, there are numerous examples of the implications of the unregulated nature of our finance sector with regard to human rights abuse and environmental degradation. My questions are: will any new supply chain regulation cover the finance sector; if it does, what consultations will take place to ensure the sector is included; who will be involved in those consultations; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked, what will the timescale be? We are waiting—the “soon” we heard is becoming a long soon.

I do not want to take up too much of the debate so I will shut up at this point, but there is always this argument that finance regulation somehow restrains the animal spirits and as a result undermines growth. Actually, in the finance sector, my word is my bond, and nothing is more important that trust and confidence. As a result, proper regulation is required to maintain that trust.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I am pleased that the right hon. Member referred to my generosity, which extends even to Liverpool supporters.