Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (First sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Q Mr Henderson, you said you consider that the system works well at the moment. I think it is pretty universally accepted that the cost recovery element does not work so well. Do you feel that more ought to be done in respect of that, and if so what would you like to see done?

Mr Henderson: I do not pretend to be an expert on the cost recovery system. I think our members would be very clear that they believe the primary effectiveness of the current arrangements is about providing effective healthcare for citizens across the EU. As clinicians, that is their primary responsibility.

On the recovery of costs, not just in this area but for other areas where recoverable costs were brought in more recently, there are always questions about the amount of effort and return in the whole system. I am not at all opposed to the idea of recovery of costs, but I am not sure we have yet found a hugely simple and easy way of recovering any costs really. I would happily support that, but it seems to us that this works as a system on its most important requirement, which is providing quick, clear and safe healthcare for people.

[Justin Madders]

Q You say that you have basically the same system for 32 or 33 different countries. If we end up in a situation in which we have to make arrangements with each individual country—potentially significantly different arrangements depending on what is negotiated—what effect do you think that will have on your members, in terms of what they can deliver?

Mr Henderson: It is not a hugely attractive prospect, is it, 32 different settings, for those presumably trying to agree the arrangements? In practical terms, the idea that if you are a GP or a hospital doctor trying to work out whether there are different arrangements for 32 different lots of patients sounds pretty much like a nightmare set-up. What clinicians on the ground want is a clear and simple system—ideally a single system—that will cover all the people they are seeing.

[Justin Madders]

Q May I ask Mr Jethwa some questions? Have you looked at all at the situation as it might affect the island of Ireland?

Raj Jethwa: We have done some work on that.

[Justin Madders]

Would you like to say what you are doing?

Raj Jethwa: Our concern about the situation there is primarily based on the fact that there are some very effective cross-border agreements which have facilitated healthcare over the last two or three decades, particularly through co-operation and working together as a programme. That is only one aspect of it. Given the population demands on the whole island of Ireland, both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, there have been some fantastic examples of where clinicians have either co-located services in a particular trust or facility where there is not the demand from the local population to warrant it, or travelled across the border to work on different sites. Those two facets together have meant that there have been some great examples of cross-border co-operation. One of our concerns is that those arrangements remain in place in the future.

[Justin Madders]

Q Do you have any idea what the contingency plans might be if an appropriate deal is not put in place?

Raj Jethwa: That is something that we can write to the Committee about afterwards. We have been talking to our members about this situation. Our anticipation—our hope—is that an arrangement will remain in place whereby that work can continue.

[Justin Madders]

Q Have you looked at what the possible impact might be of a no-deal scenario on increased demand on services if, for example, pensioners currently living abroad came back?

Raj Jethwa: We are familiar with the research that the Nuffield Trust has done on this, as most people are. Our members are very cognisant of this. I know the Committee will be familiar with the figure of approximately 190,000 UK pensioners who may require access to healthcare facilities in the future if the S1 arrangements do not remain in place. We have concerns about that. In particular, if the arrangements do not remain in place in the future, those people may need to access healthcare facilities back in the United Kingdom. That would be a concern in terms of doctor and clinician numbers and beds, and the tight financial resources that the NHS has to work under at the moment.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. Mr Henderson, you mentioned the protections around personal data in the Bill. Do you feel that the Bill gives enough protection? Are there enough controls in the Bill?

Mr Henderson: As Raj says, this is an enabling Bill, so it is slightly hard to say whether there is sufficient protection there or not. Clearly, it is a hugely important issue that needs to be fully addressed. Equally, we would say very strongly that, while individual patients’ data must be protected, the free flow of data and exchange of information are absolutely crucial. We should never forget that side of the equation: properly and safely sharing anonymised data for research purposes, clinical trials and so on is crucial. While it is absolutely essential that we ensure that personal data is protected, I would put more emphasis on that other side, which is ensuring that we continue to share and benefit from the exchange of anonymised data for purposes that benefit the health service and research.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Q Mr Henderson, I think you described the existing arrangements as pretty well universal. Could you explain a little more what the gaps are?

Mr Henderson: I am not actually sure I have all the detail. My understanding is that the European health insurance card and such arrangements work for all emergency situations, certainly, and most normal circumstances. I think, and Raj may know better than I, that there are some areas that are not covered particularly, but as I understand it, it is fairly universal. I am not an absolute expert in that, I am afraid.

Raj Jethwa: We can write to the Committee. My opinion is that it is pretty universal. There are probably niche areas that may not be covered. We can look into that and get back to the Committee if that would be helpful.

[Justin Madders]

Q I have one more question to both of you—I am not sure if either of you will know the answer. Some of the reciprocal arrangements we have at the moment are based on the actual cost expended and some are based on an average—Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Malta and Norway. I am not clear why that is the case. Is there some sort of historical issue? If either of you can shed any light on that, that would be extremely helpful. One of you is shaking your head.

Raj Jethwa: I do not know that, but again we are happy to look into that and to come back to you if we find out that somebody back home does know the answer. I am not sure that I know.

Mr Henderson: It is probably lost in the mists of various previous agreements.

[Stephen Hammond]

Q Can I come back on the data point that you both commented on? Clause 4 deals directly with that and provides the usual protections in terms of data. I heard Mr Henderson’s point, and it is important that there needs to be a flow of data, although that needs to be secure. Are you happy that the protections in the Bill at the moment are the normal and adequate protections?

Raj Jethwa: One of the concerns we have is the reference to the authorised person and who could fit into that category. Without seeing more detail about what the arrangements will look like in the future, we do have some concerns and we are seeking that level of understanding. Without seeing that and knowing exactly what process will be used to, for example, recoup the money or make payments, it is hard to know exactly what those arrangements would look like and on what basis information would be shared. We do have concerns about the authorised person aspect of the Bill, and we need to ensure that we have greater understanding about exactly who would be an authorised person, beyond that list of specific bodies and individuals who are named in the Bill at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

So, the sooner the Bill gets Royal Assent, the happier you will be.

[Justin Madders]

Q On the cost point, I think some evidence was given to the House of Lords Committee that in a no deal you expected premiums to increase by between 5% and 10%. Does that sound like a familiar figure?

Alisa Dolgova: My colleague Hugh Savill gave evidence to the House of Lords, where he stated that there is likely to be an increase of between 10% and 20%. To be honest, we do not really know, because it very much depends on the particular insurer, who it insures and where that specific group of people travels to.

[Justin Madders]

Q In that context, what advice are you giving to people about insurance requirements post 29 March 2019?

Alisa Dolgova: The main message that insurers are giving to the customers is that it has always been important to have travel insurance because it covers things that EHIC does not, but it will be even more important to have it in case there is not a transitional period, because travellers would no longer have the benefit of EHIC. The message is that you need to have travel insurance in place, and that travel insurance will cover you, irrespective of whether you have EHIC.

[Justin Madders]

Q Has there been an increase in premiums because of that added uncertainty, do you know?

Alisa Dolgova: We have not currently seen an increase in premiums. Firms are currently pricing in the assumption that there will be a withdrawal agreement in place with a transitional period that will allow more time for the Government to enter into a reciprocal healthcare arrangement.

[Justin Madders]

Q In the event that there are not arrangements in place, have your members done any work on the number of people who might not be able to travel, because they effectively become uninsurable or the premiums are so high that they are prohibitive?

Alisa Dolgova: I have briefly alluded to the work that we have been doing with the Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA published a feedback statement in June this year, looking at travel for people with pre-existing conditions. The finding was that there are products available on the market but they may be difficult to locate at the moment, which is why we are doing additional work at the moment. So there are products available that will cover people.

[Justin Madders]

Q I appreciate that. There will almost always be a product; it is the size of the premium that can dictate whether that product is really available. Have you looked at the potential size of premiums in those situations? Are there particular pre-existing conditions that people might have that will have a negative impact on the size of the premium?

Alisa Dolgova: I do not have information with me about which types of conditions are more expensive than others, but it will be the types of conditions that are more likely to require treatment while you are travelling, and insurers do take factors into account such as, “What has been your recovery time?”

[Justin Madders]

Q My final question is about the overlap between EHIC costs and insurance costs. I had a recent example in my constituency of a constituent who came back from Spain with a medical bill for £15,000. It was not for repatriation costs; it was purely for medical treatment. Obviously, the question is, why is that not covered by the normal arrangements? How often does that situation arise, and can you give me some insight as to why that might be happening?

Alisa Dolgova: Yes, sure. EHIC covers you for public healthcare in the same way as a person from that country would be covered, and healthcare provision differs a lot, depending on which EU country you are in. Some countries, such as Italy, have healthcare systems that are much closer to the NHS than others, and if you travel there, EHIC will give you greater coverage. Some countries, such as Spain, have a mixed public/private system and some countries, such as Germany, have a greater tradition of private healthcare. Actually, that means the degree you are covered by EHIC varies depending on where you travel and that is why you need insurance.

[Justin Madders]

Q Okay. I think my constituent’s situation was an emergency and I do not think that any consideration was given to the type of hospital. I think that what you are saying is that reciprocal arrangements do not necessarily give you the same or equivalent coverage in other countries, because it depends on the system that operates there.

Alisa Dolgova: Yes. It will give you more coverage across all countries, but what that coverage is depends on what the situation is in that country.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q You said that private insurance policies cover the areas above the benefits of the EHIC. But is it not the case that those of us who take out private travel insurance policies precisely for the healthcare benefits may not make use of EHIC? And is it the case that, because of that, the premium costs for private travel insurance are less, given that those of us who take out private insurance might not use EHIC and might rely on the private healthcare side instead?

Alisa Dolgova: It depends on the specific terms of the travel insurance policy that you have. For example, some policies have a specific provision that you need to use EHIC first and then have resort to your insurance policy, and insurers may also provide incentives to use EHIC as well. For example, they might provide a waiver for access costs of EHIC; that has been used.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Q Finally, without putting reciprocal arrangements in place, as this Bill intends to give the Government the powers to do, presumably it would make it more or less impossible for your sufferers to travel.

Fiona Loud: Yes, it is our conclusion that it would be very hard. It is worth mentioning that at the moment it is generally easier to obtain dialysis at a unit away from your home in Europe than it is in the UK, because we have a heavily pressed NHS. Trying to get capacity in other units is possible with a lot of planning, but if you want to travel for a funeral or for something at short notice, it becomes very difficult to go away for more than one or two days in between dialysis sessions. NHS staff will help and do their very best, but it is easier to go away for two weeks in Europe and take a break in that way than it is to get two weeks in a UK unit, unfortunately.

[Justin Madders]

Q It is alarming to hear about some of your members seeing the expiry date on their EHIC card and assuming that carries—

Fiona Loud: I have heard it as a comment.

[Justin Madders]

Q It is perfectly understandable: why would they not assume that? Are you aware of any publicly available guidance to warn people that that date may not be absolutely set in stone?

Fiona Loud: I have not come across any publicly available guidance on that at all. We have given advice and organisations that we work with give advice, but it is informal advice. It is not formal, because it comes from us as a charity, not from any public health or other such body.

[Justin Madders]

Q Obviously, we hope that we do not need to get into that situation. Do your members plan things quite far in advance because of the need to get the right treatment?

Fiona Loud: That is what many people would do, for the very reasons we have given. We have people who are sometimes thinking about two years in advance. If you have kidney failure, it may well be that your income is quite limited. If you are spending three days a week in hospital and you are not particularly well, you would be likely to plan a long way in advance, because it is so important. As a charity, we give grants to kidney patients to be able to go away and have that break, so we hear quite a lot about it from various patients. Some can be up to two years in advance; others will be at shorter notice.

[Julie Cooper]

Q Good morning and thank you for coming along to help us. I want to ask about a couple of things. The aim of the Bill is to provide the confidence that we have talked about, to mirror as far as possible the reciprocal arrangements that we already enjoy. However, it does give the Secretary of State the authority to enter into any number of differential agreements with individual EU states. Do you have concerns about that? If we were in this situation—I hope we are not—the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to do that. What would be your view be on the arrangement with Spain being one thing and that with Italy another, and so on?

Fiona Loud: Although we completely understand the need to be able to have the latitude to make bilateral arrangements for everyone’s benefit, from a patient point of view we would like to see a simple arrangement that is the same across all countries. People will not be sitting in these Committees or reading these Bills in great detail. They simply want to be able to go away. They know how a system works at the moment: they will perhaps turn to somebody in their own NHS unit, or they will turn to us or to other specialists, and ask, “How do I go ahead and book my holiday?” and they will assume that, because they have that card, that is how it will be. That would be our wish and our preference, but we understand that that is not always possible.

If I may make a separate comment about Northern Ireland, there are potential issues there that are nothing to do with holiday but are simply about residents who are used to going across the border day to day for their care and treatments. There are pre-existing arrangements and protocols there. For example, somebody might be on dialysis in Northern Ireland but, because the rest of their family live in Ireland—it is only 10 or 15 miles away—they might be planning to retire there in a year or two and assume that they can just carry on having their dialysis there.

The provision exists for people who live in Northern Ireland to be listed on the Irish organ donor register—you can only be on one—and vice versa. They will need to look at where they are registered. Does that change immediately? There are also other arrangements for organ sharing. If an organ is donated in one of those two jurisdictions and the weather is too bad to take it to the mainland, it can be taken across by road. That is not used very often, but those are just a couple of examples of some of the detail that might affect people. That is to do with healthcare but it is also separate. There may, therefore, need to be some other bilateral arrangement for Northern Ireland, which is separate from the more general one that we have just discussed.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Second sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

It is essential that the Government take appropriate measures to ensure that we can respond flexibly to facilitate healthcare for UK nationals abroad, and that is ultimately what the clause is about. In my closing remarks on the clause, I stress to members of the Committee exactly how vital it is for the Government to retain sufficient flexibility to facilitate the access to healthcare abroad across a range of potential EU exit outcomes. The powers in the clause will ensure that the Government can make regulations to provide for complex and varied schemes, such as EHIC, should they be part of future reciprocal arrangements. I recommend that the clause stand part of the bill.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. First of all, I join the Minister in thanking those witnesses who came and gave evidence on Tuesday. There were certainly some helpful comments that we will no doubt return to in Committee.

As was made clear on Second Reading, this is a very important piece of legislation. More than 190,000 UK expats live in the EU and of course there are 50 million British visits within the EEA countries each year: all those people want clarity about what the arrangements are in the event that they will need healthcare. So we do not oppose the principle of the Bill. We absolutely agree that it is important that there are arrangements in place after 29 March 2019 and into the future. However, we are concerned about a number of issues, some of which I referred to on Second Reading and some of which we will discuss today.

It is fair to say that there are concerns about the breadth of powers that the Secretary of State is requesting in clause 2; I do not believe they would be countenanced at all under normal circumstances. I appreciate that we are not in normal circumstances and I am grateful to the Minister for setting out how he envisages those powers will be used in practice. We are not here to judge things just on what the situation is at the moment, but on how the powers could be used at some point in the future. With regard to that, the Minister referred to this Bill being used possibly to further foreign policy and trade objectives. When he responds, I would be grateful if he expanded on what he has in mind.

To compound our issues about the scope of the regulations, we are also concerned about our lack of opportunity to scrutinise them; we will return to those concerns when I move amendment 2 to clause 5 later on. Of course, we are not alone in having concerns about the scope of this clause and the lack of clarity about how the powers might be used. In the evidence session, Raj Jethwa, Director of Policy at the British Medical Association, said:

“We would like to see much more emphasis on scrutiny of all the discussions in the arrangements going forward.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 6.]

We will certainly push for that today.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place went further than that, describing the scope of clause 2 as “breath-taking”. As that Committee correctly pointed out, there is no limit to the amount of any payments, to who can be funded or to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer or delegate functions to anyone, anywhere, and primary legislation can be amended for these purposes.

It is also worth noting that although this legislation has been presented as a Bill to enable us, as far as possible, to retain the arrangements that we already have—who would disagree with that?—the powers conferred by the clause, as I think has been conceded by the Minister, can go far beyond the current EU and EEA countries that we are primarily concerned about.

We consider the powers in the clause to be inappropriately wide, if they are not going to be subject to the correct levels of scrutiny. At this eleventh hour, we understand why a certain level of flexibility is being sought by the Government, but with that request comes a responsibility to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is exercised.

Rather than oppose the clause in its entirety, we believe that the appropriate remedy would be to ensure that any regulations introduced under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will return to that point when we consider amendment 2 to clause 5.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that these powers are flexible. Part of the reason for that is that there may well be a need to anticipate the sort of bilateral arrangements that we put in place in the future—notwithstanding our hopes that we will secure a continuation of the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which is our ambition. When we come to debate not only the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but clause 5—when the discussion on scrutiny of these arrangements should take place—I will seek to reassure him that the procedures in place will allow for the usual and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the powers being too broad. The Bill has a very focused purpose: to ensure that the reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which benefit UK nationals abroad and also EU and non-EU nationals in the UK, are continued. He also challenged me on the issue of potential future trade or foreign policy objectives. As he will know, we already have arrangements with a number of countries outside the EU, and the Bill must have the flexibility for the continuation and updating of those arrangements. The matter will clearly be of operational importance—potentially, it will be a policy decision after exiting the EU. Were a UK holidaymaker going abroad to a non-EU country, they would clearly expect the Government to have in place—or to have the potential to put in place—the reciprocal healthcare arrangements that would allow them to be treated should that be necessary.

I hope those words will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that the clause needs to stand part of the Bill. We can have the appropriate discussion about scrutiny in somewhat more depth when we debate clause 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Meaning of “healthcare” and “healthcare agreement”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I will try to limit my comments, given that we have already had discussions on the amendment. I am sure that will be welcome on this cold November day in a rather warm room.

Clause 4 provides a clear legal basis for processing personal data under the Bill for the purposes of UK data protection legislation. At present, the EU regulations provide a lawful basis for processing data for the purposes of reciprocal healthcare. Personal data is integral for providing healthcare abroad. It is vital that authorised persons in the UK can process data for that purpose. The clause ensures that, after exit day, there is a clear and transparent basis for processing personal data for the purposes of providing healthcare abroad, as required by UK data protection legislation. Clause 4 will ensure that safeguards are in place for that processing.

Subsection (1) limits processing to that which is necessary for the purposes of the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) ensure that any such processing must remain in compliance with UK data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and any other relevant restrictions. Finally, the persons who can process data under the Bill are limited to those authorised in subsection (6), which we have just discussed.

The safeguards limit the scope of clause 4 to what is necessary and proportionate to provide healthcare abroad. For reciprocal healthcare, personal data is required to process reimbursements to and from other countries, and where reimbursement is made to a person as well. It is also sometimes necessary for healthcare providers to share medical information to facilitate treatment. The clause ensures that the Government can continue to process personal data as necessary, after exit day, in an effective and lawful way. Personal data transferred from outside the UK will remain subject to the need for safeguards to be put in place before it is transferred. Those safeguards will not be able to be contracted out as part of any healthcare agreement with the EU or member states or third countries.

As I said a moment ago, subsection (1) provides for an authorised person to process data related to the provision of healthcare abroad. Personal data is defined in the GDPR as data that relates to a living person who can be directly or indirectly identified from the data. Specific category data is personal data containing health and genetic data. At present, there are different routes for providing healthcare abroad, such as the S1, S2 or EHIC routes, and each route requires different forms of personal data.

Subsection (2) disapplies the duty of confidence and any restriction on the processing that would otherwise apply. The exemption ensures that data can be disclosed where it is necessary for the limited purposes of the Bill. The measure is necessary and appropriate. For example, authorised persons may need to share data if a person is unconscious and therefore not in a state to provide it themselves. Importantly, as expressed in subsection (3), data processing must continue to comply with the UK data protection legislation, which ensures there are further safeguards around data processing. The GDPR also governs data transfers between the UK and other countries. All EU and EEA countries are bound by the GDPR, which means the relevant national data protection safeguards in each country are adequate, allowing the free transfer of data between countries.

Subsection (3)(a) expressly requires that the processing of data does not contravene existing data protection legislation, and subsection (3)(b) requires that the processing of data must comply with parts 1 to 7 or chapter 1 of part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The only purposes for which investigatory powers may be required are to investigate and tackle suspected cases of fraud and error relating to healthcare abroad.

As set out in subsection (1), the processing of data under the Bill is limited to authorised persons who, as we have discussed, are defined in subsection (6). The list reflects those persons and bodies currently involved in processing data, including personal data under existing reciprocal healthcare arrangements.

I mentioned that, for clarity’s sake, subsection (6)(a) lists

“the Secretary of State, the Treasury, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department”.

Healthcare abroad is entirely managed and operated by the Department of Health and Social Care in co-operation with the Executives in the devolved Administrations and their local healthcare systems. Although the Bill is about the provision of healthcare abroad, it is vital that the Executives of the devolved Administrations are considered authorised persons, since healthcare abroad is often facilitated in co-operation with them. Under subsections (6)(b), (c) and (d), healthcare bodies and providers are considered authorised persons as they are directly involved in the provision of healthcare.

Finally, subsection (6)(e) gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of authorised persons, which will ensure that the Government can respond appropriately, whatever the outcome of EU exit. It is also deemed necessary to allow the Secretary of State to respond to the changing demands of systems and operations. In future, duties may change and adding to the list will be difficult, so it is necessary to have the power in place.

Clause 4 is an important component of the Bill. It provides the Government with the necessary power to process and share data that relates to healthcare provided abroad. Therefore, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Regulations and directions

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (5) and subsection (6) and insert—

“(5) Any statutory instrument which contains regulations issued under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

This amendment would make all regulations issued under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure and require approval from Parliament before they become law.

This amendment is probably one of the most important items that we will discuss in Committee. As I made clear when we discussed clause 2, there are widely held concerns about the scope of the regulations, which are exacerbated by the fact that these extraordinarily wide powers, necessary as they may be in the circumstances, are subject only to the negative procedure.

As I referred to earlier, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place clearly set out the potential impact of my amendment not being accepted when it said:

“If, without such amendment, the Secretary of State wished to fund wholly or entirely the cost of all mental health provision in the state of Arizona, or the cost of all hip replacements in Australia, the regulations would only be subject to the negative procedure. Of course, these examples will not be priorities for any Secretary of State in this country.”

I hope that is the case, but we are here to look at how the powers could be used over, possibly, the next 100 years, and not just how we would expect them to be used in the foreseeable future.

Nobody knows where this process will take us, and when examining legislation there is always merit in considering the unlikely as well as the stated intentions of the Government at the time. The Minister’s comments about wider objectives reaffirms the importance of our scrutinising the regulations as much as possible. We find ourselves in an unprecedented situation in Parliament, and it is therefore important that we consider all eventualities.

If Committee members need further persuasion that the amendment should be carried, that Lords Committee set out a devastating list of reasons why the negative procedure is inappropriate. It said:

“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions…on anyone anywhere. The regulations can delegate functions to anyone anywhere.”

The Committee concluded:

“In our view, the powers in clause 2(1) are inappropriately wide and have not been adequately justified by the Department. It is particularly unsatisfactory that exceedingly wide powers should be subject only to the negative procedure.”

The most significant reason why we do not object to the legislation is that the biggest risk at this stage is that arrangements are made that do not safeguard the ability of our constituents, when they travel abroad, or of UK citizens who currently live overseas to access healthcare, as they do now. However, because of the way the Bill is drafted, we will find that we are unable to debate whether those safeguards are in place as a matter of course. We have heard many references to the 190,000 UK expats living abroad and the 50 million or so nationals who travel to EEA countries every year. These are huge numbers of people, and the impact of the legislation on them is potentially huge. We owe it to all those people to ensure that any future arrangements are properly scrutinised.

We also need to consider the impact of any new arrangements on the NHS. As Alastair Henderson, chief executive of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, set out in evidence on Tuesday:

“Both clinicians and health organisations are concerned that we could end up with a system that is both administration-intensive and time-intensive.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 3, Q4.]

He went on:

“In practical terms, the idea that if you are a GP or a hospital doctor trying to work out whether there are different arrangements for 32 different lots of patients sounds pretty much like a nightmare set-up.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 4, Q9.]

If we do not agree to the amendment, Parliament could end up in that scenario without any voice.

While there is scope for the affirmative procedure to be used in cases where Henry VIII powers are invoked to amend primary legislation, I think it is pretty clear that potentially the most significant changes to reciprocal agreements that could be enacted under the legislation are those that are subject only to the negative procedure. As we know, the negative procedure means that an instrument is laid in draft and cannot be made if that draft is disapproved within 40 days, normally via a prayer against, which is usually by way of an early-day motion. If that does not happen, the legislation is then passed. That is a 40-day process in the best-case scenario.

If I am correct, and if we leave without a deal, the Secretary of State will have to reach agreement with each of the 30-plus countries no later than Friday 15 February, assuming that Parliament does not sit on the following Sunday. At this stage, who knows where we might end up, but we will assume for now that the sitting days are as set out, so Friday 15 February will be the last day that an instrument can be laid that will pass before 29 March, assuming that it is not prayed against. Hopefully the Minister will be able to advise whether my understanding of the timetable is correct.

Will the Minister concede that, on a practical level, it would be better for regulations moved under the Bill to be moved using the affirmative procedure? We could then get them through scrutiny in both Houses much quicker than the 40-day procedure currently allows.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues, including the issue at the heart of the clause—the appropriate, necessary and correct scrutiny arrangements for Parliament. Let me be clear at the start: the Government absolutely recognise the importance of appropriate levels of scrutiny of the Bill and its subsequent secondary legislation. It is clearly the hallmark of any effective parliamentary system that there are processes in place by which we draft, consider and test legislation. After all, that is what we are doing today.

The appropriate parliamentary procedure for the scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill that do not amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation is the negative procedure. If I am not able to reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and he chooses to press the amendment to a Division, I am afraid the Government will resist it.

--- Later in debate ---

As I set out at the outset of my remarks, we will ensure that the affirmative procedure is in place for anything that amends, repeals or revokes primary legislation. For technical regulations, it is appropriate that the negative procedure is used. Given my remarks about the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and my reassurances about how we intend to deal with the negative and affirmative procedures, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured and does not feel the need to press the amendment to a Division.

[Justin Madders]

I am afraid the Minister has not managed to reassure me, despite his best efforts. When a Bill would confer power on the Executive, we have to be very careful about giving that power away. It cannot be done without good reason, even in these extraordinary times. I have not heard any justification for giving such sweeping powers to the Secretary of State without adequate scrutiny. No matter how well-intentioned the Minister is in his responses—I acknowledge his sincerity —we do not know who will be doing what in 12 months’ time. As we said earlier, we could be handing a future Secretary of State the ability to enter into arrangements for hip replacements in Australia or such like.

As the Minister said, the regulations will enable the Government to enter into detailed and complex arrangements on future healthcare. That is precisely why we need them to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I appreciate the point about the treaties possibly containing more detail, but this is about how Parliament will be able to scrutinise and challenge those arrangements.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard that the treaty arrangements will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way. We are discussing the regulations as to how we enact those treaties. I was hoping that he might be reassured by that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am afraid that I am not reassured.

The Minister has not really addressed the practical issue about the 40-day waiting time for the negative procedure. If we enter a no-deal scenario after 29 March, as I said earlier, all the instruments under the Bill would have to be laid no later than 15 February. I am imagining the Secretary of State whisking around the 30-plus countries that we would need to enter into bilateral arrangements with throughout the whole of January, and having to get that all signed up and put on the Order Paper by 15 February. I am actually trying to help the Minister here by suggesting that if we do it by affirmative procedure, we can get these things through Parliament more quickly and with the appropriate level of scrutiny that these arrangements deserve. Therefore, I will push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Having failed to reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, I will have another attempt in this stand part debate. Clause 5 supplements the substantive regulation-making powers in clause 2. It provides detail on the parliamentary procedure, as we have already discussed, that will apply to regulations made under the Bill. Subsections (1) and (2) introduce standard provisions, and are consistent with regulation and direction-making powers in many other Acts of Parliament, such as the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the National Health Service Act 2006.

The clause is required to ensure that regulations and directions made under the Bill will be fit for purpose. As I have said, the powers in the Bill provide the Government with the flexibility and capability to ensure and implement detailed and complex arrangements concerning healthcare abroad. For example, the Government may use regulations to confer different functions on different bodies, in order that they may implement and operate effectively what may be provided for in an agreed reciprocal healthcare agreement. We do that now in relation to the EHIC scheme, which, as I said earlier, the NHS Business Services Authority administers on behalf of the Department. That administration includes the registering and issuing of EHICs and the processing of EHIC claims.

Future administrative arrangements to implement reciprocal healthcare agreements may reflect the current situation, or may involve conferring different functions on other bodies, as appropriate. Once the arrangements are negotiated, we will be in the best position to decide what the appropriate bodies to administer those arrangements are. We will be able to provide for the practical processes and implementation arrangements through the regulations. Clause 5 provides the Government with the flexibility to ensure that any healthcare arrangements can be implemented effectively and efficiently.

Subsection (3) provides that regulations made under clause 2

“may amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation…for the purpose of conferring functions”,

or

“to give effect to a healthcare agreement.”

I want to try again to reassure the Committee about that. The Government are conscious that Parliament rightly takes an interest in this area and, of course, we share the view about the importance of scrutiny.

This is a consequential power to make amendments to primary legislation, which is limited to three restricted uses: for the purpose of conferring functions, to give effect to a healthcare agreement and to make modifications to retained EU law. It is not a free-standing power; it is a focused power to ensure that we can implement healthcare arrangements effectively. That may involve conferring functions on healthcare bodies, which could involve amending primary legislation.

Subsection (4) provides that:

“Regulations under this Act may amend, repeal or revoke retained EU law”,

which is the body of existing EU law that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert into domestic law, together with the laws we have already made in the UK to implement our EU obligations. It is vital that the regulation-making powers extend to amending, repealing and revoking retained EU law, because the bulk of the existing provisions that relate to current reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU will be EU retained law.

Subsection (4) will ensure that domestic legislation in that area is clear and accessible. It will allow us to amend EU retained law, where appropriate, to give effect to new reciprocal healthcare arrangements. It would be an oversight if the Bill did not provide for such amendment, given that current reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU are entirely bound up in EU law.

I stress again that, of course, Parliament will be given the opportunity for the appropriate scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation. As such, subsection (6) makes it clear that regulations that contain provisions that make modifications to primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate them. That is the parliamentary scrutiny procedure befitting Henry VIII powers, and one that allows for proper scrutiny.

Regulations made under the Bill that do not contain provisions that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is our job—and I think it is only right—to ensure that legislation is afforded the appropriate level of scrutiny. Therefore, regulations that are made under the Bill that do not amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation should be subject to the negative procedure, as is normal.

The remit of our regulating powers is focused. They can be used only to give effect to healthcare agreements or to arrange, provide for or fund healthcare abroad, as is clear in the enabling powers found in clause 2(1). Where the UK negotiates a comprehensive international healthcare agreement, whether multilaterally with the EU or bilaterally with EU members, the most important element that sets out the terms of that agreement would be included in the agreement itself, as hon. Members would expect. Regulations that give effect to such an agreement would likely focus on procedural, administrative and technical details, such as the types of documents or forms that could be used to administer those reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which is a point I made earlier.

In a scenario where a comprehensive healthcare agreement is being implemented through regulations made under clause 2(1)(c), that agreement would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the ratification procedure contained in section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That ratification procedure provides an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the substance of the healthcare agreements being given effect to in the regulations made under the Bill. It is for those reasons that I rejected amendment 2, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston moved a moment ago.

The final provision of the clause, subsection (7), sets out the definition of “primary legislation”. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, and the Committee, the Government absolutely understand and appreciate the necessity for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The level of scrutiny must reflect the substance of the piece of legislation. That is what I believe the clause does, and I therefore recommend that it stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister and I will not agree on that, unfortunately. I will not repeat the arguments that we have already gone through, but I will remind hon. Members that the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described the powers and regulation as “breath-taking”, and said that

“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions…on anyone anywhere.”

The scope of the clause is breath-taking. Although the Minister is trying to reassure us, as parliamentarians, we need the security of the affirmative procedure.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Would he have been a little more reassured by the Minister’s attempts at reassurance if this was not part of a process and of a pattern of behaviour by the Government? There have been power grabs and the use of Henry VIII clauses throughout the Brexit process.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention. He is absolutely right. One of the things that was stated during the referendum campaign was that Parliament should take back control, and that is what I believe should be happening following the result. Parliament needs to make sure that, as much as possible, the legislation that will be necessary in the coming months is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. That is why the affirmative procedure should be included in the clause, which we cannot support as it currently stands.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Third sitting)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I recall that the first Westminster Hall debate that I secured was under your chairmanship. Indeed, you were also in the Chair the first time I was the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in a Bill Committee. In these turbulent times, you are a consistent and familiar face—certainly to me and, hopefully, to many other hon. Members.

Reciprocal healthcare is of most importance for those countries where it is accessed most—none more so than on the island of Ireland. When the British Medical Association gave evidence on Tuesday, it was clear about the success story that has been achieved, particularly in the border area, particularly with a dispersed population of around 2 million. It said:

“Given the population demands on the whole island of Ireland, both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, there have been some fantastic examples of where clinicians have either co-located services in a particular trust or facility where there is not the demand from the local population to warrant it, or travelled across the border to work on different sites.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 4, Q10.]

Fiona Loud from Kidney Care UK raised the example of patients who currently cross the border daily for their care and treatments. She also mentioned organ donation and organ sharing, and the need to ensure that the existing and very successful arrangements that we have are preserved.

It is easy to talk about scaremongering when we raise the spectre of patients being turned away at the border, and I am sure that we will all do our utmost to ensure that such circumstances do not arise, but we are talking about really important issues here. The healthcare arrangements on the island date back to before the UK and the Republic of Ireland joined the EU, but they are now underpinned by EU law, so we cannot simply revert back to the old arrangements, should a full EU-wide deal not be reached.

I was concerned about the lack of consideration given to the issue in the supporting documents and in the contribution from the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), on Second Reading. If we do not get this issue right, the Bill will be a failure. The amendment would ensure that the provisions do not reach the statute book until clarity on this hugely important issue is provided. I appreciate that article 13 of the Northern Ireland protocol in the withdrawal agreement indicates a desire to continue north/south co-operation in a range of areas, including healthcare, but that does not help us if Parliament does not support the withdrawal agreement. That is why the amendment asks for a strategy to be provided as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am minded not to press the new clause to a vote if the Minister assures us that he will endeavour to keep us updated on the contingency plans, if it looks like we are approaching a cliff-edge scenario. That is really what we are trying to achieve.

[Stephen Hammond]

Let me make the hon. Gentleman the same offer that I made to the hon. Member for Burnley. In that unlikely scenario, I guarantee that I will make my officials available to give a briefing to the hon. Gentleman and any member of the Committee who wishes to understand what our proposals are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am content with the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Strategy for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements

(1) The Secretary of State must, within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a strategy containing a defined process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements between the government of the United Kingdom and either the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or an international organisation.

(2) The strategy under section 1 above must include information on—

(a) the body, bodies or jurisdiction that will be responsible for settling disputes;

(b) the process which will be followed by that body, bodies or jurisdiction when settling a dispute, including details of any further appeal mechanisms; and

(c) anything else the Secretary of State thinks is relevant to such a strategy.—(Justin Madders.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

On Second Reading, I spoke about the importance of dispute resolution, and asked the then Minister for Health, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), to set out how he envisaged it operating in both a deal and a no deal scenario. Despite some prompting from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), the Minister was not able to set out how dispute resolutions will be handled under the terms of any new agreement or even if the European Court of Justice will continue to represent a red line for the Government. The latter point is particularly interesting, given the new role of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. It appears that he did not provide detail on that point because, at that stage, the Government were simply not in a position to confirm what was in the draft withdrawal agreement.

The Prime Minister categorically ruled out any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice very early in the process, but I have yet to hear any serious suggestion about how disputes can be resolved, if we manage to reach a full reciprocal healthcare agreement with the EU27 beyond the transition period, without some reference back to the ECJ. The same concerns would apply if bilateral agreements were necessary in a no deal scenario.

Given the importance that the Prime Minister and members of her Cabinet have placed on the ECJ following our exit from the European Union, it is curious to say the least that we do not have a clear statement of intent from the Government while we debate this Bill. If their position continues to be that we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws, as the Prime Minister put it in January 2017, it is vital that we have clarity about the arrangement that will be used in place of the ECJ. If a new arrangement is established, what will the cost be? Who will the judges be? Where will it be based? Will it be an open process?

If, on the other hand, we look to the ECJ for dispute resolution after all, even if only in the limited area of reciprocal healthcare, would that not represent a significant political U-turn? This issue is fundamental to the Government’s approach to Brexit. For example, they decided that we could not continue to host the European Medicines Agency, causing it to go to Amsterdam at the cost of 900 jobs in this country, and potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. The Health Secretary’s sole justification for that was that the Government were not prepared to accept the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction. Our purpose in tabling this new clause is to get clarity from the Minister about whether the European Court of Justice remains a red line for the Government.

[Stephen Hammond]

The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a detailed strategy defining the process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements after we leave the European Union. No one in the room would dispute the spirit behind the new clause. As I have stated throughout our examination of the Bill, it is right that there should be transparency regarding the UK’s future relationship with the EU and other countries after exit. It is right that that transparency should apply to the arrangement of future healthcare agreements, and the processes that underpin them, such as dispute resolution, but, although I agree with the spirit of the new clause, I am not entirely sure that it would achieve its intended aim. I will give a number of reasons why.

The new clause would confer a duty on the Secretary of State to lay a strategy on the process for dispute resolution before Parliament. Both in a deal and a no deal scenario, such a strategy would be unlikely to provide information on the process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements that is not already available in the public domain. That is not due to a lack of endeavour; it is an issue of timing and consideration of what is already publicly available. In the expected scenario that the UK agrees a deal with the EU, the proposed process for settling disputes has already been confirmed in the White Paper on the future relationship, the draft withdrawal Bill that governs the implementation period and, most recently, the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU. The processes have already been confirmed. They are outlined in those documents and would apply not only to disputes, but clearly therefore to disputes in any reciprocal healthcare agreement.

The hon. Gentleman asks what the dispute mechanism is. I am sure that the Committee will be pleased that I am not going to quote extensively from the withdrawal agreement, but it is worth putting on the record that the mechanism for resolving disputes will be through consultation at the Joint Committee, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreeable resolution. If the parties are not able to resolve the dispute in the Joint Committee, either party can request the establishment of an independent arbitration panel to resolve it. The panel will be made up of five members, with one person being the chairperson. The UK and the EU will nominate two members to sit on the panel and then mutually agree the fifth member, who will be the chairperson. The panel members will act independently and do not represent the party that nominated them. It is binding that the panel members be independent and impartial and they must possess specialised knowledge or experience of EU law and international law.

The hon. Gentleman challenges me on the role of the ECJ. He is right that the ECJ has a role here, but its role is very clear and very limited. The role of the ECJ after the implementation period will be restricted to ensuring the correct interpretation of EU law. There is no suggestion that the ECJ will determine the dispute, or that we would ever agree to the ECJ determining the dispute.

That is the likely scenario and the processes that are already formally set out via the documents that I described earlier. In the unlikely scenario that the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, the United Kingdom will arrange reciprocal healthcare agreements, and in those agreements, there will have to be bilateral dispute resolution. That would clearly have to be determined on a case-by-case basis as part of the negotiations to put those bilateral healthcare agreements in place, and, therefore, there is unlikely to be a single dispute resolution process, which is what the new clause suggests, so while I accept the spirit of it, the wording would restrict the ability for future reciprocal healthcare arrangements.

More importantly, the requirement for such a strategy to be laid before the House one month after the Bill receives Royal Assent does not align with the aim of the Bill to provide future reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries both inside and outside the EU. Clearly, those agreements are likely to be negotiated over a period of time and, as I have just mentioned, the dispute resolution mechanisms within them are likely to be different and may vary. It would therefore be arbitrary and unhelpful to produce a general strategy immediately after Royal Assent.

I understand the intention behind the new clause, but it would place an unnecessary burden and duty on the Secretary of State. In a deal scenario, the procedures are already there. In the unlikely no deal scenario, it would be likely to frustrate the ability to put in place future reciprocal healthcare agreements.

I hope that, having heard that, the hon. Gentleman will accept that, although we understand the spirit of his new clause, its wording would be likely to frustrate the purpose of the Bill. I therefore ask him not to press it to a vote.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out in more detail than we were able to elicit on Second Reading. Given that the withdrawal agreement had not been published at the time, I understand why the then Minister was not able to do that. The present Minister has been very helpful in setting out the process for leaving with a deal. He is right that, if we leave without a deal, we are in uncharted territory. I do not think I heard any confirmation that there are red lines, in terms of the European Court of Justice, in that scenario. That is really what the new clause was meant to establish. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Duty to consult with devolved administrations

Before issuing any regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government and have regard for their views on the regulations.—(Justin Madders.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

I hope this is a straightforward and uncontroversial new clause. We have already spoken about the importance of reciprocal healthcare arrangement to citizens in Northern Ireland, and of course there will also be an impact on patients in Wales and Scotland. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have clearly and robustly articulated their support for a continuation of reciprocal healthcare agreements, and why would they not?

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clear in its recommendation that there should be active participation of the devolved Administrations in setting out the UK’s position in future arrangements, but I am not aware that there have been any discussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what conversations have taken place, because we did not get clarity on that on Second Reading.

The new clause repeats some of the issues that we raised this morning, which you did not have the pleasure of hearing, Mr Streeter. It is about the scope and power of the Bill and the wide range of duties given to the Secretary of State, which will be subject to the negative procedure. We think it is important that, as part of the Bill, when those wide powers are given to the Secretary of State, there must be a clear duty to consult with the devolved Administrations before those regulations are enacted.

The Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill have dealt extensively with the need to involve the devolved Administrations. I think this is the bare minimum that we need. It would represent a consistent and equitable approach across the devolved nations, in terms of our future relationship with the EU.

[Stephen Hammond]

It is a pleasure to respond to this new clause, which addresses the extraordinarily important issue of engaging and working with the devolved Administrations. We completely agree that regulations made under the Bill may relate to devolved matters, by which I mean domestic healthcare. The Government will engage and meaningfully consult with the devolved Administrations in line with our existing arrangements, as found in the 2012 memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and the principles that underlie relations between us. That reinforces the positive work that the UK Government continue to do with the devolved Administrations daily for the benefit of the whole of the UK on this matter.

I am forced to reflect that, though the hon. Gentleman’s new clause is not necessary, the sentiment behind it is shared by everyone in Committee, I suspect. The regulation-making powers in the Bill provide us with a legal mechanism to implement international agreements domestically. The Bill will ensure that we can broadly continue reciprocal healthcare arrangements, where agreed with the EU, to the benefit of the residents of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The powers offer flexibility and can be used to implement comprehensive healthcare agreements with third countries in the future for the benefit of all UK nationals.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe that the Committee is drawing to a close, so I will take the opportunity to thank all my colleagues, and all hon. Members in the Opposition, for giving this small but important Bill the line-by-line scrutiny that it deserves. I thank you, Mr Streeter, for chairing this afternoon’s proceedings.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister has put on record pretty clearly his intention in respect of ongoing and continued engagement with the devolved institutions. He is right that we are concerned that the powers under the Bill are wide. Those concerns remain, but in so far as they involve the new clause, his comments have done enough to assure us that it will not be necessary for us to press it to a vote.

I echo the Minister’s sentiments, given that we are now making the closing remarks of this Bill Committee. I thank you for chairing, Mr Streeter, and hon. Members for participating in Committee today.

I look forward to Report. We need to continue to explore some important issues, but we must move forward with this legislation, as is necessary in this uncertain time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill

Justin Madders Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—

‘(5) Any statutory instrument which contains regulations issued under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

This amendment would make all regulations issued under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure and require approval from Parliament before they become law.

[Justin Madders]

We want to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards with regard to costs, not least because the Bill currently gives the Secretary of State authority not only to facilitate a continuation of existing arrangements, but to enter into any number of bilateral agreements with individual member states, with very little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. It also provides the authority to strengthen existing reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries outside the EU, or to implement new ones across the globe, in line with the Government’s aspiration to develop trading arrangements with countries beyond the EU. There is therefore a potential for the establishment of multiple complex agreements.

New clause 1 addresses the important point that the Bill before us is rightly intended to provide for all reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the future, and to provide for all eventualities. As we know, a no-deal Brexit could lead to a multitude of new bilateral agreements within the EU27, let alone the rest of the world. At this stage, none of us can be clear about how many of those agreements will come into being. We cannot assess their likely cost or impact, and, indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment is inadequate in that regard. It suggests that the cost will be similar to, or lower than, the current £630 million per year.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned potential bilateral agreements with different countries. Does he agree that there could be a problem if our citizens are not covered when travelling to those countries for a variety of purposes, and insurance companies send premiums through the roof? That is always a big factor, even with the current arrangements in Europe.

[Justin Madders]

It is true that there is some concern in the insurance industry about our potential failure to secure bilateral agreements. I think it inevitable that unless those agreements are secured, premiums will rise. That is why the Opposition support the thrust of the Bill.

It is impossible to provide reliable estimates of the costs of the new agreements in advance without knowing who they would be with or what they would cover. The British Medical Association has said that any prediction of costs is likely to be unreliable, and we cannot afford to give the Government carte blanche.

New clause 1 proposes a sensible and very reasonable requirement for the Government to report back to Parliament annually. It would require the Government to provide details of all payments made by the UK Government for all healthcare provided outside the UK to British citizens. It would also stipulate a requirement to provide details of all payments received by the UK Government as reimbursement for healthcare provided by the UK to all non-British citizens. It would also write into law a requirement for the Government to set out any outstanding payments owed to, or by, the UK Government. This would provide an important opportunity to monitor efficiency in this area and may provide an incentive to address some of the concerns raised by the Public Accounts Committee in its 2017 report, “NHS treatment for overseas patients”, which stated that

“the NHS has been recovering much less than it should”,

and

“The systems for cost recovery appear chaotic.”

Even with the Government’s recent funding announcements, the NHS continues to struggle. I am sure that the Minister would not want to see funds destined for patient care swallowed up by the additional administrative burden created by the introduction of a range of complex charging arrangements and a failure to recover the costs that have been incurred. It is imperative that hospital trusts are not required to shoulder additional financial burdens because of the costs of administering the collection of charges. That is why if the Government are, as the Minister said in Committee, committed to transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, new clause 1 should be supported.

Turning briefly to the amendment that I tabled, we have discussed previously widely held concerns about the scope of this Bill that are exacerbated by the fact that the powers contained within it to create regulations will, in many cases, be subject only to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place set out very clearly the potential impact of this Bill should my amendment not be accepted today. It said:

“If…the Secretary of State wished to fund wholly or entirely the cost of all mental health provision in the state of Arizona, or the cost of all hip replacements in Australia, the regulations would only be subject to the negative procedure.”

It added:

“Of course, these examples will not be priorities for any Secretary of State in this country”.

I am sure that is the case, but we must consider how the powers could be used, not just how we would expect and hope them to be used.

There is always merit when examining legislation in considering all potential scenarios as well as the stated intentions of the Government at the time, and in such an unprecedented period of uncertainty it is prudent to consider all eventualities. As the Government have included these powers in the legislation we cannot simply consider the world as it is now, nor how it might be in a year or two—indeed, if anyone knows what the world will be like in two or three weeks’ time I will be very impressed. We need to look at what the world might be like in many years’ time and how the powers in the Bill can be used.

If we require further persuasion about the need for caution, the Committee set out in its report a devastating list of reasons why the negative procedure is inappropriate. It said:

“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions (that is, powers and duties, including discretions) on anyone anywhere. The regulations can delegate functions to anyone anywhere.”

The Committee concluded:

“In our view, the powers in clause 2(1) are inappropriately wide and have not been adequately justified by the Department. It is particularly unsatisfactory that exceedingly wide powers should be subject only to the negative procedure.”

Just for good measure, it went on to describe the powers sought in the Bill as “breath-taking”.

Parliament is not alone in having concerns about the scope of the clause and the lack of clarity about how the powers might be used. In the Committee evidence session, Raj Jethwa, director of policy at the British Medical Association said:

“We would like to see much more emphasis on scrutiny of all the discussions in the arrangements going forward.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 6, Q14.]

Picking up on the Committee’s comments, despite the Government having ample opportunity both on Second Reading and in Committee to justify the need for these exceedingly wide powers, I believe that the arguments that they advanced during the passage of the Bill have not only failed to do so, but have strengthened the case for greater scrutiny. The Minister conceded in Committee:

“The Bill also provides flexibility to fund healthcare even where there is no bilateral agreement, which we might explore using in exceptional circumstances to secure healthcare for certain groups of people.”

That is the nub of it: we know the well-rehearsed and necessary reasons why the Bill is required to secure the continuation of arrangements as we leave the EU, but it is on the record that the Bill can potentially do far more than that. We do not know what those exceptional circumstances are, and we do not know who those groups of people might be, and even if the Minister were able to set out here and now what he was referring to in that statement, he cannot bind a successor to that. The Bill gives the Secretary of State what I might describe as Martini powers: any time, any place, anywhere. If he is to have such wide powers they must at the very least be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The Minister also said in Committee that not only would the Bill encapsulate existing healthcare agreements but that it

“will potentially add to their number as part of future health and trade policy.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2018; c. 23-24.]

That is also a concern. I do not know whether the Minister intended it to come across as it did, but it sounded very much to me as if the Government were intending to couple trade negotiations with access to healthcare. I hope that that is not the case.

Many people have expressed concern over a number of years that the Government appear willing to open up the NHS to American private healthcare companies as part of trade negotiations, but I am not sure that many people imagined that the Government also had designs on opening up the NHS to patients around the world as part of a strategy to secure trade deals with other nations. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but it is clear that the Bill can be used in that way, which is why any arrangements ratified under it need proper scrutiny.

We also to consider the impact of new arrangements on the NHS. Alastair Henderson, chief executive of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, said in the Committee evidence session:

“Both clinicians and health organisations are concerned that we could end up with a system that is both administration-intensive and time-intensive.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 3, Q4.]

We went through some of the implications of that when discussing new clause 1.

Finally, there is a practical element to this. As we know, under the negative procedure, once an instrument is laid in draft it cannot be made law if the draft is disapproved within 40 days. This would be done via a prayer against, usually by way of an early-day motion. If that is not invoked then the legislation is passed. Under the negative procedure, that is still a 40-day process in the best-case scenario, and if we leave without a deal the Secretary of State in the next three weeks will have to reach agreement with each of the 30-plus other countries, sign those agreements, draft statutory instruments and lay them before Parliament so they are with us no later than Friday 15 February, the last date on which they could be laid in order for them to be passed by 29 March—and that is assuming they are not prayed against.

If we assume this Bill completes Third Reading today, that gives the Lords about three weeks to complete their consideration—and the Minister will no doubt be crossing his fingers that they do not table any amendments. That seems to be a tall order, and given the Committee’s comments on this amendment the Lords may well be minded to send the measure back to us, but in either case it all seems rather a tight, if not unrealistic, timetable. I therefore urge the Minister to think through the practicalities of this; the affirmative procedure could be significantly quicker than the negative one, and it has the advantage of being far more transparent.

The Minister tried to reassure me in Committee that there would be adequate scrutiny by virtue of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, but I am afraid that that just does not cut the mustard. Under that Act, there is a specified process enabling Parliament to object to a treaty being ratified within 21 days, but that does not automatically lead to a debate and a thorough examination of the issues of concern. The Act simply says that in the event of an objection the Government must issue a statement setting out why they still want to ratify; this process could apparently be repeated ad infinitum, and crucially under the Act there is no requirement for a debate. It would be open to either Government or Opposition to set aside some of their allotted time to facilitate a debate, but there is no requirement to do so. In addition, there are exceptions that enable the Government to ratify treaties outside the Act—for example, if there are “exceptional circumstances”, which of course is a judgment that is within Government’s gift. The measure does not cover memorandums of understanding either, and some of the older reciprocal healthcare arrangements fall within that description.

Putting new agreements into force in these extraordinary circumstances is necessary, but we simply cannot accept the clause as it stands. No matter how well-intentioned everyone might be now, once that power has been given away it is not easily taken back. Do Members want us to fund hip replacements in Arizona? Are Members comfortable with access to the NHS being used as a bargaining chip in trade deals? Of course they are not, so why do they not vote for the amendment tonight?

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I suspect this debate will be slightly less contentious than the earlier statements, and probably a lot quicker.

The Bill basically gives powers to the Secretary of State to agree reciprocal deals. However, I believe that we will not get a better reciprocal arrangements than those we currently have. We recognise the need for all these arrangements to continue, and the Scottish Government will do all they can to work with the UK Government to ensure that they do, and of course we note the legislative consent motion that has been granted. Through the Joint Ministerial Committee we believe a common framework system can be achieved that ensures these specific health arrangements can be administered through common agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments. Clearly, Brexit threatens the loss of reciprocal healthcare arrangements for millions in Scotland and across the UK. The Bill’s impact assessment makes this conclusion in relation to a no-deal scenario:

“If UK citizens in the EU are treated as 3rd country nationals (i.e. they cease to have rights of movement and access to services in EU Member States, and are treated like citizens coming from non-EU countries) some may face additional financial costs or difficulties accessing healthcare services, with potential implications for their health and wellbeing.”

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Changed to Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill)

Justin Madders Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

We will not vote against the Lords amendments—they are necessary; the work needs to get done—but it still makes me sad, because all the measure does is highlight what we are losing.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate—from the Back Benches on this occasion. Although I would have preferred to contribute from the Front Bench as I did during previous stages of the Bill, the Opposition are in safe hands, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper).

It is curious that both the Minister who led for the Government on Second Reading and I, as Opposition spokesperson, have moved on since then, him to become Brexit Secretary and me to become a Back Bencher. We could have a debate—perhaps even a Division—on who got the better deal.

However, perhaps most curious is that, along the way, the measure has gone from being an international arrangements Bill to an EEA and Swiss arrangements Bill. I have been here for only four years, but I have never heard of a Bill changing its name—but then before this year, I had never heard of Cabinet Ministers breaking collective responsibility and staying in their job, or Parliament taking control of the Order Paper. There are obviously many other examples of the strange times we live in, and this is just another curiosity to add to the list.

The Lords amendments pick up on many of the anxieties we expressed previously about the implications of the sweeping powers in the Bill. I pay tribute to Baroness Thornton and her team who have obviously got greater powers of persuasion than us. They have come up with a series of amendments that rightly curtail the breathtaking powers the Government sought to claim for themselves.

When the Bill began its progress in November, there was a clear assumption on the part of the Government that agreement with the EU would have been reached by now and that arrangements would be in place to carry on very much as we are, at least in the interim period. That in itself raised serious questions about why the scope of the Bill was so wide, and it would not be an understatement to say that the orderly exit envisaged at the time is now not quite so certain. That makes it all the more important that we have a Bill with proportionality and transparency at its heart.

It is worth reminding ourselves that when the Bill first surfaced, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place set out very clearly its potential impact if it remained unamended. It said that the measure gave the Secretary of State the power to fund the cost of all mental health provision in the state of Arizona, or the cost of all hip replacements in Australia. Although we pushed the Minister on the reason for the need for such wide powers—accepting of course that they would be unlikely ever to be used—the only justification given was that they might prove useful at some future time in trade deals. Although that might be the case, without a clear objective, debated and agreed in Parliament, the powers were unnecessarily broad, so it is right that the Lords raised those concerns and amended the Bill accordingly.

We all have constituents who regularly raise concerns about access to the NHS being used as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. If the Bill had remained unamended, it would only have given those people more reason to be concerned about such deals. Restricting its scope to EEA countries and Switzerland is therefore proportionate and sensible.

I want to say a few words about amendment 12, which is very similar to an amendment that the Opposition tabled in Committee. It deserves support because even under the current arrangements, cost recovery has not always been handled satisfactorily. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee described it as “chaotic”. The Law Society of Scotland was clear on the importance of that issue when it gave evidence to the Lords Committee. It said that

“as the NHS has never been very effective in reclaiming the fees owed to it by overseas visitors to the UK, the UK may find itself substantially worse off financially when new arrangements for funding cross-national use of health services are put in place.”

The case for greater accountability is there and has been strengthened by the Government’s impact assessment, which seemed to seriously underestimate the consequences of a no-deal scenario. It set out that the cost of establishing future reciprocal healthcare arrangements on the same basis as now would be £630 million a year, but it went on to estimate that, in the event of a no-deal scenario, the costs are expected

“to be similar or less, depending on the number of schemes that are established.”

I do not think it has ever been clear why the costs might be less unless we stopped reciprocating with some countries, and I do not believe that has ever been an express policy objective of the Government. In fact, they have often—rightly—said the opposite, but the reality is that, in that scenario, the costs could be significantly higher. Both the BMA and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health stated that if no EU-wide reciprocal agreement was achievable, the significant extra costs of establishing bilateral reciprocal arrangements with EU and EEA countries in future could fall on the NHS. We need, but have never had, a commitment that, in those circumstances, any extra costs would not be borne directly by NHS trusts. I hope that today the Minister can give such an assurance.

The Lords picked up on a related issue, which we have raised previously, on the lack of clarity about how dispute resolution will work in the event of bilateral agreements being necessary. We know from what the Minister has previously told us that, if we manage to reach full agreement with the EU27, there will still be a limited role for the European Court of Justice, but we do not know what the dispute resolution procedure will be if we do not.

The Lords rightly pointed out that there would be little incentive for other countries to agree to a brand new dispute resolution procedure, and they would certainly be loth to do that if they were expected to pay for it, so in the event of a no-deal scenario, is it not the case that there will be significant additional costs for the UK taxpayer in setting up and resourcing a new dispute resolution scheme? Does the Minister envisage those costs being part of the reporting requirements under amendment 12 and again, can he give a commitment today that those costs will not be directly borne by NHS trusts?

The Bill is in a much better condition than when it started. It does what it is supposed to do, and no more. Crucially, it gives much greater parliamentary oversight than we originally had. I think it is called taking back control.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2, 8 to 10, 18 to 20, 3 to 7 and 11 to 17 agreed to.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Offensive Weapons Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Amanda Milling.)

Offensive Weapons Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Offensive Weapons Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 27 June 2018 (Offensive Weapons Bill (Programme)) and 28 November 2018 (Offensive Weapons Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 1 to 26 and 29 to 95.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Amanda Milling.)

Question agreed to.