MP in protest to demand NHS safeguards in US trade deal
MP BILL ESTERSON joined Labour Party members in a protest at Southport & Formby District Hospital.
They were protest at what they see as the Government’s failure to protect the NHS from future trade deals.
The Sefton Central MP and shadow international trade minister said the Trade Bill that passed through Parliament recently “shamefully puts the NHS at risk”.
He gave his support to the protest and said the Conservatives had failed to give the NHS the protection it needs.
Mr Esterson and his Labour colleagues proposed a number of amendments to the Trade Bill that would have protected the NHS from facing higher charges for drugs, further privatisation and the sharing of patient data.
Mr Esterson said: “The $3.6 trillion US healthcare industry is itching to increase its provision of NHS services, charge the NHS more for its drugs, and get its hands on NHS patient data.
“We should say no on all counts. “Our NHS should be about patient care, not making profits for private companies.
“The US published their negotiating objectives in February 2020. The objectives specify that the US wants full market access for its companies for US pharmaceuticals and medical device products in a trade deal with the UK.
“The Trade Bill shamefully puts the NHS at risk. The Government has failed to give the NHS the protection it needs.
“Labour’s new Clause 17 would have made the NHS totally exempt from the provisions of any future trade deal, but thanks to the votes of Conservative MPs, including Damien Moore, the MP for Southport, it was rejected, along with new Clause 4, which would have given Parliament a final vote on all trade deals.
“The Conservatives say Parliament already has the right to block trade deals it doesn’t like.
“That is plain wrong.
“All the Government has to do is publish its proposed trade deal, and 21 days later, it automatically becomes law.
“Parliament doesn’t even have the right to hold a debate about it unless the Government specifically chooses to allow one within the 21-day period.
“The Conservatives argue it is the same process as they have in Canada. No wonder, since the Canadian parliamentary system follows ours, but the comparison that really matters here is with the United States.
“Whenever a UK-US trade deal is agreed, it will require a two-thirds majority in the US Senate to be ratified, but in the UK, it will not need a vote at all. How can that be right?
“We’re told we shouldn’t complain because Parliament didn’t have a right to vote on trade deals when it was Brussels doing the negotiating on our behalf.
“But wasn’t that the whole point of restoring our sovereignty and taking back control?
“Is it really acceptable that Parliament should have no more control over trade than it had before Brexit?
“The Government has signed 20 post-Brexit trade agreements but not one of those 20 agreements mentions the NHS, and none of them says explicitly that their provisions will not apply to ‘publicly funded health or care services’, which is what new Clause 17 would have done.
“Ultimately, the Conservatives say the NHS is safe because the government has made a ‘clear and absolute commitment’ that it will not be on the table in any future trade agreements.
“But this Tory government has shown time and again over the past ten years that its promises and commitments mean nothing, which is exactly why Labour demanded the NHS exemption should be put into law instead.”