Lobbyists are ‘wetting themselves’ over NHS post-Brexit opportunities, peer warns
- Credit: Archant
Corporate lobbyists are 'almost wetting themselves' at the prospect of companies gaining greater access to the NHS in post-Brexit trade deals, the House of Lords has heard.
Private firms have made no secret that they see Britain's withdrawal from the EU as a chance to expand their involvement in the health service, with its annual budget of £127 billion, argued Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
The Labour peer has called for the NHS to be protected from "creeping privatisation" and for it to be excluded from any future trade deals.
Lord Brooke made his comments as he opened a debate in the House of Lords on the issue, in which he claimed that the public had been "duped" by the "grossly misleading propaganda on the side of that double-decker bus."
It follows concerns about the implications of future trade deals on the NHS, particularly with the US.
You may also want to watch:
This was heightened during the recent state visit by Donald Trump when he said the NHS would be "on the table" in trade talks.
But he later appeared to backtrack saying that although "everything's up for negotiation", the NHS was not something he would "consider being part of trade".
- 1 The true cost of Brexit is becoming clearer
- 2 Why have Remainers gone so quiet?
- 3 Did Euros fever contribute to result of EU referendum?
- 4 Boris Johnson's awkward moment with the Queen
- 5 Dominic Cummings explains why Boris Johnson didn't do Andrew Neil interview
- 6 MATT FREI: Brexit posed a question... and we haven't even begun to answer it
- 7 Be careful what you wish for... voting reform could kill Labour
- 8 How the Kominsky Method grapples with growing old
- 9 Michael O'Leary: My hope for the future over Brexit
- 10 PMQs: Ian Blackford drops truth bomb over post-Brexit trade deal with Australia
Private companies are already able to tender to provide services within the NHS.
Lord Brooke pointed out that in 2017/18, the NHS in England spent £13.1 billion on care provided by non NHS organisations - equivalent to nearly 11% of the total budget.
He said: "These companies have made no secret of the fact that they see Brexit as a key opportunity to expand their operations and their market share.
"Since the British public voted to leave the EU, corporate lobbyists have been working to ensure any future trade deal delivers maximum benefits and opportunities for their clients."
Referring to a tip-off from a city "confidante", Lord Brooke said: "I distinctly recall being told that some city lobbyists were almost wetting themselves at the prospect of the money to be made by gaining greater freedom and entry to trading with the NHS and its mammoth budget.
"Whilst this would not be privatisation in the traditional sense it would nevertheless be an appropriation of NHS assets with private companies pocketing more of the UK's annual health budget."
The peer went on: "While wholesale privatisation remains unlikely, the NHS must be protected from creeping privatisation where an increasing proportion of services are contracted out until it is nationalised in name only.
"Immensely valuable assets such as data should not be traded, neither should changes be permitted that allow drug prices to rise thereby requiring other NHS services to be cut to pay for them.
"I hope the government will openly commit to specifically exclude the NHS from future trade deals."
Earl of Courtown, speaking on behalf of the government, said the NHS was not on the table in trade talks and never would be.
"The NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic.
"The government will ensure no trade agreements will ever be able to alter these fundamental facts."
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.