This is a really important point, and it's shameful that the amendment was defeated. BTW, there's a small error in the link that Ivonne posted, so that it produces an error message; this one seems to be correct: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-07-20/debates/D5201166-082F-458F-9016-60B1D01CE750/TradeBillAnyway, there were two key subsections in the amendment; the first said “that no provision of that international trade agreement in any way undermines or restricts the ability of an appropriate authority—(a) to provide a comprehensive publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery,(b) to protect the employment rights or terms and conditions of employment for public sector employees and those working in publicly funded health or care sectors,(c) to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of health or care services,(d) to regulate and control the pricing and reimbursement systems for the purchase of medicines or medical devices, or(e) to regulate and maintain the level of protection afforded in relation to patient data, public health data and publicly provided social care data relating to UK citizens.” And the most important bit of the second explicitly excluded “provision for any Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause that provides, or is related to, the delivery of public services, health care, care or public health.There seemed to be little explicit opposition to the amendment, apart from a very bland statement from Greg Hands claiming that a key myth is that ”The NHS remains protected and will never be on the table at any trade deal, and that includes the prices we pay for drugs.” If you believe that, from this government, you’ll believe anything.
Richard Carter ● 2087d