DRAFT KONP POSITION PAPER ON TTIP Summary Position and Demands

A.

KONP is seriously concerned that the EU-US ne otiations o! the Transatlantic Trade and In"estment Partnershi# $TTIP% &ill lead to a #ermanent le al entrenchment o! the #ro"ision o! health and care ser"ices on a mar'et (asis) across the EU *em(er States) includin the UK. ed TTIP Treaty &ill mean that any !uture UK o"ernment &ishin to re"erse the mar'etisation o! the N,S $introduced (y the ,ealth and Social -are Act) ./0.% &ill (e #re"ented !rom doin so (y the o#eration o! the ISDS #ro"isions o! the TTIP Treaty. the ISDS #rocedure) and other indirect as#ects o! TTIP) e. . in"estor #rotection) &ill ad"ersely a!!ect the a(ility i! the UK and other EU *em(er States to set standards and to re ulate health and social ser"ices and associated ser"ices and #roducts) &ithout !ear o! (ein o"er-ruled (y #ri"ate com#anies usin commercial la&. and 1uali!ications may (e ad"ersely a!!ected (y the o#eration o! the #ro"isions o! the en"isa ed TTIP Treaty. For these reasons KONP calls !or health and social care ser"ices to (e e2em#ted !rom the TTIP Treaty For these reasons KONP also calls !or the ISDS to (e remo"ed !rom the TTIP Treaty.

+. Additionally) the en"isa -. *oreo"er)

D. KONP is also concerned that medical and #ro!essional trainin E. F.

3. KONP calls on the UK 3o"ernment) the Euro#ean -ommission) and the Euro#ean Parliament to re4ect
any Treaty &hich does not con!orm to the KONP #osition. Introduction KONP was founded to preserve the public character of the National Health Service in response to UK government policy and measures to subvert the NHS by further marketisation, privatisation, and fragmentation !he latest, and most far reaching, challenge facing KONP comes as part of the negotiations on the !ransatlantic !rade and "nvestment Partnership #!!"P$, which is designed to promote further market liberalisation and access to health and social care service contracts by transnational conglomerates !hese, essentially confidential negotiations are taking place between the %uropean &ommission, on behalf of the '( %U )ember States and the US *dministration !hese negotiations, strongly supported by the current +ritish government, are aimed at securing a new trade and investment !reaty, between the %U and the US* "t is suggested that there will be substantial trade, income, and ,obs benefits for the UK, arising out of the !!"P !his may be so for a number of industrial and commercial sectors However, whatever may be the net benefits in other sectors, there will be further damaging impacts for health and social care provision in the UK !he current UK movement towards e-tensive marketisation, privatisation, and fragmentation of health and social care services will be driven forward at an even faster pace .or this reason KONP demands that health and social care services should be e-empted from the !!"P in order to maintain the freedom of future UK governments to choose to maintain these services as public provision based on the principles of solidarity and universality, and not as marketable services "t is also the case that the procedures envisaged for settling disputes over investments made by companies will be settled by an undemocratic private commercial mechanism "f a commercial body feels aggrieved at winning too few contracts it can sue +ut the suit is not brought against those who commission the contract/ contrary to traditional commercial practice, the suits are heard before a panel of international commercial lawyers in secret and are ,udged on commercial criteria alone Hence, the "nvestor States 0isputes Settlement #"S0S$ current procedure will prevent the UK government and parliament from overturning any settlements which damage the interests of the UK health and social care services *ny such disputes should be dealt with between states, without any direct legal intervention by corporations KONP wants to draw as wide a public attention as possible to these damaging implications for health and social services and the challenge to democratic procedures in the UK Our position, sustained by previous precedent, is that unless health and social services are e-empted from the !!"P and the current "S0S procedure withdrawn then the !!"P itself should be opposed

Key Issues !here are 1 key issues relating to the !!"P

2 "n previous trade treaties, such as 3*!S, %U directly provided public services, including health and social
care services, have been specifically e-empted from the scope of such agreements )oreover, the %U legal definition of health and social care services is that they are generally regarded as being provided on the basis of 4solidarity and universality5 However, a number of %U )ember States, including the UK, have moved to the provision of these services on a market basis !he %uropean &ommission appears supportive of this move towards the 6liberalisation7 of health and social care services 8ithout the clear e-emption of health and social care services from the !!"P then this new e-tension of liberali9ation and marketisation would threaten the legal underpinning of the non:commercial provision of the health and social care services !his could lead, via the %uropean &ourt of ;ustice, to a ruling which alters the current legal position and would then lead to challenges by national and transnational companies, wanting competition law to be applied fully to these services Such a situation would damage any potential for integration and innovation in health services, and the integration of public health and social care services

' !he inclusion of the "S0S in the !!"P would give corporations whose future markets were affected by a
change in government policy the right to sue for loss of profits "t is a relatively common feature of trade treaties between developed nations and less developed ones, where the rule of law might not be reliably entrenched !he current "S0S is fundamentally undemocratic and would entrench the ability of private transnational companies to challenge and override, on the basis of commercial law, governments and national courts operating on public law )oreover, in the case of the !!"P it would remove the right of a future UK government, to reverse the marketisation of the NHS #brought about by the Health and Social &are *ct, '<2'$ as a result of a future democratic mandate Other %U )ember States would be placed in the same fundamentally weakened position "t is important to recognise that, apart from the "S0S* itself, rules on investment protection and other indirect aspects of !!"P may adversely affect the NHS = ? 8ithout appropriate e-emptions from the treaty, a government7s ability to regulate professional standards and >ualifications for health care staff could be restricted, with worrying implications for patient care Harmonisation of regulations between the %U and US will undercut current standards of regulation on health promotion or protection in the UK #e g regulations concerning food labeling, pesticides and chemicals$ !he regulation of pharmaceuticals and health products would also be similarly threatened !he !!"P may also mean a general leveling down of labour standards, especially as the US* has not implemented some of the most fundamental labour rights set out by the "nternational @abour Organisation, such as the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining/

Recommendations

2 ' =

Health and social care services should be completely e-empted from the !!"P !reaty in a clear and watertight manner !he current "S0S should be removed from the !!"P !reaty and replaced by a state to state disputes resolution procedure, which prevents direct legal challenges by investors on commercial grounds %U labour and medical and professional training and >ualifications standards must be specifically protected under the !!"P !reaty

-onclusions !he issues raised by KONP in relation to the UK provision of health and social care services under the !!"P are fundamental to the protection of the UK provision of health and social care services and to the preservation of the democratic freedom of action of future +ritish governments to maintain the public provision of these services KONP calls on the UK 3o"ernment5 the Euro#ean -ommission and the Euro#ean Parliament to !ully su##ort our #osition on the TTIP and re4ect any Treaty &hich does not con!orm to the KONP #osition on the e2em#tion o! the health and social care ser"ices !rom the Treaty and the remo"al o! the current ISDS #rocedure.