A deal committing the NHS to higher medicine spending produced an unusually clear verdict: Yes won by more than ten to one. The scale mattered, but so did the premise behind it — that withholding a full impact assessment made independent scrutiny a condition of trust, not an optional extra.
The strongest Yes case cast the agreement as a test of whose interests public spending serves: “The NHS exists to treat patients, not serve as a corporate piggy bank for US pharma giants.” Another well-regarded voice broadened the charge beyond this deal, calling for “higher levels of transparency and scrutiny” wherever NHS money is at stake; several others wanted the agreement scrapped altogether.
The No side did not deny that the arrangement deserved suspicion, but argued that an audit could become another expense layered onto a costly settlement. Its sharpest objections called independent audits “costly, bureaucratic exercises without any real input in the whole process”, while another warned: “An independent audit would add more cost to the agreement.” A further No argument said the NAO review “really misses the point”, because this was a trade deal involving drug prices, US research costs and the case for building more production in the UK.
That left the two sides talking past each other. Yes voters treated disclosure as the safeguard against ministerial overreach — “Governments habitually lie & deceive the public” — while No voters treated the audit itself as a possible exercise in bureaucratic waste, with some asking whether the money would be better spent securing medicines or domestic capacity.
The result was not simply a demand to inspect the deal; it was a refusal to accept that the deal’s cost could be separated from the public’s right to see how it was reached.
21 Opinions
The NHS exists to treat patients, not serve as a corporate piggy bank for US pharma giants. If this deal genuinely represents good value for taxpayers, ministers shouldn't fear opening the books.
An independent audit would add more cost to the agreement. The problem here is if UK does not accept higher costs then where will we get the drugs and medicines needed? However we should use this time to invest in UK based production. I wonder if this would have been so necessary if we had easier access to a market on our doorstep?
The most of these "independent" audits are costly, bureaucratic exercises without any real input in the whole process. If NHS was not own by the state - such agreement would be pointless.
NHS spending is full of corruption and waste, as long as the institution continues to exist in its current form there should be higher levels of transparency and scrutiny
This one slipped past me! why on earth would a government commit to such a blatant threat by a nation with which it shares a 'special relationship', especially when the leader of that nation cannot be trusted to maintain a consistent policy of his own. If true, then this would seem to be a shocking failure by HMG bordering on betrayal and of course it should be audited.
For context, the US Govt thinks the cost of new drugs need to be shared more fairly with the rest of the world as, at the moment, US taxpayers pay for most of the R&D. Plus the NHS was on a decent deal for volume unbranded drugs. So this is a trade deal. Calling on the NAO to review it really misses the point. It's just performative busy work by MPs with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Literal waste of money. Be glad the US isn’t extracting more from us at this point.
Governments habitually lie & deceive the public about what exactly they concede in trade negotiations particularly as they never want to take responsibility for their decisions and hope time will protect them. Much so called Parliamentary scrutiny is pathetic as many. MPs are not intellectually up to asking the right probing questions and follow ups to answers. We need to properly hold the Executive & particularly Civil Servants to account with sanctions.
Proper, independent scrutiny is never a bad thing.
We should scrap it all together.