NHS to spend more on US drugs as Britain bows to Trump
The Government told drugmakers last week that it would agree to boost spending on medicines to comparable levels with the US.
The promise to increase the GDP share allocated to medicines is understood to have been made as part of talks with drug bosses over the NHS drugs spending cap.
It follows demands from the US president that other countries stop 'freeloading' on American innovation and pay more for its medicines.
In the US-UK trade agreement, signed earlier this year, ministers said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'.
The UK's expenditure on new innovative medicines currently stands at just 0.28pc of GDP, around a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even in Europe, the UK lags other countries, with Germany spending 0.4pc of its GDP and Italy spending 0.5pc.
Ministers are understood to have offered to take steps to get the UK level closer to the US proportion. However, sources said the Government did not provide details on timing or concrete actions as to how the NHS would increase medicine spending. One insider claimed the proposal was 'a lot of jam and a lot of tomorrows'.
The offer comes weeks after the US president told the world's biggest drugmakers that they needed to lower prices for Americans, suggesting they pay for this by charging higher fees abroad.
In a letter sent to the bosses of 17 pharmaceutical companies, Mr Trump demanded they 'negotiate harder with foreign freeloading nations' for their medicines, suggesting he would use tariffs to push through higher prices if countries resisted.
Earlier this year, the Telegraph revealed that the White House was already pressing for the NHS to spend more on American drugs. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that allows the NHS to spend less on medicines than other countries by forcing drugmakers to pay rebates.
The UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (known as VPAG) makes sure that the NHS does not overpay for medicines. It does this by requiring pharmaceutical companies to pay sales rebates back to the NHS if its medicine bill rises faster than expected, essentially keeping a cap on drug costs.
Earlier this year, the Department of Health launched a review of the scheme under pressure from Mr Trump and the pharmaceutical industry.
Since then, ministers have been in negotiations with drug companies over how much the NHS should be able to claw back in rebates. Drug company chiefs are expected to vote on whether to accept the latest offer next week.
The offer follows years where drug bosses have called for the UK to spend more on medicines.
Albert Bourla, the chief executive of US drug giant Pfizer, said in June: 'We represent in the UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices.'
He said countries were other countries were 'free-riding' on the US.
A government spokesman said: 'The VPAG review is one of many ways in which we are taking decisive action to unlock innovation and drive investment in the UK's world-class pharmaceutical sector including the Life Sciences Sector Plan.
'We will make sure the next game changers in medicine are developed here in Britain, for the benefit of our health at home and abroad.
'We continue to work closely with industry, including Associated of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, on the VPAG review and the outcome will be announced in due course.'
The Government previously argued it would 'only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Vance says US is ‘done with funding Ukraine war' ahead of Trump-Putin talks
The US is 'done with the funding of the Ukraine war', vice president JD Vance has warned. The American politician also vowed Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky will be 'forced' to meet by Donald Trump. In a wide-ranging interview, he went on to dismiss European leaders' calls to allow the Ukrainian president to attend the upcoming summit between the US and Russian leaders, insisting that it would not be 'productive' at this point. On Saturday, European leaders including Sir Keir Starmer jointly welcomed the meeting, which is planned for Friday in Alaska, as a move towards peace. However, they warned that any talks should see Ukraine represented and not permit any land to be ceded to Russia. Their statement came after Mr Trump admitted the deal may involve 'some swapping of territories' - a suggestion Mr Zelensky strongly rejected. Mr Vance told Fox News that Mr Trump 'has to be the one to bring these two together', before criticising Europe for not 'stepping up'. He said: 'What we said to the Europeans is simply: this is in your neck of the woods, this is in your back door. You guys have gotta step up and take a bigger role in this thing. And if you care so much about this conflict, you should be willing to play a more direct and substantial way in funding this war yourself. 'I think the president, and I certainly think that America, we're done with the funding of the Ukraine war business. We wanna bring about a peaceful settlement of this thing, we wanna stop the killing.' Mr Vance met with top European and Ukrainian officials at the British foreign secretary's weekend residence on Saturday to discuss how to end the war. European Commission president Kaja Kallas confirmed that European foreign ministers are scrambling to convene for an emergency meeting on Monday ahead of Friday's summit. As European nations rally behind Ukraine, Mr Zelensky thanked his allies, writing in a post on X on Sunday: "The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people." A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as they aren't allowed to speak publicly, told the Associated Press that Mr Trump remained open to a trilateral summit with both the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, but for now, he will have a bilateral meeting requested by Putin. The summit may prove pivotal in the war that began in February 2022, although there is no guarantee it will stop the fighting, since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. Saturday's statement, signed by the president of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the UK, stressed the need for a "just and lasting peace" for Kyiv, including "robust and credible" security guarantees. "The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine," it added. US senator Lindsey Graham told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that a good deal would mean preventing an emboldened Russia, and aggressors elsewhere, from trying to once again redraw borders by force. A Trump ally and Russia hawk, Mr Graham nevertheless said that "you can't end a war without talking'. He added: "I do hope that Zelenskyy can be part of the process. I have every confidence in the world that [President Trump] is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honourably.' A month-long US-led push to achieve a truce in Ukraine has so far proved fruitless, with Kyiv agreeing in principle while the Kremlin has held out for terms more to its liking. Mr Zelensky said on Saturday that Ukraine "will not give Russia any awards for what it has done" and that "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier". Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Mr Zelensky, noted on Sunday that Kyiv will strive to boost its position ahead of the planned Trump-Putin meeting. "Ahead lies an important week of diplomacy," he said. German chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Sunday that European leaders are "intensively preparing" ahead of the Alaska summit, while they "hope and expect" that Mr Zelensky will be invited. Nato's secretary general Mark Rutte on Sunday praised Washington for taking steps such as allowing more military equipment to flow to Ukraine and imposing secondary sanctions on India for purchasing Russian oil, saying Trump "clearly is putting pressure on Putin". In the interview with ABC's This Week, Mr Rutte added: 'Next Friday will be important because it will be about testing Putin – how serious he is – on bringing this terrible war to an end.' Meanwhile, Ukraine and Russia continued to trade blows on the battlefield on Sunday. Three swimmers were killed by unexploded objects in Ukraine's southern Odesa region at two beaches where swimming has been banned, regional officials said. And Ukraine's military said on Sunday that it had struck an oil refinery in Russia's Saratov region in an overnight drone attack.
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal will be 10 times more expensive than he has claimed, official figures reveal. The Government's own estimate of the cost of giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is almost £35bn, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act – far higher than the £3.4bn figure Sir Keir has previously used in public. Labour ministers now face claims that they misled Parliament and the press with an 'accountancy trick' to hide the size of the bill from taxpayers. Under the terms of Sir Keir's deal, the UK will give up the Chagos Islands by the end of this year and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by UK and US forces. The cost of the agreement has been fiercely disputed. Sir Keir claimed in May that it would cost £3.4bn over 99 years, accounting for inflation and other discounts, but the Conservatives said it would total £30bn. An official document produced by the Government Actuary's Department shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times Sir Keir's figure, at £34.7bn, in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was lowered by the Government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used by the Government for long-term projects. The total cost, which ministers refused to release to Parliament, is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, or more than half the annual schools' budget. Sir Keir now faces accusations that he misled Parliament, because he told MPs in February that cost estimates between £9bn and £18bn were 'absolutely wide of the mark' and suggested the true figure was lower. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to £10bn, to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 per cent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent per year using the Treasury's Social Time Preference Rate, a principle that money spent immediately is more value than funds earmarked for future spending. The final figure was calculated to be 90 per cent lower than the cash value of the payments the UK will make to Mauritius over the next century, in what critics say was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Instead of owning up to the costs, Labour have used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only a mere £3.4bn. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Foreign Office sources insisted ministers had used a 'standard' calculation for long-term government spending, and denied accusations that it was part of a 'cover-up'. However, other projects announced by Labour have not used the same method, which has allowed ministers to advertise higher spending on popular policies. Angela Rayner has since launched a 10-year affordable homes plan that included inflation-level increases in government spending as part of the cost of the policy – a method not used with the Chagos deal. The calculations behind the deal were revealed in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Conservatives. MPs have previously requested the document in Parliament but ministers have refused to release it, in an apparent breach of government transparency rules. Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, said in June that it was 'not normal practice' for the Government to release 'corresponding financial analysis' alongside policy announcements. Official guidance by the Cabinet Office says any information subject to FOI should also be released to MPs, while the ministerial code states that departments 'should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public'. Dame Priti is expected to demand a correction and apology over the 'cover-up' from Sir Keir when MPs return from their summer break on Sept 1. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: 'It's bad enough that Starmer and Reeves' economic mismanagement has created a £50bn black hole in the public finances, prolonging the cost of living crisis. 'Now our research has uncovered the Government's own figures showing Labour's Chagos surrender is costing the country another £35 billion. Add that to their £50 billion black hole, and it's clear – when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.' A Government spokesman said: 'The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. 'The average cost is £101 million per year, and the net present value of payments is £3.4 billion – this is less than 0.2 per cent of the annual defence budget. 'The deal is supported by our closest allies, including the US, Canada, Australia and Nato. The costs compare favourably with other international base agreements, and the UK-US base on Diego Garcia is larger, in a more strategic location and has unparalleled operational freedom.' Starmer has been caught red-handed lying to the public Keir Starmer and David Lammy have been caught red-handed lying to the British public over the costs of Labour's Chagos surrender deal, writes Dame Priti Patel. This pair of diplomatic dunces have left Britain humiliated, weak, and the laughing stock of the international community. We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts. Even when the treaty was published and we could see the payments schedule, Labour tried to pull the wool over our eyes and deny the costs. When it was asked questions about the cash payments over the 99 years of the deal, it refused to answer. And when reports suggested the cost of the deal could be from £9 billion to £18 billion, Starmer claimed this was 'absolutely wide of the mark' whilst the Foreign Office tried to claim it was 'entirely inaccurate and misleading'. In fact, instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4bn – still a vast waste of money. But now we know the costly truth, having dragged the figures out of Government, kicking and screaming, through a freedom of information request. It's an mind-blowing £35bn. That's almost double the entire annual policing budget. Ten brand new aircraft carriers, 70 hospitals or a 5 per cent income tax cut. New prison places to lock up criminals, funding for social care, and millions upon millions of potholes could be fixed, with the £17bn local highways maintenance backlog covered twice ever. The list goes on. Every single Labour minister is complicit in this cover-up. Instead of paying for front line services in Britain and reducing our tax burden, these payments have lead to Mauritius being able to pay down its debt, cut income tax and slash VAT. Just think, as Rachel Reeves plots tax rises in the autumn to cover her catastrophic financial mismanagement, Labour is forcing you to pay for tax cuts in a foreign country. Is it any wonder the Mauritian prime minister has been bragging about how he secured concession after concession from Labour? From more money up front to the removal of a unilateral right to renew the proposed lease on Diego Garcia to the exercise of sovereign rights over the crucial military base, time and time again Britain backed down in negotiations. It's not just Starmer and 'Calamity' Lammy who are to blame for this diplomatic humiliation. Starmer's friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Jonathan Powell – Tony Blair's top advisor during the last Labour government's dodgy dossier scandal – have both been involved in these negotiations. They must be the worst team of negotiators in history. And it gets worse. Labour has manipulated parliamentary process to deny the House of Commons a meaningful debate and vote. So frightened are they of democracy that they have wilfully misled Parliament and ignored long-standing parliamentary conventions on holding debates and votes on treaties. The scale of the financial cost is bad enough, but Labour's Chagos surrender deal has profound and serious consequences for our national security and defence. This isn't just about paying for the privilege of something we owned last month. This is a critical strategic asset. In a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous, giving away a military base to a friend of our enemies is a supreme act of self-harm. Under the terms of the treaty, we need to disclose key information to Mauritius about the movements of UK, US and our allies' vessels and aircraft around Diego Garcia, and any military strikes we take from there. This is deeply concerning as, in recent years, Mauritius has grown closer to our key strategic threats – China, Russia and Iran – forging new partnerships, including one with Russia just days before the treaty was signed in May. This means that sensitive information risks being handed over to a friend of our enemies. Again, rather than facing up to the truth of what they are doing to our national interest, Labour ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, attempt to baselessly lie their way out of it. Starmer has tried to claim China, Russia and Iran were against the deal and it was necessary for our national security. That could not be further from the truth. China has welcomed the treaty since it was signed, while Iran and Russia have issued supportive statements towards Mauritius securing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Senior Mauritian officials have also publicly thanked China and Putin for their support. Starmer and Lammy must think the British public are gullible to swallow their lies. But we all know the truth. Labour has recklessly undermined our national security just because it wants to appease the whims and demands of its Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, and non-binding opinions issued by obscure international bodies few in Britain have heard of. As a result of Labour's stupidity, lies and incompetence, British taxpayers face a huge £35bn cost, our national security and defence capabilities have been damaged, and it has undermined our standing in the world. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and friend and foe alike have seen how feeble Labour is at negotiations over the Chagos Islands and will take advantage of us for years to come. Today, it has become all the clearer why Labour's Chagos surrender deal must be ripped up and consigned to the rubbish bin of history – and that Starmer and Lammy are incapable of understanding, let alone defending, the British national interest. Throughout this whole sorry saga, it is only the Conservative Party that has been fighting against Labour's Chagos surrender. We've challenged the Government in Parliament and in the public to the point where ministers are complaining about the pressure we're putting them under. And we'll keep on exposing Labour's lies and failures as we do all we can to oppose this deal, stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and fight for our national interests to be put first.
Times
15 minutes ago
- Times
Dancing on Alex Salmond's grave does Nicola Sturgeon no favours
Revenge, as we all know, is a dish best served cold; retaliation is even better when your enemy is already dead and buried and can't answer back. Nicola Sturgeon says she debated with herself over whether or not to include in her autobiography Frankly a chapter on the sexual allegations against Alex Salmond, who died last year. No contest. Of course she was going to use this opportunity to dance on her former mentor's grave. • Alex Salmond and the truth behind our fallout, by Nicola Sturgeon Harsh? Not as harsh as her remarks about the former first minister of Scotland. She accuses Salmond of a concerted attempt to 'destroy' her and says he privately admitted 'the substance' of the sexual harassment charges of which he was acquitted in 2020. Salmond isn't around to rebut all this, which is convenient. He believed, on the contrary, that there was 'a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort amongst a range of individuals within the Scottish government and the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned'. This group, known to Sturgeon, even if she didn't collude with them, made a series of extremely serious allegations which were rejected by the highest court in the land. But the way she tells it, it was all about a big bad man trying to ruin her. She even suggests that it was Salmond who leaked the original allegations of sexual impropriety to the Daily Record in August 2018. Well, even the journalist who broke the story, the Record's political editor at the time, David Clegg, told the BBC Sunday show that this was 'not credible'. Would Salmond have used the Labour-supporting tabloid as a conduit? The Record front page screamed 'Alex Salmond accused of 'touching woman's breasts and bum in boozy Bute House bedroom encounter''. An odd way to 'control the narrative', as Sturgeon claims. 'At a stroke,' she goes on, 'he was able to cast himself as the victim.' I don't think Record readers would have thought that. Sturgeon says the Scottish government dropped its defence against Salmond's subsequent judicial review when they realised that the official in charge had had prior contact with the complainers. What she doesn't say is that the Scottish government was warned by its own legal adviser, Roddy Dunlop KC, in August 2018 that they hadn't a snowball's chance of winning. Yet they ploughed on right up to the moment in early 2019 when the Court of Session ruled that the process that accused Salmond was unlawful, unfair and 'tainted with apparent bias'. Why they persevered with this hopeless case is a mystery. It led to Salmond winning £512,000 in costs and to utter humiliation for the Scottish government. Sturgeon suggests in extracts in The Sunday Times that the 'botched' process was the fault of Leslie Evans, the head of the civil service at the time. 'It was not unreasonable,' the former first minister writes, 'to say that the buck stopped with her.' Some might argue that the buck stopped with the person who authorised the botched disciplinary process in the first place back in December 2017. This was one Nicola Sturgeon. The first minister was responding to claims by the lawyer Aamer Anwar that he had a 'catalogue of sexual harassment cases' going uninvestigated in Holyrood. • Nicola Sturgeon: My miscarriage, sexuality and the day I was arrested Hardly had Salmond walked out of the Court of Session after his victory in January 2019 than the police arrested him and charged him with 14 counts of attempted rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment. The timing of this is highly suggestive. Police Scotland launched their criminal investigation the previous September. Did the Scottish government expect Salmond to be arrested before the judicial review even arrived in court? Who knows? Sturgeon writes that if Salmond's conspiracy claim was true: 'It would have required criminal collusion between them [the women accusers], senior ministers and civil servants.' What is not in doubt is that the criminal complaints came from a group of SNP politicians, party workers and Scottish government officials. Sturgeon accepts that there was discussion among these people accusing Salmond of criminal misdeeds but denies that this amounted to collusion. It was just that 'women who considered themselves victims of his behaviour were seeking support and comfort from each other'. It is also on record that Evans pinged a text after the judicial review debacle saying, 'Battle may be lost but not the war'. According to Sturgeon, however, there was no war; it was all about Salmond refusing to accept his guilt. She seems to think that his very defence was an act of violence against women. 'He was prepared to traumatise, time and time again, the women at the centre of it all.' So, should he not have contested these charges because the women who made them might be upset? In her Times extract, Sturgeon somehow fails even to mention that Salmond was acquitted of all the criminal charges by a female-dominated jury before a female judge, Lady Dorrian, in March 2020. Nor does she record that key complainers never wanted the police involved in the first place. Salmond was exonerated in the eyes of the law but not in Sturgeon's. His very court victories, she suggests, were expressions of his 'animus' toward her. 'Eventually … I had to face the fact that he was determined to destroy me. I was now engaged in mortal political combat with someone I knew to be both ruthless and highly effective.' Well, that much is true. Salmond never gave up trying to clear his name and expose his accusers. Even as he died in North Macedonia, he was pursuing a claim of 'misfeasance' against the Scottish government and apparently seeking damages of £3 million. Salmond's family and Alba Party supporters had been considering whether or not to continue with this case. One suspects that after Sturgeon's self-pitying demolition job they'll be more determined than ever. It was 'frankly' ill-advised to launch this attack when Salmond can't give his side of the story. What was she thinking? Everyone knows what the former first minister was like personally. His own defence counsel, Gordon Jackson KC, called him an 'objectionable bully'. But that didn't make him a criminal. Sturgeon should have left it at that. Her tendentious and self-justifying account simply revives speculation about her involvement in this dark affair. It is never a good idea to speak ill of the dead.
