Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Brexit: Lawyers warn of industry influence over public health laws as EU 'fundamental right' is axed

‘Brexit – if it is the kind of cutting 'red tape' Brexit that PM Theresa May has suggested – could indeed give powerful companies more leverage against consumers, patients and citizens’

Katie Forster
Health Correspondent
Wednesday 03 May 2017 12:16 BST
Comments
Laws to protect public health ‘such as on pesticide residues on food’ are at risk after Brexit, researchers warn
Laws to protect public health ‘such as on pesticide residues on food’ are at risk after Brexit, researchers warn (Rex)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

People in Britain risk losing their “fundamental right to health” after Brexit, a barrister and public health professor have warned.

Tobacco and alcohol companies could win more easily in court cases such as the recent battle over plain cigarette packaging if the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is abandoned, they wrote in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

This means after Brexit, industry could have greater influence over laws regarding “pesticide residues in food, health and safety at work, management and disposal of hazardous substances, regulation of medicinal products, and air and water quality.”

Tamara Hervey, a law professor at the University of Sheffield unrelated to the editorial, told The Independent: “Brexit – if it is the kind of “cutting 'red tape' Brexit” that PM Theresa May has suggested – could indeed give powerful companies more leverage against consumers, patients and citizens”.

The Government’s white paper on the Great Repeal Bill says the charter, which sets out the rights and freedoms of EU citizens, will not be converted into UK law.

The document was published the day after Theresa May started the Brexit process by triggering Article 50 and contains proposals as to how the country will function after the UK has left the European Union.

It states: “The removal of the charter from UK law will not affect the substantive rights that individuals already benefit from in the UK” – but Peter Roderick and Allyson Pollock said judges who have used the EU rights to decide on public health cases may no longer be able to do so after Brexit.

Theresa May describes reports of disastrous Brexit meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker as 'Brussels gossip'

“The value of this charter was shown last year, in both EU and UK courts, when the tobacco industry unsuccessfully challenged the new rules on plain packaging of cigarettes,” wrote the researchers from the Institute of Health and Society at Newcastle University.

The right to health, as set out in article 35 of the charter, was used in cases at the EU Court of Justice and the High Court in London to counteract tobacco industry arguments that the new plain packaging legislation was in violation of its rights.

It was also used against the Scotch Whisky Association in a legal battle over minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland.

The Government has said the charter will automatically not apply when Britain leaves the EU and that the rights are also covered by international agreements not affected by Brexit, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

But Mr Roderick, a lawyer and principal research associate at Newcastle University, and Professor Pollock, the institute’s director, said currently exisiting public health laws introduced after Brexit would have to be interpreted “without the charter’s protections”.

They added that the ECHR protects many civil and political rights through the Human Rights Act, but does not include the “economic and social rights” such as the fundamental right to health.

“The real protections for public health and inequalities that the charter represents will be set aside if the present government is re-elected in June and its plan to ditch the charter goes ahead,” they warned.

“All those concerned about public health and social solidarity need to ask their parliamentary candidates to oppose the Government’s plan and to amend the Great Repeal Bill after the election in order to keep the charter’s protections.”

Professor Hervey said the potential loss of the charter was “just one of the many negative impacts of Brexit on health.”

“Other more immediate and pressing impacts are highlighted by the House of Commons Health Committee – including the danger of having no health expertise at the negotiating table; and the distress and uncertainty for thousands of people who rely on EU law to access health care, and people from the rest of the EU who provide health care within our NHS,” she said.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in