We have each other again. I was briefly trying to highlight a few points in which I thought the committee might have a specific interest.
On the transparency of the negotiations, I flag up to you that, two weeks ago, we launched a transparency initiative, as a result of which all the negotiating texts are now available on the internet. Therefore, if any of you wants to see the actual texts that we are negotiating, they are available and are accompanied by fact sheets, ordered by subject. That should help you to interact on the substance of the issues. Of course, we are in your hands, as are my colleagues working in London at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and we will help you with any specific requests that you have.
We are of course conscious that many of the products that Scotland exports or is competitive in have strong interaction with trade policy. For example, historically, spirits have faced very high trade barriers in international trade. At European level, we have been successful in the past 30 years in opening the markets to exports of spirits. In most markets in the world, exports are now free of duties for whisky producers and other spirits producers. The same applies to other high-quality products from Scotland, such as textiles.
Our view is that TTIP takes that approach to the next level. It also has an ambitious services component. International trade commitments to open services sectors are not as developed as those for manufactured goods, so TTIP intends to move the needle and open those markets. Historically, the energy sector has been less open than other sectors, and that is an area where TTIP wants to provide significant market opening.
In all those respects, as trade negotiators working on behalf of the European member states, regions and economies, we are working to open markets to serve high-paid jobs in the regions and member states across Europe. Generally speaking, jobs that depend on exports are better paid than those in the domestic economy. Trade-related jobs are usually high-quality ones and they often require a well-qualified workforce. The sector is usually a good stimulus for the economy. The important thing about market opening is that there is no fiscal weight when you take a trade liberalisation initiative—you are creating jobs without increasing Government spending.
There are a few other things that I should say and then you should feel free to try on me any question that you may have. I am not sure that I will be able to answer everything, but I will do my very best.
We are aware in Brussels of the healthcare situation in Scotland, Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom and the specific responsibilities that you have. I would be happy to respond to any questions about that.
My final point is on what is perhaps the most controversial issue in TTIP at this time—the often cited investment dispute settlement mechanism. That allows an investor to take a Government not to a formal court but to an arbitration tribunal in cases where they feel that they have been discriminated against in relation to a domestic investor. All that I can say in that regard is that, yesterday, we published the outcome of our consultation on that instrument, which makes the timing of today’s meeting fortuitous. That is available on the web, although we would be happy to send it to you if you want. It is a 150-page document full of legalisms, but it includes a number of recommendations on three or four pages in which we have identified the core issues and problems.
The Commission intends to interact with the European Parliament, the 28 member states and stakeholders writ large on the basis of those issues. We envisage the process will take about three months. We hope, by around April or May, to be able to condense that into a policy recommendation on whether there should be an investment dispute settlement mechanism and, if so, what kind would be appropriate to negotiate with our American friends.
All the issues are hugely important but they do not take place in a vacuum. Whatever we decide with our complex process in Brussels—we try to take account of different states, the European Parliament, the Council and civil society—we must subsequently negotiate the position with our American counterparts. As you can imagine, they have a lot of advantages that we do not have. They have a very strong federal system of Government, so they have one voice and one negotiator. It is also much more centralised than our European system.
Whatever outcome we take to our interaction with the United States, the final outcome will subsequently depend on the feedback that we receive from the Americans and how they define their priorities for their negotiation with Europe. Broadly speaking, we have similar interests. We both need growth—America needs growth as much as we do. We both need competitiveness because we are facing huge competitive challenge from Asia and that will remain in the next 10 to 15 years.
This is an agreement in which we can help each other to become more competitive. However, like all large trade negotiations, there are aspects in which we have offensive interests, where the Americans are defensive, and vice versa. We also have areas in which we will not wish to change European policy, in the same way as there are areas on the American side where they will not want to change American policy.
09:45
The negotiations are far from concluded—we are about to get into the real meat of them. We hope that we may be able to conclude the negotiations with the Obama Administration, which still has two years to go. It is not a certainty that we will be able to do that but we will try. We have a commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, who is very free-trade oriented. She will put her best foot forward and try.
We can envisage this only if the outcome is balanced, though, and if it finds support among broad categories of the European population. Currently, the general feeling at the political level is that there is still too much controversy. We need to work through some of the more controversial elements so that we can build broader support and consensus among people who feel that this is the right thing to do.