Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the subject, which the Government considers to be important. In examining it, the committee has explored some of the significant public concern on a variety of issues that relate to the TTIP agreement.
At the outset, it is important to put it on the record that neither the Scottish Government nor the Scottish Parliament has any formal role in the negotiation and ratification of international trade or investment agreements such as TTIP. We proposed such a role in our submission to the Smith commission but, unfortunately, that responsibility still lies with the European Commission, the European Parliament and member states. The Scottish Government’s role is to represent the people of Scotland and to ensure that the UK, as the member state speaking for Scotland in the European Union, takes full account of Scottish priorities and concerns, whether they are economic or about devolved services such as the national health service.
As we speak, the eighth round of EU and US negotiations is taking place in Brussels. We will hear updates on that but, following Commissioner Malmström’s decision to publish position papers and negotiating texts, we have further information on what is being negotiated as part of the process.
We all appreciate and accept that not every aspect of a negotiation can be undertaken in public. However, given the degree of concern that members of the public have expressed, the process needs to be as transparent as possible. I encourage the Commission to consider the European ombudsman’s recent recommendations on that issue.
I turn to some specifics that have been a common thread in the discussions that the committee has had. They are the economics of TTIP, the impact on the national health service and public services, and investor-state dispute settlement.
The committee has a note from my officials that summarises the latest statistics from the global connections survey on Scotland’s exports to the United States. With £3.9 billion-worth of exports in 2013, it is clear that the US is Scotland’s single most important export market outwith the European Union. It is also worth noting that, with 580 companies employing some 98,000 people, the US is our largest inward investor.
TTIP provides an opportunity to build on that relationship. It could provide market access for Scottish goods and services and reduce non-tariff barriers. If that delivers growth and jobs for Scotland, it should be welcomed. However, we have to bear it in mind that, as the committee has explored, the liberalisation of markets does not always mean that business activity is convenient for our side of the argument. It can open up our markets here in the same way as it opens up markets to which we hope to gain access.
That takes me to my second point. It is important that markets are not opened up in a way that compromises public services or the Government’s responsibility for them. In the past six months, the Scottish Government has pressed the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission to ensure that TTIP does not affect the Scottish Government’s and Parliament’s ability to determine how and by whom the national health service and other publicly funded services are provided. We have written to the UK Government and the Commission and we have raised the issue at the joint ministerial committee. Most recently, the First Minister discussed the issue with the Prime Minister when they met in December.
Over the past few months, a number of reassurances have been given on the extent of protection for areas of the Scottish Government’s activities, in which the Government would be able to determine how and by whom services are delivered. Reassurances have been given, but it remains the case that, until we see the details of the agreement, we will not know whether those reassurances have any validity at all. I still take the view that the best way to allay our concerns and those of the public is, first, to have an explicit exemption for the national health service in the agreement and, secondly, to have absolute clarity that, although the UK is the member state, any decisions that it takes in the context of TTIP—such as opening up the NHS in England to more private providers—in no way interfere with the Scottish Government’s and Parliament’s devolved responsibilities.
Investor-state dispute settlement is another issue on which we have expressed concerns to the UK Government. We are concerned that ISDS might restrict the rights of Governments to regulate in the public interest. I know that the committee has discussed that concern, too. The European Commission was right to consult on the issue, but it clearly has some way to go in the coming months to convince people here and across Europe that ISDS is in the public’s interest. The four questions that the Commission has identified and which Mr Houben highlighted to the committee appear to home in on the right issues. I welcome Trade Commissioner Malmström’s statement that the Commission
“would never even consider an agreement which would ... limit ... governments’ right to regulate.”
On that issue and on the national health service issue, although assurances are being given, we will have final clarity only when we see the detail of the agreement that is negotiated.
The Scottish Government believes in free and open trade, but we must take the greatest care to ensure that the issues about which the public are rightly concerned are dealt with. Our ability to regulate and our ability to determine how the national health service should operate in our country should in no way be compromised by such agreements.