I have enjoyed being part of the committee’s work on TTIP. The evidence sessions have been informative, although they often raised more questions than answers.
I, too, take the opportunity to acknowledge the interests of many of my constituents, including the well-informed St Andrews TTIP group. It has been good to see such a strong public response on a matter of such importance. Despite assurances from the UK Government minister Lord Livingston that there is no threat to the UK’s national health service from TTIP, scepticism remains high.
Towards the end of the committee’s deliberations, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada, or CETA, which has been agreed but not yet ratified, emerged as an issue.
After a formal evidence session on TTIP had ended, the committee heard evidence in connection with our work on another matter from Christos Sirros, the agent-general of the Government of Quebec, who is based in London. He told the committee that individual provinces of Canada, such as Quebec, participated in the CETA negotiations, albeit that they spoke through the Canadian negotiator. In marked contrast to Scotland’s experience of TTIP, the provinces were directly involved in the process from A to Z. As we know, in contrast, Scotland is not at the top table, which makes failings in the transparency of the negotiations on TTIP an even more important issue.
Speaking of transparency, Glenn Campbell of BBC Scotland revealed the wording of the reservation on health in the leaked draft of the EU’s offer to the US on TTIP. That wording mirrors the wording in CETA, which Lord Livingston described to us as
“the state of the art”.—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 19 February 2015; c 28.]
However, CETA has not been subject to scrutiny in any meaningful way by either the House of Commons or the House of Lords and, in February, I could trace only one European plenary debate on the issue. Therefore, a substantial amount of work still needs to be done.
Of course, the current position is that the European Parliament and member states can now only reject or accept the agreement. In my view, that certainly does not support the argument that, if CETA is ratified, somehow or other, that means that TTIP must follow. Indeed, only today, a report in the magazine Politico suggests that the concerns over ISDS in TTIP might have influenced a delay in the ratification of CETA. The article refers to concerns on the part of “many members of Parliament”—it means the European Parliament, I believe—who are
“now posing one critical question: ‘Why should we ratify the Canadian trade pact, which includes an ‘outdated’ version of ISDS that no one wants to accept in the American deal?’”
Whatever the outcome of the election next week, I can but hope that the new Westminster Parliament will look seriously not only at TTIP but at CETA, and that the Scottish Parliament will continue to monitor the issue, as the committee recommends.
In relation to the economic benefits of TTIP to Scotland, as we know, the US is Scotland’s greatest export market outside the EU, and its most significant source of inward investment. The Deputy First Minister’s evidence to the committee was of a potential expansion in gross domestic product through TTIP, although the Government’s response to the committee’s report refers to only a “modest” expansion. However, I am mindful of the evidence of Stephen Boyd of the Scottish Trades Union Congress that, even if the model that the European Commission uses, which is that of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, is correct—many regard it as hopelessly optimistic—the EU economy will grow by an annual increment of only 0.03 per cent by 2027. While TTIP is under negotiation, it is impossible to accurately model the economic impact. The STUC also raised issues on the distributional impact of TTIP, which I would like the Scottish Government to keep under review, in accordance with our pledge to tackle inequality.
The European Commission may well have been surprised by the hostility that was demonstrated in the public consultation to the incorporation of an ISDS mechanism. I await with interest the Commission’s decision on whether it is appropriate to have such a mechanism in the treaty at all.
We heard evidence from a representative of the Commission, a Mr Houben, on the four matters that the European Commission is considering in relation to ISDS. The first is protecting Governments’ right to regulate and the second is the establishment of the functionality of arbitral tribunals. The third and most important matter is the relationship between domestic judicial systems and ISDS. It is my informal understanding that, despite assurances that were given to the committee that there would be engagement with domestic legal systems such as that in Scotland, that engagement has not taken place. For the record, the fourth matter that the Commission was supposed to consider was an appellate mechanism, which does not exist in CETA. Therefore, the Commission has an awful lot of work to do in relation to ISDS. I share the concerns that have been expressed about its inclusion at all—I am definitely on the side of those who have concerns about its incorporation.
Commissioner Malmström attempted to reassure us by saying:
“The European Commission would never even consider an agreement which would lower our standards or limit our governments’ right to regulate. Neither would EU Member States, nor the European Parliament.”
However, we should remember that the national health service in Scotland is an institution that is at the heart of how we do business and that, as negotiations stand, protection is not there. The Deputy First Minister was right to tell us:
“We want there to be no restriction and no danger of restriction on our ability to act properly in exercising our devolved competence in that area.”—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 5 February 2015; c 30.]
To achieve that, the oft-referred-to double lock is an absolute necessity to provide protection for the member state at the UK level and for the devolved competence of the Scottish Government, acting with the Scottish Parliament’s consent. When I questioned Lord Livingston during his evidence session with the committee on why the UK Government does not want to listen to the deep concerns about the NHS and go for a belt-and-braces approach, he concluded that his approach is “pretty belt and braces”, referring to the wording in the draft that was leaked to BBC Scotland.
However, Scotland’s NHS is too important to be put at risk. At the moment, the draft does not contain explicit protection; indeed, one might well wonder why the negotiators are afraid of spelling it out and putting one in.
In addition, as the STUC says in its evidence,
“TTIP risks institutionalising the regulatory arbitrage that corporations have become so skilled at exploiting. In some key areas it will necessarily dilute key social, consumer and environmental protections”
Those regulatory concerns remain.
In conclusion, TTIP exemplifies the disconnect between people in Scotland and UK and EU decision making. On behalf of the people of Scotland, let us, as a Parliament, continue to voice those concerns.
15:45