10/12/2015

:00:00. > :00:00.necessarily. If there are no further points of order, we come to the

:00:00. > :00:13.backbench motion on the transatlantic trade in partnership.

:00:14. > :00:20.I was amazed that the leader of the house, as he reads the timber,

:00:21. > :00:34.should describe this as a political campaign by left-wing pressure

:00:35. > :00:37.groups. I do think that is the opinion of members of all the

:00:38. > :00:42.committees who are interested in this issue for variety of reasons.

:00:43. > :00:46.I'm very pleased that MPs from across the house, from all parties,

:00:47. > :00:56.have taken an active interest in this vital issue. The point I would

:00:57. > :01:03.like to make in this particular debate isn't the one I made a year

:01:04. > :01:09.ago, dwelling on the arbitration problems of big companies focusing

:01:10. > :01:12.in on suing democratically elected governments of the laws passed but

:01:13. > :01:22.undermine their future profit. But in the context of the Paris climate

:01:23. > :01:26.change talks, I want to make a point to the minister, that unless the

:01:27. > :01:32.environmental imperatives that are coming out of Palace are integrated

:01:33. > :01:36.in a binding and vaguely affordable way, within the EU free trade

:01:37. > :01:41.agreements both with Canada and the United States, then we are in danger

:01:42. > :01:50.of sleepwalking into environmental oblivion, irrespective of what comes

:01:51. > :01:54.out of these talks. Comment back to the remarks he made in relation to

:01:55. > :01:59.the leader of the house, it is right that this motion is before the house

:02:00. > :02:06.today. I can we trust the government with industrial relations when you

:02:07. > :02:12.have the anti-trade union government. That should be stricter

:02:13. > :02:18.lies in front of the house, the effect on public services. It is an

:02:19. > :02:24.important point. In the draft version of TTIP that I have here,

:02:25. > :02:28.which I hope the Minister has read. There are references to rights for

:02:29. > :02:32.Labour laws, but they are not legally enforceable and I would like

:02:33. > :02:37.to have them, because at the moment, workers rights are at risk from

:02:38. > :02:46.these deals. I should make clear that the outset, that I am in favour

:02:47. > :02:51.of trade and in favour of growing trade, I'm in favour of the EU, so

:02:52. > :03:00.we do get any confusion over this. The EU and the US are already in

:03:01. > :03:05.trade for in excess of $700 billion. There are forecasts on how much the

:03:06. > :03:14.economy will grow and they are variable. The daily from nothing to

:03:15. > :03:19.about 4%. Remember, the forecasts for the expansion of economic

:03:20. > :03:26.activity due to the single market the leaders in four and 6.5%. It

:03:27. > :03:31.ended up being 2%. That are those who say colon to a cup of coffee for

:03:32. > :03:34.every person per day. What we need to think about is what other

:03:35. > :03:44.benefits of trade versus the cost and risk involved. Would he agree

:03:45. > :03:55.that Labour MEPs have sought a common position on TTIP, calling for

:03:56. > :04:02.strong safeguards with respect to health and safety measures. This

:04:03. > :04:11.specific exclusion of investor dispute mechanism, because the

:04:12. > :04:16.ideas, it is not democratic, open to scrutiny, democratic or fair. The

:04:17. > :04:40.point is well made. On the issue of employee rights,

:04:41. > :04:46.having met with American trade unions, they see TTIP as a great

:04:47. > :04:53.thing. As an internationalist, I would expect him to support such a

:04:54. > :04:58.change. I share that aspiration, but the issue is that those rights are

:04:59. > :05:06.legally bound enforceable within TTIP. My point about TTIP is not to

:05:07. > :05:10.burn it, shoot it, get rid of it, it is to pull the ISDS teeth out of the

:05:11. > :05:16.wolf and genetically edit it, so we have environmental narratives in it,

:05:17. > :05:23.we have enforceable rights at work, we have human rights, southerners a

:05:24. > :05:33.blueprint for future global trade, rather than destruction of

:05:34. > :05:38.environmental and human rights. I congratulate him on to Judith is

:05:39. > :05:42.really important debate. Does he agree with me that the government

:05:43. > :05:47.and the European Commission should heed the call from the BMA that the

:05:48. > :05:56.NHS should be absolutely excluded from TTIP, as is the case for the

:05:57. > :05:59.audiovisual sector to? We should have a copper bottomed arrangement,

:06:00. > :06:06.like with fenland, which covers all of health, private and social care,

:06:07. > :06:12.from any intervention. At the moment, those guarantees are not

:06:13. > :06:17.provided. If that is private provision somewhere, it allows an

:06:18. > :06:25.avenue for American contractors to move on. Could you tell us on the

:06:26. > :06:31.ISDS, how many agreements as Britain currently have with ISDS provisions?

:06:32. > :06:36.How many cases have been taken against the UK on that and how many

:06:37. > :06:41.of them have been successful? He will know that is a large number

:06:42. > :06:46.will of ISDS bilaterals and play, but we haven't had cases taken

:06:47. > :06:51.against us. We also know that the exposure to ISDS will increase by

:06:52. > :06:55.about 300%. He also knows, that if he has a pet dog goes round biting

:06:56. > :07:01.the neighbours, it doesn't guarantee will fight him and just because

:07:02. > :07:09.other people don't die of cigarette smoke, doesn't mean he won't. Some

:07:10. > :07:17.members of the government. On the specific wind raised by our right

:07:18. > :07:24.honourable friend, the fact is that it is not the number of court cases

:07:25. > :07:27.which are taking, it is the ministerial action which is

:07:28. > :07:33.inhibited by fear of those court cases. I have that experience as a

:07:34. > :07:40.minister and I have to say he is barking up the wrong tree. We do

:07:41. > :07:45.need short interventions. That is a lot of interest in this debate, but

:07:46. > :07:49.can I remember the honourable member, he has ten to 15 minutes for

:07:50. > :07:59.his opening speech and I wouldn't like to give up too much of that the

:08:00. > :08:03.interventions. We knew that big companies do use the powers

:08:04. > :08:09.available to them to sue democratically elected governments.

:08:10. > :08:15.The Canadian government has been sued for hundreds of billions of

:08:16. > :08:18.dollars because Quebec brought out a moratorium on fracking, as well as

:08:19. > :08:23.the case of Philip Morris who is suing you require industry earlier

:08:24. > :08:28.because of tobacco packaging. That is the case of the Dutch company who

:08:29. > :08:32.are suing the Slovakians were trying to reverse some health legislation.

:08:33. > :08:37.If these powers are available, corporations will use them to

:08:38. > :08:42.maximise profit. That is what you expect them to do. Our job is to

:08:43. > :08:47.regulate and make sure the public interest is first. The other issue

:08:48. > :08:53.is these treaties, some people are worried about the EU, we will be

:08:54. > :08:57.bound for 20 years under these rules by any future government. I think

:08:58. > :09:03.that is wrong, and a lot of conservative members have mentioned

:09:04. > :09:13.this to me as well. I won't give way on that. On the regulatory chill, go

:09:14. > :09:17.on then. I'm very grateful. I realise is getting frustrated by the

:09:18. > :09:21.number of interventions. Mine is brief and specific. He talks about

:09:22. > :09:25.scrutiny, what method of scrutiny would be used and would it be a

:09:26. > :09:27.committee or a minister committed to this dispatch box and for the whole

:09:28. > :09:41.house to scrutinise? Clearly there is a widespread

:09:42. > :09:47.impact. We will like recommendations to be made from the service and they

:09:48. > :09:51.can table amendments. At the moment it is being decided by negotiators

:09:52. > :09:56.behind closed doors which is unacceptable and it will be a yes,

:09:57. > :10:02.no, decision. The seat of one which has already been agreed, there is

:10:03. > :10:06.some legal washing, it is due to be brought before Members of the

:10:07. > :10:10.European Parliament next spring. I was going to mention the issue of

:10:11. > :10:15.regulatory chill because of the pressure and that of this action.

:10:16. > :10:19.Already the EU has withdrawn its demands for transparency and

:10:20. > :10:23.clinical data. Especially in terms of trials. This means that if you

:10:24. > :10:27.are a big dogs company and unique trials and three go wrong and seven

:10:28. > :10:34.go right, you only have to publish the seven that all right. These

:10:35. > :10:37.things are worrying, has are the bits and pieces about trade secrets.

:10:38. > :10:40.-- drugs. This inhibits democracy. There are issues about rights of

:10:41. > :10:43.work which members have mentioned. There is the problem of the seat

:10:44. > :10:49.being a great because this is the Trojan horse for all of these powers

:10:50. > :10:53.in the settlement to come through the back door and bad of democracy

:10:54. > :11:01.and public services and public finances. As I have said, the fact

:11:02. > :11:06.that 20 million people no are in Beijing and are crying because of

:11:07. > :11:12.the environmental damage on trade and unregulated economic activity to

:11:13. > :11:16.support that trade and meanwhile, in Cumbria we see people having the

:11:17. > :11:18.effect of climate change. We must ensure that future trading

:11:19. > :11:23.agreements for all of the EU and Canada and the US have an

:11:24. > :11:28.enforceable environmental imperatives which prevent

:11:29. > :11:32.corporations from making this works which will spread to China and

:11:33. > :11:36.elsewhere, no one else seems to be seeing anything other. We need trade

:11:37. > :11:41.laws to be trumped by what comes out of Paris then he legally binding and

:11:42. > :11:45.enforceable way, that is not happening at the moment. I spoke

:11:46. > :11:52.with the Secretary general of the OECD in Paris when I was out at the

:11:53. > :11:54.conference. Talking about this ?200 million subsidy given to fossil

:11:55. > :11:58.fuels, at the moment he was not happy about this. I said what about

:11:59. > :12:02.getting the environmental imperatives from Paris as a minimum

:12:03. > :12:05.standards into TTIP and he scratched his head and said they had not

:12:06. > :12:11.thought about it but it could be a good idea. In fact, the EU is asking

:12:12. > :12:16.for an oil and gas pipeline from the US to get shield gas and all sorts

:12:17. > :12:19.of oil over here, what will that do for our carbon footprint? It is

:12:20. > :12:23.trade on the one hand and environment on the other and we need

:12:24. > :12:27.an integrated approach to a global sustainable development. The reality

:12:28. > :12:34.is on ISDS, that should be stripped out of the TTIP. People have said

:12:35. > :12:39.what about the investors, they must be protected. They have judicial

:12:40. > :12:44.review, they have already got a breach of contract, they already use

:12:45. > :12:47.these rights in public court and the only difference is that in public

:12:48. > :12:51.court the public interest is wide up against the commercial interest. The

:12:52. > :12:56.arbitration panel says it is all about the private interest. The

:12:57. > :13:02.death or public health issues are not waited. By way of example, the

:13:03. > :13:06.case of Tech Ed which is a waste disposal plant in Mexico who

:13:07. > :13:09.breached those regulations, the Mexican government decided at the

:13:10. > :13:14.end of that contract to not renew it because there was so much in breach

:13:15. > :13:22.of that. They went to an arbitration panel and Mexico was found to lose

:13:23. > :13:25.this particular case and to be a ?5 million plus another ?8 million in

:13:26. > :13:29.court costs. The point I am trying to make in this example is that if

:13:30. > :13:38.the UK require a stronger emissions standards to live up to our promises

:13:39. > :13:44.for either 1.5% or 2% increases in temperature, then ISDS, not Iain

:13:45. > :13:50.Duncan Smith! They must come along and sue others for actually obliging

:13:51. > :13:58.us for moving forward with these particular requirements from Paris.

:13:59. > :14:02.What I am telling you is that the protection Tribunal is as opposed to

:14:03. > :14:05.public law must wait more in favour of the investors as opposed to

:14:06. > :14:13.public protection and that is the wrong way around. One Lord said to

:14:14. > :14:16.me in questioning the scrutiny committee, he has said about the

:14:17. > :14:20.compensation for these companies, there is nothing wrong with that.

:14:21. > :14:24.The point I am making is that there should -- is not that there should

:14:25. > :14:32.not be compensation but if you look at Costa Rica, they actually took

:14:33. > :14:37.back some land which has natural value, they have endangered species

:14:38. > :14:42.and endangered habitats, they compensated for that land $1.9

:14:43. > :14:47.million in this case. The owners took them again, one of these

:14:48. > :14:51.Tribunal 's, the tribunal did not factor in public interest or public

:14:52. > :14:56.value, nothing to do with it, it is all about commercial issues and they

:14:57. > :15:02.will find them ?16 million. -- find them. This ISDS favours the private

:15:03. > :15:09.sector, not the public interest or the natural habitat, so we have to

:15:10. > :15:15.strip it out of TTIP. Another issue with ISDS is basically that it can

:15:16. > :15:20.in essence from national law and tromp previous national law. In the

:15:21. > :15:24.case of Deutsche Bank versus Sri Lanka they were existing laws were

:15:25. > :15:28.the Supreme Court in Sri Lanka brought forward to stop payments to

:15:29. > :15:33.Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank went off to an arbitration panel, even

:15:34. > :15:40.though arrangements were made after the national law had been passed,

:15:41. > :15:45.and they successfully won the case. The pointers for Britain, if this

:15:46. > :15:51.goes through in this current state, the 2008 climate change act, that

:15:52. > :15:56.will be trumped by TTIP and ISDS. So it is unbelievable in terms of

:15:57. > :16:00.sovereign democracy and these are all these turkeys voting for

:16:01. > :16:07.Christmas, they are up to speed on the sort of thing. We will not have

:16:08. > :16:11.protection for some of our famous products, the Welsh Lamb, Cumbrian

:16:12. > :16:15.sausages, this sort of thing. The headline in the Son was that passed

:16:16. > :16:19.things get a pasting, very local -- very lyrical! But we will not have

:16:20. > :16:30.an advert for Welsh languages in Nebraska or whatever. We have the

:16:31. > :16:33.TTIP environmental chapter telling us that... I beg your pardon? We

:16:34. > :16:41.have that chapter that does make some reference to the real mac and

:16:42. > :16:44.Copenhagen and it says that chapter that there is nothing in that

:16:45. > :16:48.chapter that allows a binding enforceability that is not allow the

:16:49. > :16:52.investment chapter to trumpet, of which it does. What this means is

:16:53. > :16:57.that all of the pledges of the environmental chapter are not cast

:16:58. > :17:01.in stone but can be over current by these arbitration panels and they

:17:02. > :17:08.need to be legally binding and an enforcement mechanism which they do

:17:09. > :17:15.not have in place. -- Rio. In a nutshell then, I am suggesting that

:17:16. > :17:18.ISDS be removed from TTIP, the article says that the provisions of

:17:19. > :17:23.TTIP will be without reservation subject to the 2015 Paris and

:17:24. > :17:28.subsequent treaty agreements that TTIP should be consistent and

:17:29. > :17:37.contributed to the targets are great in Paris and subsequent call. And

:17:38. > :17:41.that they do not go ahead down the route of harmonisation of the

:17:42. > :17:44.regulatory co-operative body. In a nutshell, in terms of harmonisation

:17:45. > :17:48.standards which in principle there is a good thing, that must be

:17:49. > :17:52.decided behind closed doors by supple servant is subject to

:17:53. > :17:59.lobbying from industry. This is not something that we would want. Then

:18:00. > :18:02.finality, I would simply say that there is a lot of things wrong with

:18:03. > :18:06.TTIP that we must change but this motion is about scrutiny. I am not

:18:07. > :18:10.for abandoning TTIP we need a blueprint for future global trade

:18:11. > :18:15.and we need an integrated environment will imperatives that

:18:16. > :18:18.made legal rights and other human rights are enforceable and show

:18:19. > :18:23.leadership for a global trade that provides us with a sustainable, fair

:18:24. > :18:27.and equitable world for the future. Thank you very much.

:18:28. > :18:32.The question is as on the order paper.

:18:33. > :18:38.Peter Lilley. Thank you, Mr Speaker. -- Deputy Speaker. I thank the right

:18:39. > :18:44.honourable member for allowing this debate. As the last person in this

:18:45. > :18:46.House who I think was involved in negotiating this accessible

:18:47. > :18:53.international trade round, the Uruguay round, I am extremely in

:18:54. > :18:56.favour of free trade. I believe indeed there is a strong case for

:18:57. > :19:01.unilateral free trade and not one that is easy to sell to the

:19:02. > :19:08.electorate. Our priority therefore, I approached the TTIP agreement with

:19:09. > :19:13.the position of strong support and I am very suspicious of critics of it

:19:14. > :19:18.who are often simply against trade, simply against markets, something

:19:19. > :19:28.against choice, business and simply against America. He might find I

:19:29. > :19:31.have answered his question! Especially hostile, I am especially

:19:32. > :19:35.hostile to those people who pressed the button on the 38 degrees

:19:36. > :19:40.campaigns and anything against trade and business. I was rather surprised

:19:41. > :19:44.to find myself sympathising with people who appeared in my surgery

:19:45. > :19:49.and announced to a groan from me that they were members of the 38

:19:50. > :19:51.degrees and had concerns about TTIP and actually read some very

:19:52. > :19:57.important point which resonated with me from my experience of past

:19:58. > :20:02.negotiations. Of course, I am still totally in favour of removing

:20:03. > :20:08.tariffs. But that is relatively minor in terms of the aspects of

:20:09. > :20:14.TTIP. It has been hugely successful of removing tariffs and barriers

:20:15. > :20:21.over the years, averaging 40% back when Gap was set up, it was 17% when

:20:22. > :20:25.I was negotiating. The Tardis now between the United States and Europe

:20:26. > :20:34.average less than 2% and half of all goods traded between the two

:20:35. > :20:39.continents are entirely tariff free. -- tariffs. Those are subject to

:20:40. > :20:46.tariffs can be higher, on clothing it is up to 30%. On cars, the US

:20:47. > :20:53.where these are two and a half percent. German car minor fractures

:20:54. > :20:59.have led of 10% on imports of cars from America. Abolition of the

:21:00. > :21:05.reigning Tardis is worth having. But, and it will be the final

:21:06. > :21:09.success of Gap. TTIP goes far beyond that. -- tariffs. It looks that the

:21:10. > :21:16.regulation and rules on investment and procurement. It is true that

:21:17. > :21:22.those sorts of rules can either buy content or accidentally be used to

:21:23. > :21:27.inhibit trade and we should avoid using them in that way and we should

:21:28. > :21:34.seek if we can agreements the anti-discrimination rules so that

:21:35. > :21:37.neither in the business of investment no procurement would

:21:38. > :21:49.either States or the EU they allowed to discriminate against firms from

:21:50. > :21:52.the other side in these matters. My constituents that declare themselves

:21:53. > :21:57.to be members of 38 degrees, it could be that we are creating a

:21:58. > :22:00.bureaucratic process which may escape proper democratic control and

:22:01. > :22:08.may be subject to proper corporate influence. It is also symptomatic of

:22:09. > :22:14.bureaucracies to perpetuate their existence, even when the task they

:22:15. > :22:20.were established to do is largely complete. Literate members of this

:22:21. > :22:29.House and we are all that, I remember Dickens describing the

:22:30. > :22:33.office whose chief died at his post with his drawn salary in his hand

:22:34. > :22:38.defending the existence of an organisation which no longer has any

:22:39. > :22:43.need to exist. But because we have succeeded on tariff negotiation we

:22:44. > :22:48.should be scaling down, not giving up the international bureaucracy and

:22:49. > :22:52.giving it more democratic -- undemocratic powers. During the

:22:53. > :22:55.Uruguay round I talked about accountability to this House.

:22:56. > :22:58.Because the negotiations were complex it was that good for the

:22:59. > :23:03.House to hold ministers to account and easy for ministers to present a

:23:04. > :23:08.fait accompli to this House and say they had achieved the best

:23:09. > :23:12.compromise. I will give way. I am grateful to you for giving way

:23:13. > :23:16.and would you agree that one of the things that will scrutinise TTIP

:23:17. > :23:20.very assiduously will be the US Congress? They will not let things

:23:21. > :23:26.go that they think will put their own people at a disadvantage.

:23:27. > :23:30.Well, I would like to hear from my honourable friend that it is this

:23:31. > :23:34.House that will exercise democratic control relying upon the American

:23:35. > :23:39.Congress! The second reason is partly because ministers where so

:23:40. > :23:43.little accountable to this House and I cannot remember any debates

:23:44. > :23:48.actually that I had to respond to on that issue. Offer shows were very

:23:49. > :23:52.reluctant to be a comfortable ministers. On almost every other

:23:53. > :23:56.area that I was involved in in government I thought officials were

:23:57. > :24:02.wonderful. The caricature of them in Yes, Minister was false. But as

:24:03. > :24:06.regards bureaucracy and limited democratic control, they were

:24:07. > :24:10.reluctant to respond to ministers' questions or explain what they were

:24:11. > :24:16.up to what compromises they were making. I had to argue very strongly

:24:17. > :24:18.and hard to reassert my control over officials. It is up to ministers to

:24:19. > :24:29.do so. I will give way. Could I ask my right honourable

:24:30. > :24:34.friend whether he thinks that TTIP will actually be in any way

:24:35. > :24:41.accountable to this House? Because it doesn't look as though it will.

:24:42. > :24:45.There are aspects where I feel we are in danger of handing over

:24:46. > :24:49.unaccountable powers, and I think we should be wary about doing that. In

:24:50. > :24:54.the case of the negotiations then and now, they are aggravated by the

:24:55. > :25:05.fact that we are negotiating at second-hand through the E EU at

:25:06. > :25:14.arm's-length. I accept that we have had to make some sacrifices to have

:25:15. > :25:20.a common market. My honourable friend thinks we should probably

:25:21. > :25:26.rely more on the American market. I am misrepresenting him, I know. All

:25:27. > :25:33.these are problems which are comparatively easy when you are just

:25:34. > :25:36.dealing with abolition of tariffs. When you are handing over to

:25:37. > :25:46.international bureaucracies and legal tribunal is, wide areas of

:25:47. > :25:52.rules of procurement even greater. And this brings me to my other

:25:53. > :25:56.concern about bureaucracies, and that is that they may be unduly

:25:57. > :25:59.influenced by corporate lobbying. The less responsive they are to

:26:00. > :26:05.elected members of this House, the more likely they are to be

:26:06. > :26:10.responsive to corporate lobbying. I am not one who believes in the

:26:11. > :26:14.Marxist view that the world is run by a conspiracy of corporations and

:26:15. > :26:19.big business, nor that big business always wants to deregulate.

:26:20. > :26:27.Actually, it is true that Rucker sees and big business, the people in

:26:28. > :26:36.them have a common worldview. -- bureaucracies and big business. And

:26:37. > :26:42.also, big business has a natural interest in regulation to be used as

:26:43. > :26:46.a barrier against other small businesses trying to enter the

:26:47. > :26:51.market or new businesses trying to innovate. So we should be very

:26:52. > :27:04.careful about creating international bureaucracies outside the control of

:27:05. > :27:09.Democrats which may prove more vulnerable to lobbying. The specific

:27:10. > :27:22.issues are fracking and GM foods. I am very strongly in favour of both.

:27:23. > :27:25.I have the main research Institute for GM foods in my constituency. But

:27:26. > :27:30.ultimate decisions about that should be made democratically, and to me it

:27:31. > :27:35.is far more important that democracy should prevail then some

:27:36. > :27:44.international bureaucracy should support my views, which they

:27:45. > :27:48.possibly would. It is our job to persuade the public that that is

:27:49. > :27:51.right. Not to support an international bureaucracy because it

:27:52. > :27:56.will take the decision out of our hands and reach what we think is the

:27:57. > :27:59.right view. So to sum up, I am unequivocally in favour of removing

:28:00. > :28:06.tariffs. I would welcome agreement under TTIP anti-discrimination rules

:28:07. > :28:09.for both Europe and America to agree that they will not discriminate

:28:10. > :28:14.against foreign companies in procurement and investment. But I

:28:15. > :28:20.would be very careful about creating a self-perpetuating international

:28:21. > :28:23.bureaucracy and handing it to it powers that are largely out of the

:28:24. > :28:28.control of elected representatives and too much under the influence of

:28:29. > :28:35.corporate lobbying. At the end of the day, democracy is more

:28:36. > :28:40.important, even than free trade. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I

:28:41. > :28:44.declare an interest of the chairman of the all-party group on the

:28:45. > :28:48.transatlantic trade deal. And can I do that as an unashamed supporter of

:28:49. > :28:54.trade. Trade has been a huge benefit to this country over the centuries,

:28:55. > :28:58.particularly to the West Midlands, which grew on the back of trade, and

:28:59. > :29:01.indeed the West Midlands is currently the only region of the UK

:29:02. > :29:06.that has a positive trade balance with China. But equally

:29:07. > :29:09.significantly, trade has been the engine by which hundreds of millions

:29:10. > :29:14.of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty, and when

:29:15. > :29:18.people look at China and the growth of China, and I will come back to

:29:19. > :29:21.some aspects of that in a minute, because they were mentioned by my

:29:22. > :29:26.honourable friend the Member for Swansea, but hundreds of millions of

:29:27. > :29:31.people in China have seen their lives Joe Mattock a change as a

:29:32. > :29:37.result of trade. -- dramatically change as a result of trade. There

:29:38. > :29:47.has historically been in this House those who have been opposed to

:29:48. > :29:52.trade. Four. All of the nations which have had dramatic improvement

:29:53. > :29:59.in their economies have done so with a degree of texture, and the Chinese

:30:00. > :30:02.have used a massive devaluation of their currency against Western

:30:03. > :30:08.currencies, behind which they have seen their economy develop rapidly.

:30:09. > :30:11.Protectionism actually works. I am pleased to see that my

:30:12. > :30:16.honourable friend wants to see us move towards more of a rules -based

:30:17. > :30:21.bases that will enable us to develop more effectively. But trade has

:30:22. > :30:25.actually worked, and I'm glad that he can see that. There is a great

:30:26. > :30:31.mythology being developed around this. I asked my honourable friend

:30:32. > :30:37.the Member for Swansea how many agreements that we had in the UK

:30:38. > :30:45.that involved I SDS. He was reluctant to reveal that the answer

:30:46. > :30:52.was 94. How many cases have been successful? My understanding is

:30:53. > :30:58.none. Mention is made once again of the very long-running Philip Morris,

:30:59. > :31:01.so-called case, and it is true that Philip Morris said they were lodging

:31:02. > :31:05.a case. Has that gone anywhere or proceeded anywhere? Has it stopped

:31:06. > :31:10.the Australian government taking action? Of course it hasn't. One of

:31:11. > :31:14.the more regularly cited cases is Slovakia and its health insurance

:31:15. > :31:21.system. They often we are told that a Dutch insurance company managed to

:31:22. > :31:25.secure substantial damages from the Slovakian government, and that is

:31:26. > :31:28.true. Because that was about the question as to whether, under the

:31:29. > :31:33.existing contract, they could actually repatriate their profits to

:31:34. > :31:38.Holland. On a second case, which every body seems to forget, the

:31:39. > :31:46.Slovakian Government won, and it was held by the court that it was not

:31:47. > :31:50.empowered to intervene in the democratic processes of a sovereign

:31:51. > :31:54.state. And where I particularly hold the Government to account is that

:31:55. > :31:58.although the Leader of the House might talk about left-wing groups

:31:59. > :32:03.campaigning on this with scare stories, why won't the Government,

:32:04. > :32:08.Government Ministers, actually take on these myths so that we can get

:32:09. > :32:12.back to an argument on some of the issues that my honourable friend

:32:13. > :32:15.rightly raised rather than dealing with the mythology. But the

:32:16. > :32:25.Government just hide away in the gauge in negotiations and won't take

:32:26. > :32:35.these issues off. If ISDS has been used so little, and concern has been

:32:36. > :32:43.expressed about it, why does he think it is important to have it be

:32:44. > :32:50.part of TTIP? ISDS appears to be the sticking point for a very large

:32:51. > :32:53.number of people. I just say that this is not the

:32:54. > :33:00.great problem that people are claiming. The honourable gentleman

:33:01. > :33:04.mentions the NHS. The European Commissioner wrote to the Trade

:33:05. > :33:10.Minister in the UK about the impact of TTIP on the NHS. Let me read out

:33:11. > :33:14.her comments. Member states do not have to open public services to

:33:15. > :33:19.competition from private providers, nor do they have to outsource to

:33:20. > :33:22.private providers. That is a decision of this Government, not

:33:23. > :33:25.anything to do with a trade deal. Member states are free to change

:33:26. > :33:31.their policies and bring back outsource services into the public

:33:32. > :33:34.sector whenever they choose to do so in a manner respecting property

:33:35. > :33:41.rights which in any event are protected under UK law. I give way.

:33:42. > :33:52.The essential difference is that ISDS tribunal is held in private,

:33:53. > :33:57.and private primary focus -- primary focus is about the law, but it would

:33:58. > :34:01.be better to be held in transparency, and there have been a

:34:02. > :34:07.lot of cases where enormous damages have been claimed. It is about the

:34:08. > :34:11.intrinsic... The problem my honourable friend has, and we will

:34:12. > :34:15.have to discuss this subsequently, in order to undertake that in the

:34:16. > :34:23.manner describing, you would have to create a supranational international

:34:24. > :34:26.court to deal with that. Unless there is an agreement on reciprocity

:34:27. > :34:31.between the Supreme Court and the European court, and that might cause

:34:32. > :34:36.problems with colleagues opposite. Equally, I have to say with regard

:34:37. > :34:49.to the Canadian trade talks, there was very little controversy about

:34:50. > :34:55.discussions with the Canadians until we started to undertake discussions

:34:56. > :35:01.with the United States, which touched a nerve endings and consider

:35:02. > :35:04.another people. He is right that if you scratch biddies a lot of the

:35:05. > :35:09.opposition here and you see blatant anti-American is. It is deeply

:35:10. > :35:15.offensive to Government such as the Canadian government to describe CETA

:35:16. > :35:18.as a Trojan Horse as if Canada were doing the dirty work for the

:35:19. > :35:23.Americans, that was what the implication is and it is offensive

:35:24. > :35:27.to Canada, a country that has standards of protection that go

:35:28. > :35:39.beyond our own in many areas. I thank the gentleman for a point

:35:40. > :35:42.well made. My honourable member for Swansea talked about the

:35:43. > :35:56.environmental situation in China. If we do not undertake a trade deal

:35:57. > :36:00.between the EU and the, then the people who will be setting the terms

:36:01. > :36:05.of trade on the parameters for the world will be China, and he has

:36:06. > :36:09.rightly identified they may have much less concern to issues like

:36:10. > :36:16.workers' rights and the environment as the EU and the United States. One

:36:17. > :36:22.of the concerns he raised with regard to the Canadian deal was with

:36:23. > :36:25.regard to food and the implications for geographic indicators, Welsh

:36:26. > :36:32.Lamb and so on. In fact, this is one of the great attractions not only

:36:33. > :36:38.for farmers in the UK but also across Europe, particularly southern

:36:39. > :36:40.Europe, the ability the geographic indicators, and one of the

:36:41. > :36:55.attractions the Canada and the United States is the ability to sell

:36:56. > :37:01.GM. A trade of GM food -- GM for GI might well be on the cards. The

:37:02. > :37:05.Leader of the House talked about scaremongering from the far left,

:37:06. > :37:14.and we have had the e-mails again from 38 degrees, who will know that

:37:15. > :37:26.-- no doubt be castigated me again on Facebook. A pamphlet by the Rosa

:37:27. > :37:35.Luxemburg foundation was put forward, a number of colleagues on

:37:36. > :37:41.this side may be aware of the Rosa Luxemburg foundation, deeply linked

:37:42. > :37:46.to the far left party in Germany that comes out of the old East

:37:47. > :37:51.German Communist Party. There is a lot to be said against the old East

:37:52. > :38:00.German Communist Party, but they were pretty good at running the line

:38:01. > :38:06.and propaganda and agitation. And so we need to be very clear not of some

:38:07. > :38:15.of the valid arguments that are being rightly made, but where some

:38:16. > :38:19.of the campaigns come from. Honourable members need to be clear

:38:20. > :38:24.on that. Unfortunately, the honourable member of a then touched

:38:25. > :38:27.on another area partly referred to by the honourable member for

:38:28. > :38:33.Swansea, the European scrutiny committee. And it is the neuralgic

:38:34. > :38:42.reaction of some on the conservative side to anything involving the EU.

:38:43. > :38:45.In order to conduct trade negotiations around the world, one

:38:46. > :38:51.of the key enabler is all that is our membership of the EU. That

:38:52. > :38:57.enables us to participate and not to be contrary to the views of Niger

:38:58. > :39:00.Farage that somehow we won't be able to negotiate trade deals on our own.

:39:01. > :39:07.We can negotiate them through the combined strength of the EU. And

:39:08. > :39:17.when we are campaigning next year, in order to remain members of the

:39:18. > :39:19.EU, many of the arguments against the transatlantic trade deal a

:39:20. > :39:24.reflective of the arguments that are made against the EU. And there is

:39:25. > :39:30.some trade of sovereignty actually for effectiveness and relevance in

:39:31. > :39:31.this modern world, and that is one of the reasons why we should be

:39:32. > :39:51.supporting this agreement. But if not, I might sit down early.

:39:52. > :40:00.I also need to declare an interest, I am the secretary on the agreement,

:40:01. > :40:07.so I am also supportive. It is important to say that this is

:40:08. > :40:10.another example of where there are elements within British society that

:40:11. > :40:15.are trying to close down debate. In August, my daughter who is 14, left

:40:16. > :40:19.our house in order to do her paper round. She came back and said there

:40:20. > :40:25.were six been people outside picketing my home because of my job

:40:26. > :40:30.and they were basically accusing me of wanting to kill people because of

:40:31. > :40:34.selling off the NHS. If we're going to have a debate, we should make it

:40:35. > :40:40.an honest debate and avoid intimidation as part of that debate.

:40:41. > :40:44.I think we have an issue -- a duty to debate this issue openly and

:40:45. > :40:47.transparently. Intimidation has no part in it. This is the fourth time

:40:48. > :40:51.we have had this debate in the chamber. The honourable member for

:40:52. > :40:59.Swansea West has secured two debates. Is there not a danger that

:41:00. > :41:03.this debate is in some ways premature? The proposed agreement

:41:04. > :41:09.has not yet been reached and before it can ever be ratified, the text

:41:10. > :41:14.would have to be distributed and also in this house where proper

:41:15. > :41:19.scrutiny can be applied? He makes a very important point but I don't

:41:20. > :41:24.think the issue is the agreement, the issue is the anti-free-trade

:41:25. > :41:29.agenda. It is not because there is an issue with the trade deal but it

:41:30. > :41:38.is an attack on free trade, I would argue. I will take an intervention

:41:39. > :41:42.in a minute. Whilst the final texts have not been released, in terms of

:41:43. > :41:48.the so-called secrecy, all the texts are available online! If anyone

:41:49. > :41:53.actually has the ability to Google, they would be able to find the texts

:41:54. > :42:01.and the negotiations. This is probably the most open negotiation

:42:02. > :42:06.we have had as part of the European Union. I do wonder if people know

:42:07. > :42:10.that they can Google these issues. It's also important to point out

:42:11. > :42:15.that the all-party group on this issue have held a number of open

:42:16. > :42:21.meetings in this house, attended by 150 people. Those were looking at

:42:22. > :42:26.the effect of this Treaty on the automotive sector and on public

:42:27. > :42:30.services and on textiles and on food and drink producers. The argue that

:42:31. > :42:37.there is a lack of discussion in this house I think is to make a

:42:38. > :42:40.false argument and indeed it is to play into the hands of the

:42:41. > :42:47.protesters who are against free-trade. Grateful for giving way

:42:48. > :42:50.and for this debate which I'm finding quite interesting. I agree

:42:51. > :43:00.with the broad sentiments of the group. Shouldn't the decision be

:43:01. > :43:05.outside the remit of a trade organisation and outside the remit

:43:06. > :43:08.for this house? As someone who represents a Welsh constituency with

:43:09. > :43:13.a significant number of land reducers, I want to see it being

:43:14. > :43:18.offered for sale in North America but currently that is not the case.

:43:19. > :43:20.If that is the way to get the product into the North American

:43:21. > :43:27.market through trade agreements, I'm willing to see what the detail is.

:43:28. > :43:33.The remit for the negotiations has been agreed by 28 member states of

:43:34. > :43:40.the European Union and there have been two in the European

:43:41. > :43:43.Parliament... The European trade negotiators have been to this house

:43:44. > :43:49.tries to explain what their remit is. The opportunity to engage is

:43:50. > :43:52.there. So yes, if there is for example concerned about some of the

:43:53. > :43:57.concessions possibly made on a quid pro quo basis then those issues can

:43:58. > :44:01.be identified at a latter stage. I think it's also important that we

:44:02. > :44:04.address head-on the issue of the so-called threat to the National

:44:05. > :44:08.Health Service. It is a so-called threat, I have to say. I hope that

:44:09. > :44:15.every single member who speaks in this debate has actually written a

:44:16. > :44:19.letter to the health Select Committee, a detailed 3-page letter

:44:20. > :44:24.from the European trade negotiator which makes very clear that there is

:44:25. > :44:28.no possibility of an impact on our health service or public services

:44:29. > :44:32.for that matter as a result of the agreement. It says quite

:44:33. > :44:36.categorically all publicly funded public health services are

:44:37. > :44:44.protracted in new trade agreements and this approach will not change.

:44:45. > :44:48.That brings us back to the points made by my honourable friend, that

:44:49. > :44:51.there is a concern that this debate seems to be that this is an

:44:52. > :44:57.agreement with the United States of America. I stayed very clearly as

:44:58. > :45:00.the secretary I have had literally thousands of e-mails from all parts

:45:01. > :45:05.of the United Kingdom accusing me of all sorts of skulduggery in relation

:45:06. > :45:08.to this proposed trade deal. I actually was quite impressed by the

:45:09. > :45:12.fact that the people e-mailing me nearly think I've had far more power

:45:13. > :45:17.than I've ever had as a backbench MP! I will not take an intervention.

:45:18. > :45:21.There is an important point to be made. Not a single e-mail was ever

:45:22. > :45:29.sent to me about the deal with Canada, described as a Trojan horse

:45:30. > :45:34.for TTIP. No, I will not take an intervention. It is therefore very

:45:35. > :45:40.difficult not to conclude that this is not about trade this is not about

:45:41. > :45:45.the health service, this is about a latent anti-western anti-US a gender

:45:46. > :45:49.which I find frankly disreputable and I will not take an intervention

:45:50. > :45:54.on that issue. The point needs to be made and has been made. We clearly

:45:55. > :45:59.have a dishonest debate in relation to this issue. We have claims being

:46:00. > :46:03.made which are not substantiated. We have accusations of secrecy which do

:46:04. > :46:11.not stand up to scrutiny. But I think it's very clear as well that

:46:12. > :46:15.we have an issue to be raised about ISDS which has been demolished. In

:46:16. > :46:20.relation to these agreements there is no explanation offered to the

:46:21. > :46:23.member of Swansea West as to why we have had four of these agreements

:46:24. > :46:27.and not one of them has been subjected to any complaint. It is

:46:28. > :46:33.only because TTIP has a deal with the US that we seem to have these

:46:34. > :46:37.concerns. I have dealt with some of the concerns expected of the member

:46:38. > :46:40.opposite. I think we should also consider the opportunities that come

:46:41. > :46:45.from TTIP. My right honourable friend was absolutely right in

:46:46. > :46:50.stating that the tariff barriers are comparatively low. It's very clear

:46:51. > :46:53.when you talk to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, the European

:46:54. > :46:56.Union and the US, quite often the regulations which are imposed are

:46:57. > :47:00.those which are not specifically there for the safety of the public

:47:01. > :47:04.in the US or the European Union, they are there as a means to offer a

:47:05. > :47:07.protectionist stance in relation to some industries. For example it

:47:08. > :47:13.makes very little sense that our booming car industry, our hugely

:47:14. > :47:16.successful exporting car industry has to undertake a crash test which

:47:17. > :47:21.is completely different in the US do what it is in the EU. The reason why

:47:22. > :47:26.that crash test is different is because the regulations are

:47:27. > :47:31.different. The effect of that ads on ?600 to the cost of a mini Cooper

:47:32. > :47:35.because the dashboard has to be changed to comply with US test

:47:36. > :47:38.regulations. Nobody believes that the situation is any different in

:47:39. > :47:42.the US to the European Union when you have a crash, but the test is

:47:43. > :47:50.different which would create a huge cost to the car industry. There is

:47:51. > :47:54.the potential for... If some of those regulatory burdens were to be

:47:55. > :47:58.moved. When we talk about the need for a manufacturing led recovery,

:47:59. > :48:01.it's difficult to believe the concerns of the party opposite when

:48:02. > :48:05.they talk of that need or the fact that we're not taking manufacturing

:48:06. > :48:10.seriously when the opportunity to get rid of some of those regulatory

:48:11. > :48:15.burdens which are counter-productive and the poster competition is very

:48:16. > :48:20.difficult to stand opposed to the manufacturing sector when they are

:48:21. > :48:22.not willing to work with that manufacturing sector to reduce some

:48:23. > :48:28.of those burdens. The regulatory burdens are also unfair on small and

:48:29. > :48:32.medium-sized enterprises. Larger companies have the capacity to deal

:48:33. > :48:35.with the regulatory burdens in the US and then subsequently to deal

:48:36. > :48:40.with the regulatory burdens in the European Union. The small businesses

:48:41. > :48:42.in my constituency who have world-class products to offer our

:48:43. > :48:47.not in a position to sell them to the US because the regulatory

:48:48. > :48:52.burdens mean they have a bad year to their potential to trade. Small

:48:53. > :48:54.businesses sending packages on the Internet find themselves in

:48:55. > :49:00.difficulty dealing with the US because they don't know whether the

:49:01. > :49:06.rules and regulations applying for staff in the postal system would be

:49:07. > :49:11.the same as it is in Europe. Larger businesses, the Amazons of this

:49:12. > :49:15.world can cope quite easily. Small and medium-size enterprises are

:49:16. > :49:18.unable to do so. To talk about this agreement being for large

:49:19. > :49:22.multinationals is to miss the point. The point of this agreement is to

:49:23. > :49:26.reduce the regulatory burden which large companies are quite happy to

:49:27. > :49:30.impose because it gives the opportunity for small businesses to

:49:31. > :49:35.compete against them. I've only got a minute. The fact that I have a

:49:36. > :49:39.drinks producer in my constituency who is unable to have the production

:49:40. > :49:46.line to get the right bottle size is a classic example of the way the

:49:47. > :49:49.regulations work against small businesses and to the advantage of

:49:50. > :49:55.larger businesses. When it comes to being a member of Parliament for

:49:56. > :50:00.Wales, can I say categorically the fact that the United States consumer

:50:01. > :50:06.is being delighted much -- denied my Welsh lamb from my constituency is a

:50:07. > :50:09.shame. Yes we need to scrutinise and make sure that this house has its

:50:10. > :50:12.say in the agreement but we should try and grab the opportunity to make

:50:13. > :50:14.sure that we have growth in all parts of the United Kingdom not

:50:15. > :50:27.least here in Wales. Irrespective of his views on TTIP,

:50:28. > :50:31.families and individual members should have the right to security in

:50:32. > :50:33.their own home. If he is being lobbied in his own home by

:50:34. > :50:40.protesters, I would deplore that entirely. I am in favour of free

:50:41. > :50:44.trade, Mr Deputy Speaker. Free trade should be a good thing, it should

:50:45. > :50:49.create wealth and provide innovation in the way that we approached jobs

:50:50. > :50:57.and markets and it would promote existing services and products in

:50:58. > :51:01.new markets. I do not believe that the proposed TTIP deal is about free

:51:02. > :51:06.trade. It's about increasing the dominance of several large

:51:07. > :51:09.globalised corporations, who have no loyalty to any one particular

:51:10. > :51:14.country but loyalty to their quarterly figures on Wall Street or

:51:15. > :51:18.the City of London. We talked about public services and I do believe

:51:19. > :51:24.that public services will still be under threat under TTIP, unless we

:51:25. > :51:28.get a categorical response taken. We can't have such a categorical

:51:29. > :51:34.response because it has all been done in secret. We have talked

:51:35. > :51:38.about... The Right Honourable member put some interesting figures in his

:51:39. > :51:43.speech but I think there is a fundamental principle about ISDS

:51:44. > :51:48.that undermines its entire existence. We preach, and rightly

:51:49. > :51:53.so, the rule of law and democracy to developing countries but it would

:51:54. > :51:57.seem that that rule of law and that democracy does not apply to large

:51:58. > :52:02.globalised corporations. I say to party members opposite however much

:52:03. > :52:06.I disagree with them, however much I deplore some of the policies they

:52:07. > :52:09.are bringing in, the bottom line is that their party won the general

:52:10. > :52:12.election and I respect the democratic right of that party to

:52:13. > :52:18.take their programme through Parliament. But apparently that

:52:19. > :52:21.democratic right does not apply to large globalised corporations. I

:52:22. > :52:26.simply ask this question of the house. If by some fluke on Friday

:52:27. > :52:37.night I win the Euro lottery and buy myself a Ferrari or a Lamborghini...

:52:38. > :52:42.What about British, by British! Indeed, buy myself a nice top of the

:52:43. > :52:46.range range Rover. And then the Government reduces the speed limit

:52:47. > :52:51.on the roads to 50, am I allowed to sue the Government because they have

:52:52. > :52:56.taken away my possibility of enjoying that car? It's exactly the

:52:57. > :53:01.same thing. It is. If the Government chooses to change the law, that is

:53:02. > :53:07.the right of the Government to do so. There should be no caveats for

:53:08. > :53:17.large corporations to get around that. I'm glad that he's addressing

:53:18. > :53:24.the issue of ISDS. It was introduced, we were told, to give

:53:25. > :53:26.security to investors against weakling systems in developing

:53:27. > :53:31.countries. Whether that's true or not, I don't think this bike what

:53:32. > :53:35.the Government has done that we have a weak legal system. And large

:53:36. > :53:40.multinationals to be put above that is disgraceful.

:53:41. > :53:45.My honourable friend makes a good point, but I wish to talk about an

:53:46. > :53:50.example of ISDS that operates under another regime that could easily be

:53:51. > :53:53.transcribed into TTIP, to talk about the perils that ISDS brings along,

:53:54. > :54:13.and that is the case of Veolia who are suing the

:54:14. > :54:17.Egyptian government. We know that Egypt is in a vulnerable position

:54:18. > :54:23.politically, it is an uncertain position politically, and we should

:54:24. > :54:27.be providing to Egypt the support to help develop democratic structures.

:54:28. > :54:30.So when the Egyptian government brings in a minimum wage, which will

:54:31. > :54:35.probably benefit most ordinary Egyptians, we should be supporting

:54:36. > :54:42.that, but apparently, I am told, Veolia has sued the Egyptian

:54:43. > :54:45.government for that. Would my right honourable friend just let me

:54:46. > :54:52.develop this point a moment? I ask how catastrophically stupid and

:54:53. > :54:59.short-sighted that is to sue the Egyptian government, reduce the

:55:00. > :55:03.standards of living of ordinary Egyptian workers when we are trying

:55:04. > :55:07.to persuade them that Isil and the Muslim Brotherhood are not the way

:55:08. > :55:09.forward, and there we have an example of a Western corporation

:55:10. > :55:12.undermine the well-being of ordinary Egyptians. ISDS enshrines the rights

:55:13. > :55:18.and the priorities of globalised and the priorities of globalised

:55:19. > :55:19.corporations over and above ordinary people, and it could have

:55:20. > :55:26.catastrophic results. I give way. catastrophic results. I give way.

:55:27. > :55:31.As I indicated with the Philip Morris case, logging a case and

:55:32. > :55:37.winning a case are not one and the same thing. Has anything happened to

:55:38. > :55:41.this case? I thank my honourable friend for that point. I believe it

:55:42. > :55:45.is still going through the process, but it is the principle under which

:55:46. > :55:47.the case is based that I am concerned about, the principle that

:55:48. > :55:55.somehow these corporations have their own private mechanism in order

:55:56. > :55:58.to resolve disputes rather than going through the accepted legal

:55:59. > :56:05.procedures of that country. I give way.

:56:06. > :56:08.Is essentially ISDS not a private court staff by private judges with

:56:09. > :56:16.private lawyers based on private law the private profits? What a shame

:56:17. > :56:18.that I am not as articulated as my honourable friend from Cardiff,

:56:19. > :56:25.because she hits the nail on the head. It is a mechanism that

:56:26. > :56:29.undermines the rule of law by giving a separate system to large

:56:30. > :56:33.globalised corporations and taking them outside any sense of

:56:34. > :56:36.responsibility to elected Parliaments such as this one, all

:56:37. > :56:44.countries where we are hoping to foster and develop democracy such as

:56:45. > :56:54.the Egyptian example that I support. Go on, then. We are in the business

:56:55. > :57:01.of facts here. Far from ISDS being a private corporation, can we accept

:57:02. > :57:04.it is a government mechanism agreed by governments largely for the

:57:05. > :57:10.benefit of governments? Identically, benefit of governments? Identically,

:57:11. > :57:12.I think it is largely for the benefit of arrive at organisations,

:57:13. > :57:18.but he and I will have to agree to differ. I want a system that works

:57:19. > :57:33.for the people, not one where the system works -- the people work for

:57:34. > :57:39.the system. We want -- they want to enshrine personal and family in

:57:40. > :57:46.security, move jobs out into and secure areas, and make tax dodging

:57:47. > :57:55.an artform. Does he share with me the concerns that the LCI oh have

:57:56. > :58:00.said that it has had a negative impact, that trade agreement, on

:58:01. > :58:03.their economy? My honourable friend from York and I have known each

:58:04. > :58:07.other good few years and and I were both involved in the creation of one

:58:08. > :58:11.of the world's first global trade unions with American trade unions,

:58:12. > :58:15.and I have to say, and I believe one of the honourable members previously

:58:16. > :58:19.talked about the United States. I am certainly not anti-United States,

:58:20. > :58:25.but my contacts are opposed to this because they see their jobs

:58:26. > :58:29.uncertain conditions... The Minister says it is not true. I would ask her

:58:30. > :58:36.when she last spoke to any American trade unions, because I speak to

:58:37. > :58:48.them regularly. I will move on if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe

:58:49. > :58:52.that the interests of the party opposite are enshrined with

:58:53. > :58:56.corporations and the City of London, and TTIP, and I do believe it is

:58:57. > :59:00.possible that we could and should design a trade deal along the lines

:59:01. > :59:06.of TTIP that could benefit ordinary people, but TTIP is not it. I want

:59:07. > :59:10.in this very short time the time available to hit upon a point that

:59:11. > :59:14.my right on all friend the Member for Warley talked about which is

:59:15. > :59:18.about the European Union. One thought that has occurred to me, and

:59:19. > :59:23.perhaps I am wrong. Surely not! LAUGHTER

:59:24. > :59:27.TTIP could well be a Trojan Horse for those who would have us leave

:59:28. > :59:33.the European Union, because the European Union, for all its faults,

:59:34. > :59:39.does provide social and economic and environmental constraints on

:59:40. > :59:42.corporations. TTIP would provide the free trade deal that so many of

:59:43. > :59:45.those who would have us leave the European Union are looking for

:59:46. > :59:53.without the social and environmental benefits. I will sit down now. I do

:59:54. > :59:57.worry that we have a ready-made deal that we could simply leave the

:59:58. > :00:01.European Union, withdraw from those social and environmental and

:00:02. > :00:06.employment protections, and then sign up to something where there are

:00:07. > :00:09.no protections. That is my fear, and I should be watching the debate on

:00:10. > :00:17.the European Union carefully, and with not a little suspicion. Thank

:00:18. > :00:21.you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And

:00:22. > :00:28.thank you for the Member for Swansea are helping us achieve this debate

:00:29. > :00:32.today. I have a lot of sympathy with the motion. I do think that we need

:00:33. > :00:35.accountability on one of the biggest if not the biggest trade deals in

:00:36. > :00:40.history, and that accountability should be provided by this House. By

:00:41. > :00:45.also think that there are few significant issues in politics today

:00:46. > :00:49.that have been so poorly debated in the public realm than this one.

:00:50. > :00:53.Either through a lack of knowledge, and perhaps we are all responsible

:00:54. > :00:58.for that. Let me begin first and then I will come to you. Either

:00:59. > :01:02.through a lack of knowledge, and we as parliamentarians must play our

:01:03. > :01:07.part in trying to inform and educate the public as well as listening to

:01:08. > :01:10.them, to ensure that every person in this country understands the true

:01:11. > :01:16.nature of this deal. But there has also frankly been a huge amount of

:01:17. > :01:21.misinformation and distortion by groups leading to a general sense of

:01:22. > :01:26.concern, and I, like other members of Parliament, have had hundreds of

:01:27. > :01:32.letters about this over the last year or so. There is far less to

:01:33. > :01:35.fear that those groups suggest, but more importantly, it skewers

:01:36. > :01:40.purposefully the huge opportunity that comes out of this deal for all

:01:41. > :01:46.of us. I thank the honourable member

:01:47. > :01:49.forgiving way. There is far less to fear. Peace is one of the big

:01:50. > :01:54.problems is people don't understand, but it has not been explained

:01:55. > :01:57.properly. People feel that there is a Trojan Horse, and whether there is

:01:58. > :02:02.or isn't, we cannot move forward without the consensus of the public.

:02:03. > :02:07.If the people don't understand the contents of TTIP, what can we do?

:02:08. > :02:14.The honourable member makes a good point, which is why I am pleased to

:02:15. > :02:18.see the Minister here responding. In the last debate in 2014, the member

:02:19. > :02:21.from Rushcliffe was responding. I want to see more Government

:02:22. > :02:24.Ministers taking the case out of the public and having a genuine informed

:02:25. > :02:31.debate and trying to sell this in a rational debate rather than being

:02:32. > :02:34.led by pretty poor quality public discourse coming out of the sum of

:02:35. > :02:38.the groups we have seen. Some of the e-mails I have received this week

:02:39. > :02:45.were pretty ill informed to say the least. They are all generated, I

:02:46. > :02:49.suspect, by 38 degrees, and all were the same except they substituted

:02:50. > :02:54.adjectives at some point, some describing it dodgy, dangerous,

:02:55. > :02:58.evil, sinister. You couldn't get more pathetic quality of debate. So

:02:59. > :03:01.to those behind these e-mails, if you believe, if your strength of

:03:02. > :03:06.your convictions, raise the quality of debate and argue rationally

:03:07. > :03:14.rather than on this pretty immature basis. The Government must lead

:03:15. > :03:18.this, and not allow the project which I believe has huge potential

:03:19. > :03:22.to build transatlantic links to bring Britain and Europe closer to

:03:23. > :03:26.America, to create a huge and important new free trade area, and a

:03:27. > :03:30.myriad of opportunities in jobs and growth, which are not just about

:03:31. > :03:33.corporations, we're not talking about larger corporations, as I will

:03:34. > :03:36.come onto and as the Member for other Conway rightly pointed out.

:03:37. > :03:45.This is about businesses large and small. I met businesses last week

:03:46. > :03:47.who will benefit directly which are not large corporations, they are

:03:48. > :03:50.small and medium-sized businesses trying to make a living and create

:03:51. > :03:54.jobs. But what is his answer the concerns

:03:55. > :03:59.raised by his right honourable friend from Hitchin about the

:04:00. > :04:01.dangers TTIP presents a disproportionate corporate power

:04:02. > :04:06.being used to manipulate a bureaucracy which is not a

:04:07. > :04:12.democratically accountable bureaucracy? Some of the points I

:04:13. > :04:16.want to make of already been made by other members, but let me make

:04:17. > :04:19.three. One about health care, and this has been a political football

:04:20. > :04:27.by all sides of the House for far too long. As my friend raised, the

:04:28. > :04:31.health select committee wrote to the negotiators and received an

:04:32. > :04:36.incredibly congruence of reply, which I would recommend to any

:04:37. > :04:42.member. I have sent this to every constituent who has written to me

:04:43. > :04:48.about TTIP. I am not a friend of the European Union, I'm a Eurosceptic,

:04:49. > :04:51.so it during usual -- it is unusual for me to say that this is one of

:04:52. > :04:57.the most straightforward answers I have ever seen from the European

:04:58. > :04:59.Eurocrat. Do send it to your constituents, because it does more

:05:00. > :05:08.to debunk the myths and anything else in this debate. It demolishes

:05:09. > :05:16.all of those myths and scaremongering. It is important to

:05:17. > :05:21.overseas suppliers -- that overseas suppliers are already having a

:05:22. > :05:25.commercial presence in the United Kingdom. The important thing for

:05:26. > :05:27.everyone who engages in the provision of health services and

:05:28. > :05:30.health care through companies in this country is they have to comply

:05:31. > :05:35.with UK standards and regulations in the same way as British health care

:05:36. > :05:38.providers, and those standards will remain under the sovereignty of this

:05:39. > :05:45.country and this Parliament regardless of TTIP. On the issue of

:05:46. > :05:48.ISDS, an area where there is genuine concern, and I appreciate that, I

:05:49. > :05:53.think again it is fairly ill informed. I worked as a lawyer, and

:05:54. > :06:00.the first case I did as a trainee solicitor many years ago was working

:06:01. > :06:06.for a small British investor using a bilateral investment treaty very

:06:07. > :06:17.similar to this in Eastern Europe to invest, and seen a licence revoked

:06:18. > :06:20.illegitimately by that government, and this small investor was able to

:06:21. > :06:25.use this treaty to get their money back and win justice for them. So

:06:26. > :06:29.this is not about large corporations exporting the system. It is about

:06:30. > :06:33.all investors around the world, including our own businesses, being

:06:34. > :06:37.able to hold other governments to account and ensure that they don't

:06:38. > :06:43.make arbitrary and poor decisions which negatively affect British

:06:44. > :06:49.companies. And as we have already heard, the ISDS is not a novelty.

:06:50. > :06:52.These clauses have been put into most trade deals for years and

:06:53. > :06:58.years, and I have heard the familiar examples of odd cases that have been

:06:59. > :07:01.made in actions around the world. These clauses have not had the

:07:02. > :07:07.effect that has been described in the media. As we have heard, there

:07:08. > :07:14.are 3400 of these clauses inserted in trade deals globally. The EU and

:07:15. > :07:20.its members have 1400, the UK has 94. We have twice been challenged,

:07:21. > :07:27.and we have never lost a case under an ISDS. What we have done is we

:07:28. > :07:30.have successfully brought claims against other countries. We have had

:07:31. > :07:35.slightly more success there, because the point of an ISDS is to underline

:07:36. > :07:40.the value of the total agreement and make sure that no individual

:07:41. > :07:43.investor or business can be disadvantaged by another government

:07:44. > :07:47.or union of governments breaking the obligations that they have entered

:07:48. > :07:52.into a negatively affecting our own businesses and investors, large or

:07:53. > :07:56.small. And it has been heard that these treaties are primarily in the

:07:57. > :07:58.past have been used in developing countries such as the case I just

:07:59. > :08:03.mentioned where potentially the legal system is not as good as ours,

:08:04. > :08:06.or the United States, but although the United States does have a very

:08:07. > :08:10.good legal system, it is a very expensive legal system, and one

:08:11. > :08:15.where cases can take a very long time, and so actually, I think that

:08:16. > :08:18.this would be a very useful device for our small and medium-sized

:08:19. > :08:25.companies. Similarly, there are states in the EU where American

:08:26. > :08:28.investors would be very reluctant to go into if they were relying

:08:29. > :08:32.entirely on the fact that they could take it to the legal process in

:08:33. > :08:38.some, say, southern European countries, to challenge the bona

:08:39. > :08:45.fides of local officials complying with local rules. I was going to

:08:46. > :08:49.talk about transparency, but nobody could have put it better than my

:08:50. > :08:56.friend, the Member for Aberconwy. A degree of secrecy is important,

:08:57. > :09:07.because the US are very good negotiators in trade talks, and we

:09:08. > :09:10.want our union of states and governments to be in the best

:09:11. > :09:14.possible position in these talks, and not to simply give everything

:09:15. > :09:18.away, but I think this is one of the more transparent trade deals that we

:09:19. > :09:21.have seen, and certainly one of the most transparent that the EU has

:09:22. > :09:26.done, and the commissioners are trying to be as forthcoming as

:09:27. > :09:29.possible. Mr Speaker, I think this free trade deal as we have heard

:09:30. > :09:37.from some members is a huge opportunity. The United States is

:09:38. > :09:42.not a threat to us, it is our single biggest import destination for the

:09:43. > :09:46.UK, 17% of our exports go there, and there are whole range of sectors,

:09:47. > :09:51.aerospace, the creative industries, the luxury goods industry, the UK is

:09:52. > :09:55.of course a world leader in that, and America is home to some of the

:09:56. > :09:58.most affluent households in the world with disposable incomes of

:09:59. > :10:05.more than 300,000 dollars, more than any other country in the world. Only

:10:06. > :10:08.last Friday I visited a business in my own constituency that is trying

:10:09. > :10:13.to put hearing loops into the Metro in New York. But it is having to

:10:14. > :10:14.spend thousands of pounds to meet the various and complex regulatory

:10:15. > :10:23.burdens involved in it. Would he well, and would he persuade

:10:24. > :10:32.his colleagues in Government for the US to lift the ban on haggis? That's

:10:33. > :10:34.a very good point! I want to see British businesses from all parts of

:10:35. > :10:39.the United Kingdom getting into those markets and building jobs.

:10:40. > :10:43.We've heard that tariff barriers are now quite low, down to around 3%,

:10:44. > :10:46.but it is the nontariff barriers that need to be pushed aside for the

:10:47. > :10:51.benefit of businesses like the ones in my own constituency, and TTIP is

:10:52. > :10:56.that huge opportunity to create the jobs and the growth of the future

:10:57. > :11:00.and it is a massive potential win not just for our constituents and

:11:01. > :11:04.businesses but actually for humanity as an opportunity to bring the West

:11:05. > :11:11.together to protect our economic and our national security. Peter Grant.

:11:12. > :11:17.Mr Speaker, like I think most of the others speakers taking part in this

:11:18. > :11:23.debate, ie instinctively agree with trade. Scotland has got a fantastic

:11:24. > :11:27.story to tell and a world-class quality of so many goods and

:11:28. > :11:30.services, and we want to be able to sell them around the world and I

:11:31. > :11:34.think the world wants to be able to buy them without restrictions. So we

:11:35. > :11:43.should instinctively support free trade. But completely unregulated

:11:44. > :11:47.free trade, we have to ask ourselves who free trade is there to benefit.

:11:48. > :11:58.Is it there to benefit the handful of large corporations? To benefit

:11:59. > :12:01.big governments? Or to benefit the citizens who produce the wealth? I

:12:02. > :12:05.know where my loyalties would lie and at the moment I'm not at all

:12:06. > :12:13.convinced that free trade as envisaged in TTIP is going to do the

:12:14. > :12:18.right thing. What we have been asked today is not whether TTIP is a good

:12:19. > :12:23.or bad idea. We've been asked whether it should be set back or and

:12:24. > :12:27.scrutinised and debated more in this Parliament and I would argue other

:12:28. > :12:31.states of the European Union as well. I find it quite ironic that

:12:32. > :12:37.the party whose leader is now arguing for better protection for

:12:38. > :12:41.the sovereignty of this place in dealings with the European Union

:12:42. > :12:47.also seems to be saying to us that they have asked EU officials to sign

:12:48. > :12:52.away some of the trade deals and we don't even need to bring that back

:12:53. > :12:58.into this chamber for it to be considered and scrutinised. Yes

:12:59. > :13:00.there will be a binding vote eventually in the European

:13:01. > :13:04.Parliament but there should be a well-informed debate and a vote in

:13:05. > :13:09.this Parliament at the very least to give a clear indication to the

:13:10. > :13:13.United Kingdom any clues as to how we would like to see them exercise.

:13:14. > :13:18.I will give way to my honourable friend. Would my honourable friend

:13:19. > :13:21.agree with me that one of the main concerns about the process is the

:13:22. > :13:24.lack of transparency? No one really knows what's happening. My

:13:25. > :13:31.honourable friend makes a very good point. I hear the comments but what

:13:32. > :13:37.I can't understand, and I'm hoping for the Government to respond, that

:13:38. > :13:40.we need explained to us, is that if it has been available on the

:13:41. > :13:44.Internet and widely available for so long, why is it only in the last

:13:45. > :13:50.week that members of Parliament have been given an opportunity to

:13:51. > :13:53.scrutinise it? They are allowed to take handwritten notes but not

:13:54. > :13:59.allowed to take copies of that document out of that room to show to

:14:00. > :14:03.anyone else? Why is the European Union insisting on that level of

:14:04. > :14:07.secrecy? I would like to make progress before we move on. I

:14:08. > :14:17.entirely agree with the calls from across the house calling for an open

:14:18. > :14:26.and honest debate. I agree it is totally awful if any politician is

:14:27. > :14:29.subjected to abuse because people disagree with the point. The same

:14:30. > :14:35.people calling for an open and honest debate has also dismissed

:14:36. > :14:38.everyone who has concerns about TTIP including the honourable member for

:14:39. > :14:42.Clacton, as being part of some left-wing campaign. They seem to

:14:43. > :14:49.think this is a bad thing, at an organisation has made it easy for

:14:50. > :15:00.ordinary citizens to lobby their MP as it has been for citizens to do

:15:01. > :15:05.their lobbying for them. We then became completely anti-American and

:15:06. > :15:16.then became completely anti-Western. The last time I checked, I was a

:15:17. > :15:19.Westerner. The only anti-Western in my household is my wife and only to

:15:20. > :15:26.the extent that I'm not allowed to watch Cowboys and Indians films!

:15:27. > :15:36.Does he agree that on the anti-Western, the American trade

:15:37. > :15:39.unions have safeguards over TTIP? My honourable friend is absolutely

:15:40. > :15:42.right and this is not a case of America wanting to push everything

:15:43. > :15:47.through and Europe wanting to stand in the way. There are very

:15:48. > :15:53.vociferous supporters of TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic and there

:15:54. > :15:56.are also genuinely held concerns not only from left-wing organisations

:15:57. > :16:03.but some business organisations and left-wing politicians and from trade

:16:04. > :16:13.unions and the well-known Bastian of... What we're talking about today

:16:14. > :16:18.is not the merits of TTIP and its associated potential agreements but

:16:19. > :16:22.on what decision should be taken about whether TTIP goes ahead. It

:16:23. > :16:26.would be a bit ironic if members who took the time to come here and take

:16:27. > :16:31.part in a debate about whether we should have a debate on TTIP then

:16:32. > :16:35.voted not to have a debate about TTIP. I would assume there would not

:16:36. > :16:43.be any need for a division on this. One of the concerns that has been

:16:44. > :16:46.raised about ISDS, it has now been replaced by something called the

:16:47. > :16:53.International Court of something or other... My question is, why is it

:16:54. > :16:57.needed? Ordinary citizens who are aggrieved at the actions of the

:16:58. > :17:04.Government of their country can try to rectify it through the democratic

:17:05. > :17:08.process and make it that bit easier for those who can't afford to lobby

:17:09. > :17:11.consultants. If they feel aggrieved that the Government has acted

:17:12. > :17:14.against the law, ordinary citizens have records to the legal system

:17:15. > :17:19.within the country of the Government that they think has acted against

:17:20. > :17:26.them. The legal system is a perfect parliamentary democracy system. Why

:17:27. > :17:29.does a big multinational company need to have a further line of a

:17:30. > :17:37.course that is not available to ordinary citizens. Why is it my

:17:38. > :17:42.citizen hiding in Zimbabwe through fear of their lives does not have

:17:43. > :17:47.records... And international companies are happy that their

:17:48. > :17:54.profits from selling tobacco in some companies... They have records but

:17:55. > :17:58.ordinary citizens don't have it. We have a mature legal system and the

:17:59. > :18:08.court system is designed to give everyone a fair hearing. His the

:18:09. > :18:11.nations are part of the European Union... I find the comments of the

:18:12. > :18:16.honourable member fairly imperialistic. The obligation is

:18:17. > :18:21.that we do not need to make a deal with the I did states because we

:18:22. > :18:26.have mature legal systems. I find it a very odd comment. The point I'm

:18:27. > :18:31.making is that there are some countries who might -- we might want

:18:32. > :18:37.international agreements with but I'm concerned about their legal

:18:38. > :18:41.system. Countries of southern Europe... The last time I checked,

:18:42. > :18:47.they were part of the European Union. If they are acting in breach

:18:48. > :18:52.of a treaty signed up to by the European Union, I would think there

:18:53. > :18:55.is recourse, and if not, I would think that is something that needs

:18:56. > :18:58.to be looked at. I don't see why it is necessary to have a separate

:18:59. > :19:05.system of records for companies who want to sue democratic governments

:19:06. > :19:12.that is not available to individuals. My friend is magnetism

:19:13. > :19:14.point. The UK is already in bilateral investment treaties with a

:19:15. > :19:22.range of other countries around the world including some where we have

:19:23. > :19:27.ISDSs, which are mature democracies, including South Korea. Is he

:19:28. > :19:34.suggesting we withdraw from all of those bilateral investment

:19:35. > :19:40.agreements throughout the world? Not at all. I suppose the question might

:19:41. > :19:43.be, if ISDS is so successful, why has it been scrapped and replaced

:19:44. > :19:47.with something else? One final observation I want to make of that

:19:48. > :19:51.although the Government claim clearly regarding completion and

:19:52. > :19:58.application of TTIP as being a major, major selling point in

:19:59. > :20:02.staying within the European Union, there is a sizeable body of public

:20:03. > :20:06.opinion in the United Kingdom that takes the opposite view was that I

:20:07. > :20:11.do an how sizeable it is but it is there. There are part of the United

:20:12. > :20:15.Kingdom including areas of Scotland, people write just now want to be

:20:16. > :20:19.part of the European Union who will change that allegiance if TTIP goes

:20:20. > :20:22.ahead. That may be music to the years of some people in here but I

:20:23. > :20:25.think the Government may be making a massive tactical mistake if they

:20:26. > :20:30.believe that support for TTIP will persuade more citizens to vote to

:20:31. > :20:33.remain in the European Union. I think there is a serious danger that

:20:34. > :20:38.it will actually have the opposite impact and the tragic irony of it is

:20:39. > :20:41.that if TTIP is already done and dusted before the European

:20:42. > :20:47.referendum, people will vote to leave the European Union and

:20:48. > :20:50.Scotland will be stuck with TTIP for 20 years, because once you're signed

:20:51. > :20:54.up even leaving the European Union does not allow you to get out.

:20:55. > :20:59.Regardless of whether they have decided in their own minds about the

:21:00. > :21:04.merits of ISDS, regardless of whether they think it's a good idea

:21:05. > :21:08.or a bad idea, surely once we know the full details of what TTIP and

:21:09. > :21:11.its associated agreements are going to mean, surely there has got to be

:21:12. > :21:15.a proper and full debate in this lace and I would suggest in the

:21:16. > :21:20.member state parliaments of the rest of the European Union at least until

:21:21. > :21:27.it gives the European Parliament a clear steer as how they should

:21:28. > :21:34.exercise their point. We love to stand up! Andrew Percy. I have

:21:35. > :21:38.forgotten how to do it! I did turn up at this debate not actually

:21:39. > :21:41.intending to speak but I have now been drawn into the debate from

:21:42. > :21:48.listening to some of the arguments. Let's start with some of the things

:21:49. > :21:52.we agree on. It's reassuring to hear... That may be a factor as

:21:53. > :21:56.well! It's reassuring to start with the things we agree on. It's

:21:57. > :22:00.reassuring to hear people talk in favour of free trade and support of

:22:01. > :22:05.trade and I want to see Welsh lamb, it's not as good as lamb from

:22:06. > :22:09.Yorkshire and Lincolnshire! Sold in the United States. I also want to

:22:10. > :22:13.see Haggis exported, that Great North Road England foodstuff that we

:22:14. > :22:19.exported to Scotland in about the 15th century. I want to see that

:22:20. > :22:24.sold in the US in the right form, not with the bits that are missing

:22:25. > :22:29.that you have to have in the US at the moment. We can all agree on

:22:30. > :22:33.those things. I give way. Thank you to the honourable gentleman for

:22:34. > :22:37.giving way. On that point of Scottish produce and other produce

:22:38. > :22:40.being taken forward, does the honourable member agree that the

:22:41. > :22:43.Scottish Government should be involved in ratification of any

:22:44. > :22:46.detail of TTIP before it is in limited? I think I was questioning

:22:47. > :22:59.the Scottish nurse of Haggis! -- questioning the Scottishness

:23:00. > :23:03.Haggis. As it will be determined in the national parliaments of the 27

:23:04. > :23:10.other nation states. The turnout of the SNP today, as we see present in

:23:11. > :23:15.a lot of debates, it could not be said that the voice of Scotland...

:23:16. > :23:21.I'm still speaking! I'm responding to this point! Certainly the voice

:23:22. > :23:27.of Scotland is going to be heard strong and loud as it is in so many

:23:28. > :23:33.issues. I just want to talk about... No, I'm not going to now, I've

:23:34. > :23:41.changed my mind! I just want to talk about CETA for a moment, and what

:23:42. > :23:45.the honourable gentleman said about it being a Trojan horse is this

:23:46. > :23:51.respectful to the Canadian Government. I'm not going to give

:23:52. > :23:55.way to him. Perhaps he wants to intervene to say it is not an insult

:23:56. > :24:01.but it is an insult to call it a Trojan horse. CETA in Canada has the

:24:02. > :24:06.support of the new Government just as it did the last Government. On

:24:07. > :24:08.the issue of transparency, there has been a lot raised about

:24:09. > :24:12.transparency. I think that's been well and truly demolished by my

:24:13. > :24:19.honourable friend for Aberconwy, who rightly pointed out that the text of

:24:20. > :24:23.what is being debated is available and at the end of this process there

:24:24. > :24:25.will be the mechanism for approval in all 28 national parliaments.

:24:26. > :24:30.There are few things that will affect us that are subjected to such

:24:31. > :24:32.scrutiny. I'm not sure I can subscribe to the honourable member

:24:33. > :24:37.for Chester's argument which seems to be that the process of agreeing

:24:38. > :24:43.TTIP could in fact be some sort of conspiracy to get us, for those who

:24:44. > :24:45.want to leave the European Union. I didn't follow that one quite so

:24:46. > :24:55.much, it didn't make much sense. Does my honourable friend agreed

:24:56. > :24:59.given the interest from so many of our constituents in what could go

:25:00. > :25:05.wrong in TTIP, it is vital that the UK has influence over this and the

:25:06. > :25:12.right to say yes and no? I could not disagree more, which is why the

:25:13. > :25:14.matter will come before... I could not agree more with my right

:25:15. > :25:18.honourable friend! LAUGHTER

:25:19. > :25:24.It will of course come before this House. There is an element of

:25:25. > :25:28.anti-American is to this, I'm sure not by anybody who will speak today,

:25:29. > :25:35.but it was brought home to me in an e-mail, and I don't get many 38

:25:36. > :25:40.degrees, I think people are too busy getting on with life to forward

:25:41. > :25:52.Jimmy e-mails written by somebody else telling them what their view

:25:53. > :25:57.is. But when I eventually got to the end of this trail of e-mails, it

:25:58. > :26:02.ended with my constituents, who assured me was an anti-American

:26:03. > :26:06.saying, yes, but the other agreements haven't had American

:26:07. > :26:10.lawyers involved, so there is a degree of anti-American is, and we

:26:11. > :26:14.shouldn't pretend otherwise. I'm not going to give way, because I won't

:26:15. > :26:20.get any extra time. I have a lot to say! I could not disagree with my

:26:21. > :26:27.vulnerable friend at all who made fine speech despite his horse voice

:26:28. > :26:34.-- my honourable friend. The area is a mix of industry and also a lot of

:26:35. > :26:40.smaller and medium-sized enterprises, and again, a

:26:41. > :26:43.constituent contacted me with 38 degrees, and I went somewhat

:26:44. > :26:50.robustly back to him on this as I have done since I came here in 2010,

:26:51. > :26:53.and on his position on TTIP, explaining this is of benefit to

:26:54. > :26:58.small businesses, and his response was that he has run a small business

:26:59. > :27:01.and he has tried to do trade in America, and it is very hard, which

:27:02. > :27:06.is exactly the point of the people who will most benefit from this. I

:27:07. > :27:09.represented exporting sector in this country were a lot of small and

:27:10. > :27:12.medium-sized misses have great products to offer, and unless they

:27:13. > :27:17.are big corporation which can afford all of the skills and people

:27:18. > :27:24.necessary to navigate these regulatory difficulties, these

:27:25. > :27:28.smaller businesses simply do not have that, and they will benefit. I

:27:29. > :27:33.wanted to say something with regard to the impact on the NHS, because I

:27:34. > :27:40.do think that this is an area which I have found interesting in the

:27:41. > :27:45.scaremongering that has been around this. My colleague from Newark on

:27:46. > :28:02.the committee with us, we put series of questions to John Luke

:28:03. > :28:16.-- the director for trade, and it is worth putting forward the answers.

:28:17. > :28:20.The answer of course is very clear, this is the effect of the EU's

:28:21. > :28:27.approach to public services in all trade negotiations since the General

:28:28. > :28:30.agreement in 1995. It goes on to say, it is also worth explaining

:28:31. > :28:35.that even without the above reservations and exceptions, the EU

:28:36. > :28:40.trade agreements and governments at all levels are free to regulate all

:28:41. > :28:43.services, sectors in a non-discriminatory manner. Therefore

:28:44. > :28:46.in effect, all publicly funded health services are detected in EU

:28:47. > :28:52.trade agreements, and this will not change the TTIP. We asked him

:28:53. > :28:56.another question. What would be the consequence for the provision of NHS

:28:57. > :28:58.services including hospital primary-care community services if

:28:59. > :29:05.they were not specifically excluded from TTIP? The response is clear

:29:06. > :29:08.again, all publicly funded health services including NHS services will

:29:09. > :29:12.be protected in TTIP. We asked again, does the definition of public

:29:13. > :29:16.funded health services include arrive at companies which runs

:29:17. > :29:20.services paid for by public funds? Doesn't include third sector

:29:21. > :29:23.organisations? Yes, as long as the services are publicly funded, it

:29:24. > :29:29.doesn't matter how they are delivered, they will enjoy the same

:29:30. > :29:35.protections. And finally, we get a lot of nonsense from the EU, and

:29:36. > :29:38.this couldn't be simpler answer. Is there any opportunity after the

:29:39. > :29:41.exclusion of any public services from TTIP for other companies to

:29:42. > :29:49.challenge that exclusion, and what is the process? The very simple

:29:50. > :30:02.answer we got was, no. With a big fat fall stop after it. As above, in

:30:03. > :30:05.the commission's view, there is no need to take any further action to

:30:06. > :30:10.ensure this result, as public services are always protected in EU

:30:11. > :30:15.trade agreements, and we received similar things with regard to

:30:16. > :30:18.charitable providers when the national government takes a service

:30:19. > :30:24.back in. So this nonsense which has been perpetuated about the risks of

:30:25. > :30:32.TTIP to the NHS is fairly shameful, it is about trying to present an

:30:33. > :30:35.image to people in this country that big, bad, nasty American health

:30:36. > :30:40.providers will come in and sweep up the NHS for private profit. Nothing

:30:41. > :30:43.could be further from the truth, as has been made clear by US

:30:44. > :30:50.negotiators, and he was really clear in this insult. He said TTIP is not

:30:51. > :30:53.a way of the US trying to get access to the publicly funded health system

:30:54. > :30:59.in the United Kingdom. He specifically use the United Kingdom.

:31:00. > :31:04.The EU trade negotiator was very clear, we don't need extra

:31:05. > :31:12.protection because it is wholly excluded already. It is protected

:31:13. > :31:15.and outside. So when people run around campaigning against TTIP and

:31:16. > :31:20.raising legitimate concerns, which there have been, about the process,

:31:21. > :31:24.and even questions around ISDS, the one thing they must not do is

:31:25. > :31:28.frighten people that what this is about is somehow American businesses

:31:29. > :31:32.coming in and destroying the NHS. The response from the EU, and I

:31:33. > :31:37.never quote them, I don't like them, I will be campaigning to leave, but

:31:38. > :31:42.they are absolutely clear on this, the NHS is safe whether there is

:31:43. > :31:47.TTIP or not, and the only people who could really cause any damage to our

:31:48. > :31:51.NHS and challenge this on the terms some of the people opposing it say

:31:52. > :31:54.is national governments. They are the people who are in a position to

:31:55. > :31:58.do the damage to the NHS that they claim TTIP is doing. And I would

:31:59. > :32:00.argue that in England that is not the case, because we have an

:32:01. > :32:08.excellent Government doing good things for the NHS. In other parts

:32:09. > :32:13.of the the UK, that matter maybe be up to debate.

:32:14. > :32:19.The Speaker: Before I bring in the next Speaker, I am going to reduce

:32:20. > :32:29.the limit to seven minutes. I would like to begin by

:32:30. > :32:32.congratulating the honourable member and thank him for bringing this

:32:33. > :32:36.important debate to the committee, both about the risks of TTIP and

:32:37. > :32:42.about the need for us to think more deeply about the institutional

:32:43. > :32:46.architecture as we move forward. So, the trade and environment and labour

:32:47. > :32:52.standards or all put on an equal footing. I also want to say what an

:32:53. > :32:57.excellent speech I thought my honourable friend the Member for

:32:58. > :33:00.Chester made drawing out the problem that similar arrangements have

:33:01. > :33:04.caused in developing countries, and I think the point that he made

:33:05. > :33:13.demonstrated that those of us who are raising questions are really the

:33:14. > :33:22.ones who are fully in the tradition of the human rights and democratic

:33:23. > :33:26.values of Europe and America. The Department for Business, Innovation

:33:27. > :33:34.and Skills have done an analysis of the benefit from TTIP, and their

:33:35. > :33:38.estimate is that the gain in terms of higher GDP in this country would

:33:39. > :33:42.be ?7 billion. When one hears the be ?7 billion. When one hears the

:33:43. > :33:57.figure 7000000000 pounds ee, that sounds like quite a lot,

:33:58. > :34:10.-- ?7 billion a year. Statistics are bandied about, and she is quite

:34:11. > :34:14.right about 7 billion, even if it was true, how does that compare with

:34:15. > :34:19.the ?62 billion trade deficit with the European Union? Those other of

:34:20. > :34:24.figures that just make 7 billion look very small indeed.

:34:25. > :34:27.The point I was going to make was that the Office of Budget

:34:28. > :34:33.Responsibility in their forecast of GDP out to 2020 have got an

:34:34. > :34:40.uncertainty of 6% in GDP, that is ?160 billion, so ?7 billion, we

:34:41. > :34:46.really do lose the economic benefits in the rounding. I am not saying

:34:47. > :34:49.that there will not be economic benefits, I'm just saying, let's

:34:50. > :34:52.look at how significant they are and we then against the disadvantages

:34:53. > :34:59.which other honourable members have raised. Will this have a significant

:35:00. > :35:03.benefit for the level of our exports? By comparison, the impact

:35:04. > :35:10.of the level of growth in the markets to which we export is

:35:11. > :35:13.expected to be 338 billion over the next five years, and if we have

:35:14. > :35:18.variations in the exchange rate, these will be far greater than the

:35:19. > :35:27.possible benefits that we can get from this trade deal.

:35:28. > :35:30.Anyway, I am resting my case on the analysis from the Minister's

:35:31. > :35:35.department, and on the assumption that they have got this right, each

:35:36. > :35:42.person in this country would benefit to the tune of ?110 a year. And that

:35:43. > :35:46.would be about ?2 a week. It is very nice to have, I'm sure we would

:35:47. > :35:55.always rather have ?2 a week and not have it. But if the price that has

:35:56. > :35:58.to be paid is a loss in terms of working conditions, labour

:35:59. > :36:02.standards, potential improvement in the national minimum wage or the

:36:03. > :36:05.National living wage, then these are not benefits which are in practice

:36:06. > :36:12.going to accrue to ordinary people in this country, and that is why

:36:13. > :36:15.people have doubts about this. Other colleagues have raised