10/12/2015 House of Commons

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

backbench motion on the transatlantic trade in partnership.

I was amazed that the leader of the house, as he reads the timber,

should describe this as a political campaign by left-wing pressure

groups. I do think that is the opinion of members of all the

committees who are interested in this issue for variety of reasons.

I'm very pleased that MPs from across the house, from all parties,

have taken an active interest in this vital issue. The point I would

like to make in this particular debate isn't the one I made a year

ago, dwelling on the arbitration problems of big companies focusing

in on suing democratically elected governments of the laws passed but

undermine their future profit. But in the context of the Paris climate

change talks, I want to make a point to the minister, that unless the

environmental imperatives that are coming out of Palace are integrated

in a binding and vaguely affordable way, within the EU free trade

agreements both with Canada and the United States, then we are in danger

of sleepwalking into environmental oblivion, irrespective of what comes

out of these talks. Comment back to the remarks he made in relation to

the leader of the house, it is right that this motion is before the house

today. I can we trust the government with industrial relations when you

have the anti-trade union government. That should be stricter

lies in front of the house, the effect on public services. It is an

important point. In the draft version of TTIP that I have here,

which I hope the Minister has read. There are references to rights for

Labour laws, but they are not legally enforceable and I would like

to have them, because at the moment, workers rights are at risk from

these deals. I should make clear that the outset, that I am in favour

of trade and in favour of growing trade, I'm in favour of the EU, so

we do get any confusion over this. The EU and the US are already in

trade for in excess of $700 billion. There are forecasts on how much the

economy will grow and they are variable. The daily from nothing to

about 4%. Remember, the forecasts for the expansion of economic

activity due to the single market the leaders in four and 6.5%. It

ended up being 2%. That are those who say colon to a cup of coffee for

every person per day. What we need to think about is what other

benefits of trade versus the cost and risk involved. Would he agree

that Labour MEPs have sought a common position on TTIP, calling for

strong safeguards with respect to health and safety measures. This

specific exclusion of investor dispute mechanism, because the

ideas, it is not democratic, open to scrutiny, democratic or fair. The

point is well made. On the issue of employee rights,

having met with American trade unions, they see TTIP as a great

thing. As an internationalist, I would expect him to support such a

change. I share that aspiration, but the issue is that those rights are

legally bound enforceable within TTIP. My point about TTIP is not to

burn it, shoot it, get rid of it, it is to pull the ISDS teeth out of the

wolf and genetically edit it, so we have environmental narratives in it,

we have enforceable rights at work, we have human rights, southerners a

blueprint for future global trade, rather than destruction of

environmental and human rights. I congratulate him on to Judith is

really important debate. Does he agree with me that the government

and the European Commission should heed the call from the BMA that the

NHS should be absolutely excluded from TTIP, as is the case for the

audiovisual sector to? We should have a copper bottomed arrangement,

like with fenland, which covers all of health, private and social care,

from any intervention. At the moment, those guarantees are not

provided. If that is private provision somewhere, it allows an

avenue for American contractors to move on. Could you tell us on the

ISDS, how many agreements as Britain currently have with ISDS provisions?

How many cases have been taken against the UK on that and how many

of them have been successful? He will know that is a large number

will of ISDS bilaterals and play, but we haven't had cases taken

against us. We also know that the exposure to ISDS will increase by

about 300%. He also knows, that if he has a pet dog goes round biting

the neighbours, it doesn't guarantee will fight him and just because

other people don't die of cigarette smoke, doesn't mean he won't. Some

members of the government. On the specific wind raised by our right

honourable friend, the fact is that it is not the number of court cases

which are taking, it is the ministerial action which is

inhibited by fear of those court cases. I have that experience as a

minister and I have to say he is barking up the wrong tree. We do

need short interventions. That is a lot of interest in this debate, but

can I remember the honourable member, he has ten to 15 minutes for

his opening speech and I wouldn't like to give up too much of that the

interventions. We knew that big companies do use the powers

available to them to sue democratically elected governments.

The Canadian government has been sued for hundreds of billions of

dollars because Quebec brought out a moratorium on fracking, as well as

the case of Philip Morris who is suing you require industry earlier

because of tobacco packaging. That is the case of the Dutch company who

are suing the Slovakians were trying to reverse some health legislation.

If these powers are available, corporations will use them to

maximise profit. That is what you expect them to do. Our job is to

regulate and make sure the public interest is first. The other issue

is these treaties, some people are worried about the EU, we will be

bound for 20 years under these rules by any future government. I think

that is wrong, and a lot of conservative members have mentioned

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

on then. I'm very grateful. I realise is getting frustrated by the

number of interventions. Mine is brief and specific. He talks about

scrutiny, what method of scrutiny would be used and would it be a

committee or a minister committed to this dispatch box and for the whole

house to scrutinise? Clearly there is a widespread

impact. We will like recommendations to be made from the service and they

can table amendments. At the moment it is being decided by negotiators

behind closed doors which is unacceptable and it will be a yes,

no, decision. The seat of one which has already been agreed, there is

some legal washing, it is due to be brought before Members of the

European Parliament next spring. I was going to mention the issue of

regulatory chill because of the pressure and that of this action.

Already the EU has withdrawn its demands for transparency and

clinical data. Especially in terms of trials. This means that if you

are a big dogs company and unique trials and three go wrong and seven

go right, you only have to publish the seven that all right. These

things are worrying, has are the bits and pieces about trade secrets.

-- drugs. This inhibits democracy. There are issues about rights of

work which members have mentioned. There is the problem of the seat

being a great because this is the Trojan horse for all of these powers

in the settlement to come through the back door and bad of democracy

and public services and public finances. As I have said, the fact

that 20 million people no are in Beijing and are crying because of

the environmental damage on trade and unregulated economic activity to

support that trade and meanwhile, in Cumbria we see people having the

effect of climate change. We must ensure that future trading

agreements for all of the EU and Canada and the US have an

enforceable environmental imperatives which prevent

corporations from making this works which will spread to China and

elsewhere, no one else seems to be seeing anything other. We need trade

laws to be trumped by what comes out of Paris then he legally binding and

enforceable way, that is not happening at the moment. I spoke

with the Secretary general of the OECD in Paris when I was out at the

conference. Talking about this ?200 million subsidy given to fossil

fuels, at the moment he was not happy about this. I said what about

getting the environmental imperatives from Paris as a minimum

standards into TTIP and he scratched his head and said they had not

thought about it but it could be a good idea. In fact, the EU is asking

for an oil and gas pipeline from the US to get shield gas and all sorts

of oil over here, what will that do for our carbon footprint? It is

trade on the one hand and environment on the other and we need

an integrated approach to a global sustainable development. The reality

is on ISDS, that should be stripped out of the TTIP. People have said

what about the investors, they must be protected. They have judicial

review, they have already got a breach of contract, they already use

these rights in public court and the only difference is that in public

court the public interest is wide up against the commercial interest. The

arbitration panel says it is all about the private interest. The

death or public health issues are not waited. By way of example, the

case of Tech Ed which is a waste disposal plant in Mexico who

breached those regulations, the Mexican government decided at the

end of that contract to not renew it because there was so much in breach

of that. They went to an arbitration panel and Mexico was found to lose

this particular case and to be a ?5 million plus another ?8 million in

court costs. The point I am trying to make in this example is that if

the UK require a stronger emissions standards to live up to our promises

for either 1.5% or 2% increases in temperature, then ISDS, not Iain

Duncan Smith! They must come along and sue others for actually obliging

us for moving forward with these particular requirements from Paris.

What I am telling you is that the protection Tribunal is as opposed to

public law must wait more in favour of the investors as opposed to

public protection and that is the wrong way around. One Lord said to

me in questioning the scrutiny committee, he has said about the

compensation for these companies, there is nothing wrong with that.

The point I am making is that there should -- is not that there should

not be compensation but if you look at Costa Rica, they actually took

back some land which has natural value, they have endangered species

and endangered habitats, they compensated for that land $1.9

million in this case. The owners took them again, one of these

Tribunal 's, the tribunal did not factor in public interest or public

value, nothing to do with it, it is all about commercial issues and they

will find them ?16 million. -- find them. This ISDS favours the private

sector, not the public interest or the natural habitat, so we have to

strip it out of TTIP. Another issue with ISDS is basically that it can

in essence from national law and tromp previous national law. In the

case of Deutsche Bank versus Sri Lanka they were existing laws were

the Supreme Court in Sri Lanka brought forward to stop payments to

Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank went off to an arbitration panel, even

though arrangements were made after the national law had been passed,

and they successfully won the case. The pointers for Britain, if this

goes through in this current state, the 2008 climate change act, that

will be trumped by TTIP and ISDS. So it is unbelievable in terms of

sovereign democracy and these are all these turkeys voting for

Christmas, they are up to speed on the sort of thing. We will not have

protection for some of our famous products, the Welsh Lamb, Cumbrian

sausages, this sort of thing. The headline in the Son was that passed

things get a pasting, very local -- very lyrical! But we will not have

an advert for Welsh languages in Nebraska or whatever. We have the

TTIP environmental chapter telling us that... I beg your pardon? We

have that chapter that does make some reference to the real mac and

Copenhagen and it says that chapter that there is nothing in that

chapter that allows a binding enforceability that is not allow the

investment chapter to trumpet, of which it does. What this means is

that all of the pledges of the environmental chapter are not cast

in stone but can be over current by these arbitration panels and they

need to be legally binding and an enforcement mechanism which they do

not have in place. -- Rio. In a nutshell then, I am suggesting that

ISDS be removed from TTIP, the article says that the provisions of

TTIP will be without reservation subject to the 2015 Paris and

subsequent treaty agreements that TTIP should be consistent and

contributed to the targets are great in Paris and subsequent call. And

that they do not go ahead down the route of harmonisation of the

regulatory co-operative body. In a nutshell, in terms of harmonisation

standards which in principle there is a good thing, that must be

decided behind closed doors by supple servant is subject to

lobbying from industry. This is not something that we would want. Then

finality, I would simply say that there is a lot of things wrong with

TTIP that we must change but this motion is about scrutiny. I am not

for abandoning TTIP we need a blueprint for future global trade

and we need an integrated environment will imperatives that

made legal rights and other human rights are enforceable and show

leadership for a global trade that provides us with a sustainable, fair

and equitable world for the future. Thank you very much.

The question is as on the order paper.

Peter Lilley. Thank you, Mr Speaker. -- Deputy Speaker. I thank the right

honourable member for allowing this debate. As the last person in this

House who I think was involved in negotiating this accessible

international trade round, the Uruguay round, I am extremely in

favour of free trade. I believe indeed there is a strong case for

unilateral free trade and not one that is easy to sell to the

electorate. Our priority therefore, I approached the TTIP agreement with

the position of strong support and I am very suspicious of critics of it

who are often simply against trade, simply against markets, something

against choice, business and simply against America. He might find I

have answered his question! Especially hostile, I am especially

hostile to those people who pressed the button on the 38 degrees

campaigns and anything against trade and business. I was rather surprised

to find myself sympathising with people who appeared in my surgery

and announced to a groan from me that they were members of the 38

degrees and had concerns about TTIP and actually read some very

important point which resonated with me from my experience of past

negotiations. Of course, I am still totally in favour of removing

tariffs. But that is relatively minor in terms of the aspects of

TTIP. It has been hugely successful of removing tariffs and barriers

over the years, averaging 40% back when Gap was set up, it was 17% when

I was negotiating. The Tardis now between the United States and Europe

average less than 2% and half of all goods traded between the two

continents are entirely tariff free. -- tariffs. Those are subject to

tariffs can be higher, on clothing it is up to 30%. On cars, the US

where these are two and a half percent. German car minor fractures

have led of 10% on imports of cars from America. Abolition of the

reigning Tardis is worth having. But, and it will be the final

success of Gap. TTIP goes far beyond that. -- tariffs. It looks that the

regulation and rules on investment and procurement. It is true that

those sorts of rules can either buy content or accidentally be used to

inhibit trade and we should avoid using them in that way and we should

seek if we can agreements the anti-discrimination rules so that

neither in the business of investment no procurement would

either States or the EU they allowed to discriminate against firms from

the other side in these matters. My constituents that declare themselves

to be members of 38 degrees, it could be that we are creating a

bureaucratic process which may escape proper democratic control and

may be subject to proper corporate influence. It is also symptomatic of

bureaucracies to perpetuate their existence, even when the task they

were established to do is largely complete. Literate members of this

House and we are all that, I remember Dickens describing the

office whose chief died at his post with his drawn salary in his hand

defending the existence of an organisation which no longer has any

need to exist. But because we have succeeded on tariff negotiation we

should be scaling down, not giving up the international bureaucracy and

giving it more democratic -- undemocratic powers. During the

Uruguay round I talked about accountability to this House.

Because the negotiations were complex it was that good for the

House to hold ministers to account and easy for ministers to present a

fait accompli to this House and say they had achieved the best

compromise. I will give way. I am grateful to you for giving way

and would you agree that one of the things that will scrutinise TTIP

very assiduously will be the US Congress? They will not let things

go that they think will put their own people at a disadvantage.

Well, I would like to hear from my honourable friend that it is this

House that will exercise democratic control relying upon the American

Congress! The second reason is partly because ministers where so

little accountable to this House and I cannot remember any debates

actually that I had to respond to on that issue. Offer shows were very

reluctant to be a comfortable ministers. On almost every other

area that I was involved in in government I thought officials were

wonderful. The caricature of them in Yes, Minister was false. But as

regards bureaucracy and limited democratic control, they were

reluctant to respond to ministers' questions or explain what they were

up to what compromises they were making. I had to argue very strongly

and hard to reassert my control over officials. It is up to ministers to

do so. I will give way. Could I ask my right honourable

friend whether he thinks that TTIP will actually be in any way

accountable to this House? Because it doesn't look as though it will.

There are aspects where I feel we are in danger of handing over

unaccountable powers, and I think we should be wary about doing that. In

the case of the negotiations then and now, they are aggravated by the

fact that we are negotiating at second-hand through the E EU at

arm's-length. I accept that we have had to make some sacrifices to have

a common market. My honourable friend thinks we should probably

rely more on the American market. I am misrepresenting him, I know. All

these are problems which are comparatively easy when you are just

dealing with abolition of tariffs. When you are handing over to

international bureaucracies and legal tribunal is, wide areas of

rules of procurement even greater. And this brings me to my other

concern about bureaucracies, and that is that they may be unduly

influenced by corporate lobbying. The less responsive they are to

elected members of this House, the more likely they are to be

responsive to corporate lobbying. I am not one who believes in the

Marxist view that the world is run by a conspiracy of corporations and

big business, nor that big business always wants to deregulate.

Actually, it is true that Rucker sees and big business, the people in

them have a common worldview. -- bureaucracies and big business. And

also, big business has a natural interest in regulation to be used as

a barrier against other small businesses trying to enter the

market or new businesses trying to innovate. So we should be very

careful about creating international bureaucracies outside the control of

Democrats which may prove more vulnerable to lobbying. The specific

issues are fracking and GM foods. I am very strongly in favour of both.

I have the main research Institute for GM foods in my constituency. But

ultimate decisions about that should be made democratically, and to me it

is far more important that democracy should prevail then some

international bureaucracy should support my views, which they

possibly would. It is our job to persuade the public that that is

right. Not to support an international bureaucracy because it

will take the decision out of our hands and reach what we think is the

right view. So to sum up, I am unequivocally in favour of removing

tariffs. I would welcome agreement under TTIP anti-discrimination rules

for both Europe and America to agree that they will not discriminate

against foreign companies in procurement and investment. But I

would be very careful about creating a self-perpetuating international

bureaucracy and handing it to it powers that are largely out of the

control of elected representatives and too much under the influence of

corporate lobbying. At the end of the day, democracy is more

important, even than free trade. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I

declare an interest of the chairman of the all-party group on the

transatlantic trade deal. And can I do that as an unashamed supporter of

trade. Trade has been a huge benefit to this country over the centuries,

particularly to the West Midlands, which grew on the back of trade, and

indeed the West Midlands is currently the only region of the UK

that has a positive trade balance with China. But equally

significantly, trade has been the engine by which hundreds of millions

of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty, and when

people look at China and the growth of China, and I will come back to

some aspects of that in a minute, because they were mentioned by my

honourable friend the Member for Swansea, but hundreds of millions of

people in China have seen their lives Joe Mattock a change as a

result of trade. -- dramatically change as a result of trade. There

has historically been in this House those who have been opposed to

trade. Four. All of the nations which have had dramatic improvement

in their economies have done so with a degree of texture, and the Chinese

have used a massive devaluation of their currency against Western

currencies, behind which they have seen their economy develop rapidly.

Protectionism actually works. I am pleased to see that my

honourable friend wants to see us move towards more of a rules -based

bases that will enable us to develop more effectively. But trade has

actually worked, and I'm glad that he can see that. There is a great

mythology being developed around this. I asked my honourable friend

the Member for Swansea how many agreements that we had in the UK

that involved I SDS. He was reluctant to reveal that the answer

was 94. How many cases have been successful? My understanding is

none. Mention is made once again of the very long-running Philip Morris,

so-called case, and it is true that Philip Morris said they were lodging

a case. Has that gone anywhere or proceeded anywhere? Has it stopped

the Australian government taking action? Of course it hasn't. One of

the more regularly cited cases is Slovakia and its health insurance

system. They often we are told that a Dutch insurance company managed to

secure substantial damages from the Slovakian government, and that is

true. Because that was about the question as to whether, under the

existing contract, they could actually repatriate their profits to

Holland. On a second case, which every body seems to forget, the

Slovakian Government won, and it was held by the court that it was not

empowered to intervene in the democratic processes of a sovereign

state. And where I particularly hold the Government to account is that

although the Leader of the House might talk about left-wing groups

campaigning on this with scare stories, why won't the Government,

Government Ministers, actually take on these myths so that we can get

back to an argument on some of the issues that my honourable friend

rightly raised rather than dealing with the mythology. But the

Government just hide away in the gauge in negotiations and won't take

these issues off. If ISDS has been used so little, and concern has been

expressed about it, why does he think it is important to have it be

part of TTIP? ISDS appears to be the sticking point for a very large

number of people. I just say that this is not the

great problem that people are claiming. The honourable gentleman

mentions the NHS. The European Commissioner wrote to the Trade

Minister in the UK about the impact of TTIP on the NHS. Let me read out

her comments. Member states do not have to open public services to

competition from private providers, nor do they have to outsource to

private providers. That is a decision of this Government, not

anything to do with a trade deal. Member states are free to change

their policies and bring back outsource services into the public

sector whenever they choose to do so in a manner respecting property

rights which in any event are protected under UK law. I give way.

The essential difference is that ISDS tribunal is held in private,

and private primary focus -- primary focus is about the law, but it would

be better to be held in transparency, and there have been a

lot of cases where enormous damages have been claimed. It is about the

intrinsic... The problem my honourable friend has, and we will

have to discuss this subsequently, in order to undertake that in the

manner describing, you would have to create a supranational international

court to deal with that. Unless there is an agreement on reciprocity

between the Supreme Court and the European court, and that might cause

problems with colleagues opposite. Equally, I have to say with regard

to the Canadian trade talks, there was very little controversy about

discussions with the Canadians until we started to undertake discussions

with the United States, which touched a nerve endings and consider

another people. He is right that if you scratch biddies a lot of the

opposition here and you see blatant anti-American is. It is deeply

offensive to Government such as the Canadian government to describe CETA

as a Trojan Horse as if Canada were doing the dirty work for the

Americans, that was what the implication is and it is offensive

to Canada, a country that has standards of protection that go

beyond our own in many areas. I thank the gentleman for a point

well made. My honourable member for Swansea talked about the

environmental situation in China. If we do not undertake a trade deal

between the EU and the, then the people who will be setting the terms

of trade on the parameters for the world will be China, and he has

rightly identified they may have much less concern to issues like

workers' rights and the environment as the EU and the United States. One

of the concerns he raised with regard to the Canadian deal was with

regard to food and the implications for geographic indicators, Welsh

Lamb and so on. In fact, this is one of the great attractions not only

for farmers in the UK but also across Europe, particularly southern

Europe, the ability the geographic indicators, and one of the

attractions the Canada and the United States is the ability to sell

GM. A trade of GM food -- GM for GI might well be on the cards. The

Leader of the House talked about scaremongering from the far left,

and we have had the e-mails again from 38 degrees, who will know that

-- no doubt be castigated me again on Facebook. A pamphlet by the Rosa

Luxemburg foundation was put forward, a number of colleagues on

this side may be aware of the Rosa Luxemburg foundation, deeply linked

to the far left party in Germany that comes out of the old East

German Communist Party. There is a lot to be said against the old East

German Communist Party, but they were pretty good at running the line

and propaganda and agitation. And so we need to be very clear not of some

of the valid arguments that are being rightly made, but where some

of the campaigns come from. Honourable members need to be clear

on that. Unfortunately, the honourable member of a then touched

on another area partly referred to by the honourable member for

Swansea, the European scrutiny committee. And it is the neuralgic

reaction of some on the conservative side to anything involving the EU.

In order to conduct trade negotiations around the world, one

of the key enabler is all that is our membership of the EU. That

enables us to participate and not to be contrary to the views of Niger

Farage that somehow we won't be able to negotiate trade deals on our own.

We can negotiate them through the combined strength of the EU. And

when we are campaigning next year, in order to remain members of the

EU, many of the arguments against the transatlantic trade deal a

reflective of the arguments that are made against the EU. And there is

some trade of sovereignty actually for effectiveness and relevance in

this modern world, and that is one of the reasons why we should be

supporting this agreement. But if not, I might sit down early.

I also need to declare an interest, I am the secretary on the agreement,

so I am also supportive. It is important to say that this is

another example of where there are elements within British society that

are trying to close down debate. In August, my daughter who is 14, left

our house in order to do her paper round. She came back and said there

were six been people outside picketing my home because of my job

and they were basically accusing me of wanting to kill people because of

selling off the NHS. If we're going to have a debate, we should make it

an honest debate and avoid intimidation as part of that debate.

I think we have an issue -- a duty to debate this issue openly and

transparently. Intimidation has no part in it. This is the fourth time

we have had this debate in the chamber. The honourable member for

Swansea West has secured two debates. Is there not a danger that

this debate is in some ways premature? The proposed agreement

has not yet been reached and before it can ever be ratified, the text

would have to be distributed and also in this house where proper

scrutiny can be applied? He makes a very important point but I don't

think the issue is the agreement, the issue is the anti-free-trade

agenda. It is not because there is an issue with the trade deal but it

is an attack on free trade, I would argue. I will take an intervention

in a minute. Whilst the final texts have not been released, in terms of

the so-called secrecy, all the texts are available online! If anyone

actually has the ability to Google, they would be able to find the texts

and the negotiations. This is probably the most open negotiation

we have had as part of the European Union. I do wonder if people know

that they can Google these issues. It's also important to point out

that the all-party group on this issue have held a number of open

meetings in this house, attended by 150 people. Those were looking at

the effect of this Treaty on the automotive sector and on public

services and on textiles and on food and drink producers. The argue that

there is a lack of discussion in this house I think is to make a

false argument and indeed it is to play into the hands of the

protesters who are against free-trade. Grateful for giving way

and for this debate which I'm finding quite interesting. I agree

with the broad sentiments of the group. Shouldn't the decision be

outside the remit of a trade organisation and outside the remit

for this house? As someone who represents a Welsh constituency with

a significant number of land reducers, I want to see it being

offered for sale in North America but currently that is not the case.

If that is the way to get the product into the North American

market through trade agreements, I'm willing to see what the detail is.

The remit for the negotiations has been agreed by 28 member states of

the European Union and there have been two in the European

Parliament... The European trade negotiators have been to this house

tries to explain what their remit is. The opportunity to engage is

there. So yes, if there is for example concerned about some of the

concessions possibly made on a quid pro quo basis then those issues can

be identified at a latter stage. I think it's also important that we

address head-on the issue of the so-called threat to the National

Health Service. It is a so-called threat, I have to say. I hope that

every single member who speaks in this debate has actually written a

letter to the health Select Committee, a detailed 3-page letter

from the European trade negotiator which makes very clear that there is

no possibility of an impact on our health service or public services

for that matter as a result of the agreement. It says quite

categorically all publicly funded public health services are

protracted in new trade agreements and this approach will not change.

That brings us back to the points made by my honourable friend, that

there is a concern that this debate seems to be that this is an

agreement with the United States of America. I stayed very clearly as

the secretary I have had literally thousands of e-mails from all parts

of the United Kingdom accusing me of all sorts of skulduggery in relation

to this proposed trade deal. I actually was quite impressed by the

fact that the people e-mailing me nearly think I've had far more power

than I've ever had as a backbench MP! I will not take an intervention.

There is an important point to be made. Not a single e-mail was ever

sent to me about the deal with Canada, described as a Trojan horse

for TTIP. No, I will not take an intervention. It is therefore very

difficult not to conclude that this is not about trade this is not about

the health service, this is about a latent anti-western anti-US a gender

which I find frankly disreputable and I will not take an intervention

on that issue. The point needs to be made and has been made. We clearly

have a dishonest debate in relation to this issue. We have claims being

made which are not substantiated. We have accusations of secrecy which do

not stand up to scrutiny. But I think it's very clear as well that

we have an issue to be raised about ISDS which has been demolished. In

relation to these agreements there is no explanation offered to the

member of Swansea West as to why we have had four of these agreements

and not one of them has been subjected to any complaint. It is

only because TTIP has a deal with the US that we seem to have these

concerns. I have dealt with some of the concerns expected of the member

opposite. I think we should also consider the opportunities that come

from TTIP. My right honourable friend was absolutely right in

stating that the tariff barriers are comparatively low. It's very clear

when you talk to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, the European

Union and the US, quite often the regulations which are imposed are

those which are not specifically there for the safety of the public

in the US or the European Union, they are there as a means to offer a

protectionist stance in relation to some industries. For example it

makes very little sense that our booming car industry, our hugely

successful exporting car industry has to undertake a crash test which

is completely different in the US do what it is in the EU. The reason why

that crash test is different is because the regulations are

different. The effect of that ads on ?600 to the cost of a mini Cooper

because the dashboard has to be changed to comply with US test

regulations. Nobody believes that the situation is any different in

the US to the European Union when you have a crash, but the test is

different which would create a huge cost to the car industry. There is

the potential for... If some of those regulatory burdens were to be

moved. When we talk about the need for a manufacturing led recovery,

it's difficult to believe the concerns of the party opposite when

they talk of that need or the fact that we're not taking manufacturing

seriously when the opportunity to get rid of some of those regulatory

burdens which are counter-productive and the poster competition is very

difficult to stand opposed to the manufacturing sector when they are

not willing to work with that manufacturing sector to reduce some

of those burdens. The regulatory burdens are also unfair on small and

medium-sized enterprises. Larger companies have the capacity to deal

with the regulatory burdens in the US and then subsequently to deal

with the regulatory burdens in the European Union. The small businesses

in my constituency who have world-class products to offer our

not in a position to sell them to the US because the regulatory

burdens mean they have a bad year to their potential to trade. Small

businesses sending packages on the Internet find themselves in

difficulty dealing with the US because they don't know whether the

rules and regulations applying for staff in the postal system would be

the same as it is in Europe. Larger businesses, the Amazons of this

world can cope quite easily. Small and medium-size enterprises are

unable to do so. To talk about this agreement being for large

multinationals is to miss the point. The point of this agreement is to

reduce the regulatory burden which large companies are quite happy to

impose because it gives the opportunity for small businesses to

compete against them. I've only got a minute. The fact that I have a

drinks producer in my constituency who is unable to have the production

line to get the right bottle size is a classic example of the way the

regulations work against small businesses and to the advantage of

larger businesses. When it comes to being a member of Parliament for

Wales, can I say categorically the fact that the United States consumer

is being delighted much -- denied my Welsh lamb from my constituency is a

shame. Yes we need to scrutinise and make sure that this house has its

say in the agreement but we should try and grab the opportunity to make

sure that we have growth in all parts of the United Kingdom not

least here in Wales. Irrespective of his views on TTIP,

families and individual members should have the right to security in

their own home. If he is being lobbied in his own home by

protesters, I would deplore that entirely. I am in favour of free

trade, Mr Deputy Speaker. Free trade should be a good thing, it should

create wealth and provide innovation in the way that we approached jobs

and markets and it would promote existing services and products in

new markets. I do not believe that the proposed TTIP deal is about free

trade. It's about increasing the dominance of several large

globalised corporations, who have no loyalty to any one particular

country but loyalty to their quarterly figures on Wall Street or

the City of London. We talked about public services and I do believe

that public services will still be under threat under TTIP, unless we

get a categorical response taken. We can't have such a categorical

response because it has all been done in secret. We have talked

about... The Right Honourable member put some interesting figures in his

speech but I think there is a fundamental principle about ISDS

that undermines its entire existence. We preach, and rightly

so, the rule of law and democracy to developing countries but it would

seem that that rule of law and that democracy does not apply to large

globalised corporations. I say to party members opposite however much

I disagree with them, however much I deplore some of the policies they

are bringing in, the bottom line is that their party won the general

election and I respect the democratic right of that party to

take their programme through Parliament. But apparently that

democratic right does not apply to large globalised corporations. I

simply ask this question of the house. If by some fluke on Friday

night I win the Euro lottery and buy myself a Ferrari or a Lamborghini...

What about British, by British! Indeed, buy myself a nice top of the

range range Rover. And then the Government reduces the speed limit

on the roads to 50, am I allowed to sue the Government because they have

taken away my possibility of enjoying that car? It's exactly the

same thing. It is. If the Government chooses to change the law, that is

the right of the Government to do so. There should be no caveats for

large corporations to get around that. I'm glad that he's addressing

the issue of ISDS. It was introduced, we were told, to give

security to investors against weakling systems in developing

countries. Whether that's true or not, I don't think this bike what

the Government has done that we have a weak legal system. And large

multinationals to be put above that is disgraceful.

My honourable friend makes a good point, but I wish to talk about an

example of ISDS that operates under another regime that could easily be

transcribed into TTIP, to talk about the perils that ISDS brings along,

and that is the case of Veolia who are suing the

Egyptian government. We know that Egypt is in a vulnerable position

politically, it is an uncertain position politically, and we should

be providing to Egypt the support to help develop democratic structures.

So when the Egyptian government brings in a minimum wage, which will

probably benefit most ordinary Egyptians, we should be supporting

that, but apparently, I am told, Veolia has sued the Egyptian

government for that. Would my right honourable friend just let me

develop this point a moment? I ask how catastrophically stupid and

short-sighted that is to sue the Egyptian government, reduce the

standards of living of ordinary Egyptian workers when we are trying

to persuade them that Isil and the Muslim Brotherhood are not the way

forward, and there we have an example of a Western corporation

undermine the well-being of ordinary Egyptians. ISDS enshrines the rights

and the priorities of globalised and the priorities of globalised

corporations over and above ordinary people, and it could have

catastrophic results. I give way. catastrophic results. I give way.

As I indicated with the Philip Morris case, logging a case and

winning a case are not one and the same thing. Has anything happened to

this case? I thank my honourable friend for that point. I believe it

is still going through the process, but it is the principle under which

the case is based that I am concerned about, the principle that

somehow these corporations have their own private mechanism in order

to resolve disputes rather than going through the accepted legal

procedures of that country. I give way.

Is essentially ISDS not a private court staff by private judges with

private lawyers based on private law the private profits? What a shame

that I am not as articulated as my honourable friend from Cardiff,

because she hits the nail on the head. It is a mechanism that

undermines the rule of law by giving a separate system to large

globalised corporations and taking them outside any sense of

responsibility to elected Parliaments such as this one, all

countries where we are hoping to foster and develop democracy such as

the Egyptian example that I support. Go on, then. We are in the business

of facts here. Far from ISDS being a private corporation, can we accept

it is a government mechanism agreed by governments largely for the

benefit of governments? Identically, benefit of governments? Identically,

I think it is largely for the benefit of arrive at organisations,

but he and I will have to agree to differ. I want a system that works

for the people, not one where the system works -- the people work for

the system. We want -- they want to enshrine personal and family in

security, move jobs out into and secure areas, and make tax dodging

an artform. Does he share with me the concerns that the LCI oh have

said that it has had a negative impact, that trade agreement, on

their economy? My honourable friend from York and I have known each

other good few years and and I were both involved in the creation of one

of the world's first global trade unions with American trade unions,

and I have to say, and I believe one of the honourable members previously

talked about the United States. I am certainly not anti-United States,

but my contacts are opposed to this because they see their jobs

uncertain conditions... The Minister says it is not true. I would ask her

when she last spoke to any American trade unions, because I speak to

them regularly. I will move on if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe

that the interests of the party opposite are enshrined with

corporations and the City of London, and TTIP, and I do believe it is

possible that we could and should design a trade deal along the lines

of TTIP that could benefit ordinary people, but TTIP is not it. I want

in this very short time the time available to hit upon a point that

my right on all friend the Member for Warley talked about which is

about the European Union. One thought that has occurred to me, and

perhaps I am wrong. Surely not! LAUGHTER

TTIP could well be a Trojan Horse for those who would have us leave

the European Union, because the European Union, for all its faults,

does provide social and economic and environmental constraints on

corporations. TTIP would provide the free trade deal that so many of

those who would have us leave the European Union are looking for

without the social and environmental benefits. I will sit down now. I do

worry that we have a ready-made deal that we could simply leave the

European Union, withdraw from those social and environmental and

employment protections, and then sign up to something where there are

no protections. That is my fear, and I should be watching the debate on

the European Union carefully, and with not a little suspicion. Thank

you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And

thank you for the Member for Swansea are helping us achieve this debate

today. I have a lot of sympathy with the motion. I do think that we need

accountability on one of the biggest if not the biggest trade deals in

history, and that accountability should be provided by this House. By

also think that there are few significant issues in politics today

that have been so poorly debated in the public realm than this one.

Either through a lack of knowledge, and perhaps we are all responsible

for that. Let me begin first and then I will come to you. Either

through a lack of knowledge, and we as parliamentarians must play our

part in trying to inform and educate the public as well as listening to

them, to ensure that every person in this country understands the true

nature of this deal. But there has also frankly been a huge amount of

misinformation and distortion by groups leading to a general sense of

concern, and I, like other members of Parliament, have had hundreds of

letters about this over the last year or so. There is far less to

fear that those groups suggest, but more importantly, it skewers

purposefully the huge opportunity that comes out of this deal for all

of us. I thank the honourable member

forgiving way. There is far less to fear. Peace is one of the big

problems is people don't understand, but it has not been explained

properly. People feel that there is a Trojan Horse, and whether there is

or isn't, we cannot move forward without the consensus of the public.

If the people don't understand the contents of TTIP, what can we do?

The honourable member makes a good point, which is why I am pleased to

see the Minister here responding. In the last debate in 2014, the member

from Rushcliffe was responding. I want to see more Government

Ministers taking the case out of the public and having a genuine informed

debate and trying to sell this in a rational debate rather than being

led by pretty poor quality public discourse coming out of the sum of

the groups we have seen. Some of the e-mails I have received this week

were pretty ill informed to say the least. They are all generated, I

suspect, by 38 degrees, and all were the same except they substituted

adjectives at some point, some describing it dodgy, dangerous,

evil, sinister. You couldn't get more pathetic quality of debate. So

to those behind these e-mails, if you believe, if your strength of

your convictions, raise the quality of debate and argue rationally

rather than on this pretty immature basis. The Government must lead

this, and not allow the project which I believe has huge potential

to build transatlantic links to bring Britain and Europe closer to

America, to create a huge and important new free trade area, and a

myriad of opportunities in jobs and growth, which are not just about

corporations, we're not talking about larger corporations, as I will

come onto and as the Member for other Conway rightly pointed out.

This is about businesses large and small. I met businesses last week

who will benefit directly which are not large corporations, they are

small and medium-sized businesses trying to make a living and create

jobs. But what is his answer the concerns

raised by his right honourable friend from Hitchin about the

dangers TTIP presents a disproportionate corporate power

being used to manipulate a bureaucracy which is not a

democratically accountable bureaucracy? Some of the points I

want to make of already been made by other members, but let me make

three. One about health care, and this has been a political football

by all sides of the House for far too long. As my friend raised, the

health select committee wrote to the negotiators and received an

incredibly congruence of reply, which I would recommend to any

member. I have sent this to every constituent who has written to me

about TTIP. I am not a friend of the European Union, I'm a Eurosceptic,

so it during usual -- it is unusual for me to say that this is one of

the most straightforward answers I have ever seen from the European

Eurocrat. Do send it to your constituents, because it does more

to debunk the myths and anything else in this debate. It demolishes

all of those myths and scaremongering. It is important to

overseas suppliers -- that overseas suppliers are already having a

commercial presence in the United Kingdom. The important thing for

everyone who engages in the provision of health services and

health care through companies in this country is they have to comply

with UK standards and regulations in the same way as British health care

providers, and those standards will remain under the sovereignty of this

country and this Parliament regardless of TTIP. On the issue of

ISDS, an area where there is genuine concern, and I appreciate that, I

think again it is fairly ill informed. I worked as a lawyer, and

the first case I did as a trainee solicitor many years ago was working

for a small British investor using a bilateral investment treaty very

similar to this in Eastern Europe to invest, and seen a licence revoked

illegitimately by that government, and this small investor was able to

use this treaty to get their money back and win justice for them. So

this is not about large corporations exporting the system. It is about

all investors around the world, including our own businesses, being

able to hold other governments to account and ensure that they don't

make arbitrary and poor decisions which negatively affect British

companies. And as we have already heard, the ISDS is not a novelty.

These clauses have been put into most trade deals for years and

years, and I have heard the familiar examples of odd cases that have been

made in actions around the world. These clauses have not had the

effect that has been described in the media. As we have heard, there

are 3400 of these clauses inserted in trade deals globally. The EU and

its members have 1400, the UK has 94. We have twice been challenged,

and we have never lost a case under an ISDS. What we have done is we

have successfully brought claims against other countries. We have had

slightly more success there, because the point of an ISDS is to underline

the value of the total agreement and make sure that no individual

investor or business can be disadvantaged by another government

or union of governments breaking the obligations that they have entered

into a negatively affecting our own businesses and investors, large or

small. And it has been heard that these treaties are primarily in the

past have been used in developing countries such as the case I just

mentioned where potentially the legal system is not as good as ours,

or the United States, but although the United States does have a very

good legal system, it is a very expensive legal system, and one

where cases can take a very long time, and so actually, I think that

this would be a very useful device for our small and medium-sized

companies. Similarly, there are states in the EU where American

investors would be very reluctant to go into if they were relying

entirely on the fact that they could take it to the legal process in

some, say, southern European countries, to challenge the bona

fides of local officials complying with local rules. I was going to

talk about transparency, but nobody could have put it better than my

friend, the Member for Aberconwy. A degree of secrecy is important,

because the US are very good negotiators in trade talks, and we

want our union of states and governments to be in the best

possible position in these talks, and not to simply give everything

away, but I think this is one of the more transparent trade deals that we

have seen, and certainly one of the most transparent that the EU has

done, and the commissioners are trying to be as forthcoming as

possible. Mr Speaker, I think this free trade deal as we have heard

from some members is a huge opportunity. The United States is

not a threat to us, it is our single biggest import destination for the

UK, 17% of our exports go there, and there are whole range of sectors,

aerospace, the creative industries, the luxury goods industry, the UK is

of course a world leader in that, and America is home to some of the

most affluent households in the world with disposable incomes of

more than 300,000 dollars, more than any other country in the world. Only

last Friday I visited a business in my own constituency that is trying

to put hearing loops into the Metro in New York. But it is having to

spend thousands of pounds to meet the various and complex regulatory

burdens involved in it. Would he well, and would he persuade

his colleagues in Government for the US to lift the ban on haggis? That's

a very good point! I want to see British businesses from all parts of

the United Kingdom getting into those markets and building jobs.

We've heard that tariff barriers are now quite low, down to around 3%,

but it is the nontariff barriers that need to be pushed aside for the

benefit of businesses like the ones in my own constituency, and TTIP is

that huge opportunity to create the jobs and the growth of the future

and it is a massive potential win not just for our constituents and

businesses but actually for humanity as an opportunity to bring the West

together to protect our economic and our national security. Peter Grant.

Mr Speaker, like I think most of the others speakers taking part in this

debate, ie instinctively agree with trade. Scotland has got a fantastic

story to tell and a world-class quality of so many goods and

services, and we want to be able to sell them around the world and I

think the world wants to be able to buy them without restrictions. So we

should instinctively support free trade. But completely unregulated

free trade, we have to ask ourselves who free trade is there to benefit.

Is it there to benefit the handful of large corporations? To benefit

big governments? Or to benefit the citizens who produce the wealth? I

know where my loyalties would lie and at the moment I'm not at all

convinced that free trade as envisaged in TTIP is going to do the

right thing. What we have been asked today is not whether TTIP is a good

or bad idea. We've been asked whether it should be set back or and

scrutinised and debated more in this Parliament and I would argue other

states of the European Union as well. I find it quite ironic that

the party whose leader is now arguing for better protection for

the sovereignty of this place in dealings with the European Union

also seems to be saying to us that they have asked EU officials to sign

away some of the trade deals and we don't even need to bring that back

into this chamber for it to be considered and scrutinised. Yes

there will be a binding vote eventually in the European

Parliament but there should be a well-informed debate and a vote in

this Parliament at the very least to give a clear indication to the

United Kingdom any clues as to how we would like to see them exercise.

I will give way to my honourable friend. Would my honourable friend

agree with me that one of the main concerns about the process is the

lack of transparency? No one really knows what's happening. My

honourable friend makes a very good point. I hear the comments but what

I can't understand, and I'm hoping for the Government to respond, that

we need explained to us, is that if it has been available on the

Internet and widely available for so long, why is it only in the last

week that members of Parliament have been given an opportunity to

scrutinise it? They are allowed to take handwritten notes but not

allowed to take copies of that document out of that room to show to

anyone else? Why is the European Union insisting on that level of

secrecy? I would like to make progress before we move on. I

entirely agree with the calls from across the house calling for an open

and honest debate. I agree it is totally awful if any politician is

subjected to abuse because people disagree with the point. The same

people calling for an open and honest debate has also dismissed

everyone who has concerns about TTIP including the honourable member for

Clacton, as being part of some left-wing campaign. They seem to

think this is a bad thing, at an organisation has made it easy for

ordinary citizens to lobby their MP as it has been for citizens to do

their lobbying for them. We then became completely anti-American and

then became completely anti-Western. The last time I checked, I was a

Westerner. The only anti-Western in my household is my wife and only to

the extent that I'm not allowed to watch Cowboys and Indians films!

Does he agree that on the anti-Western, the American trade

unions have safeguards over TTIP? My honourable friend is absolutely

right and this is not a case of America wanting to push everything

through and Europe wanting to stand in the way. There are very

vociferous supporters of TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic and there

are also genuinely held concerns not only from left-wing organisations

but some business organisations and left-wing politicians and from trade

unions and the well-known Bastian of... What we're talking about today

is not the merits of TTIP and its associated potential agreements but

on what decision should be taken about whether TTIP goes ahead. It

would be a bit ironic if members who took the time to come here and take

part in a debate about whether we should have a debate on TTIP then

voted not to have a debate about TTIP. I would assume there would not

be any need for a division on this. One of the concerns that has been

raised about ISDS, it has now been replaced by something called the

International Court of something or other... My question is, why is it

needed? Ordinary citizens who are aggrieved at the actions of the

Government of their country can try to rectify it through the democratic

process and make it that bit easier for those who can't afford to lobby

consultants. If they feel aggrieved that the Government has acted

against the law, ordinary citizens have records to the legal system

within the country of the Government that they think has acted against

them. The legal system is a perfect parliamentary democracy system. Why

does a big multinational company need to have a further line of a

course that is not available to ordinary citizens. Why is it my

citizen hiding in Zimbabwe through fear of their lives does not have

records... And international companies are happy that their

profits from selling tobacco in some companies... They have records but

ordinary citizens don't have it. We have a mature legal system and the

court system is designed to give everyone a fair hearing. His the

nations are part of the European Union... I find the comments of the

honourable member fairly imperialistic. The obligation is

that we do not need to make a deal with the I did states because we

have mature legal systems. I find it a very odd comment. The point I'm

making is that there are some countries who might -- we might want

international agreements with but I'm concerned about their legal

system. Countries of southern Europe... The last time I checked,

they were part of the European Union. If they are acting in breach

of a treaty signed up to by the European Union, I would think there

is recourse, and if not, I would think that is something that needs

to be looked at. I don't see why it is necessary to have a separate

system of records for companies who want to sue democratic governments

that is not available to individuals. My friend is magnetism

point. The UK is already in bilateral investment treaties with a

range of other countries around the world including some where we have

ISDSs, which are mature democracies, including South Korea. Is he

suggesting we withdraw from all of those bilateral investment

agreements throughout the world? Not at all. I suppose the question might

be, if ISDS is so successful, why has it been scrapped and replaced

with something else? One final observation I want to make of that

although the Government claim clearly regarding completion and

application of TTIP as being a major, major selling point in

staying within the European Union, there is a sizeable body of public

opinion in the United Kingdom that takes the opposite view was that I

do an how sizeable it is but it is there. There are part of the United

Kingdom including areas of Scotland, people write just now want to be

part of the European Union who will change that allegiance if TTIP goes

ahead. That may be music to the years of some people in here but I

think the Government may be making a massive tactical mistake if they

believe that support for TTIP will persuade more citizens to vote to

remain in the European Union. I think there is a serious danger that

it will actually have the opposite impact and the tragic irony of it is

that if TTIP is already done and dusted before the European

referendum, people will vote to leave the European Union and

Scotland will be stuck with TTIP for 20 years, because once you're signed

up even leaving the European Union does not allow you to get out.

Regardless of whether they have decided in their own minds about the

merits of ISDS, regardless of whether they think it's a good idea

or a bad idea, surely once we know the full details of what TTIP and

its associated agreements are going to mean, surely there has got to be

a proper and full debate in this lace and I would suggest in the

member state parliaments of the rest of the European Union at least until

it gives the European Parliament a clear steer as how they should

exercise their point. We love to stand up! Andrew Percy. I have

forgotten how to do it! I did turn up at this debate not actually

intending to speak but I have now been drawn into the debate from

listening to some of the arguments. Let's start with some of the things

we agree on. It's reassuring to hear... That may be a factor as

well! It's reassuring to start with the things we agree on. It's

reassuring to hear people talk in favour of free trade and support of

trade and I want to see Welsh lamb, it's not as good as lamb from

Yorkshire and Lincolnshire! Sold in the United States. I also want to

see Haggis exported, that Great North Road England foodstuff that we

exported to Scotland in about the 15th century. I want to see that

sold in the US in the right form, not with the bits that are missing

that you have to have in the US at the moment. We can all agree on

those things. I give way. Thank you to the honourable gentleman for

giving way. On that point of Scottish produce and other produce

being taken forward, does the honourable member agree that the

Scottish Government should be involved in ratification of any

detail of TTIP before it is in limited? I think I was questioning

the Scottish nurse of Haggis! -- questioning the Scottishness

Haggis. As it will be determined in the national parliaments of the 27

other nation states. The turnout of the SNP today, as we see present in

a lot of debates, it could not be said that the voice of Scotland...

I'm still speaking! I'm responding to this point! Certainly the voice

of Scotland is going to be heard strong and loud as it is in so many

issues. I just want to talk about... No, I'm not going to now, I've

changed my mind! I just want to talk about CETA for a moment, and what

the honourable gentleman said about it being a Trojan horse is this

respectful to the Canadian Government. I'm not going to give

way to him. Perhaps he wants to intervene to say it is not an insult

but it is an insult to call it a Trojan horse. CETA in Canada has the

support of the new Government just as it did the last Government. On

the issue of transparency, there has been a lot raised about

transparency. I think that's been well and truly demolished by my

honourable friend for Aberconwy, who rightly pointed out that the text of

what is being debated is available and at the end of this process there

will be the mechanism for approval in all 28 national parliaments.

There are few things that will affect us that are subjected to such

scrutiny. I'm not sure I can subscribe to the honourable member

for Chester's argument which seems to be that the process of agreeing

TTIP could in fact be some sort of conspiracy to get us, for those who

want to leave the European Union. I didn't follow that one quite so

much, it didn't make much sense. Does my honourable friend agreed

given the interest from so many of our constituents in what could go

wrong in TTIP, it is vital that the UK has influence over this and the

right to say yes and no? I could not disagree more, which is why the

matter will come before... I could not agree more with my right

honourable friend! LAUGHTER

It will of course come before this House. There is an element of

anti-American is to this, I'm sure not by anybody who will speak today,

but it was brought home to me in an e-mail, and I don't get many 38

degrees, I think people are too busy getting on with life to forward

Jimmy e-mails written by somebody else telling them what their view

is. But when I eventually got to the end of this trail of e-mails, it

ended with my constituents, who assured me was an anti-American

saying, yes, but the other agreements haven't had American

lawyers involved, so there is a degree of anti-American is, and we

shouldn't pretend otherwise. I'm not going to give way, because I won't

get any extra time. I have a lot to say! I could not disagree with my

vulnerable friend at all who made fine speech despite his horse voice

-- my honourable friend. The area is a mix of industry and also a lot of

smaller and medium-sized enterprises, and again, a

constituent contacted me with 38 degrees, and I went somewhat

robustly back to him on this as I have done since I came here in 2010,

and on his position on TTIP, explaining this is of benefit to

small businesses, and his response was that he has run a small business

and he has tried to do trade in America, and it is very hard, which

is exactly the point of the people who will most benefit from this. I

represented exporting sector in this country were a lot of small and

medium-sized misses have great products to offer, and unless they

are big corporation which can afford all of the skills and people

necessary to navigate these regulatory difficulties, these

smaller businesses simply do not have that, and they will benefit. I

wanted to say something with regard to the impact on the NHS, because I

do think that this is an area which I have found interesting in the

scaremongering that has been around this. My colleague from Newark on

the committee with us, we put series of questions to John Luke

-- the director for trade, and it is worth putting forward the answers.

The answer of course is very clear, this is the effect of the EU's

approach to public services in all trade negotiations since the General

agreement in 1995. It goes on to say, it is also worth explaining

that even without the above reservations and exceptions, the EU

trade agreements and governments at all levels are free to regulate all

services, sectors in a non-discriminatory manner. Therefore

in effect, all publicly funded health services are detected in EU

trade agreements, and this will not change the TTIP. We asked him

another question. What would be the consequence for the provision of NHS

services including hospital primary-care community services if

they were not specifically excluded from TTIP? The response is clear

again, all publicly funded health services including NHS services will

be protected in TTIP. We asked again, does the definition of public

funded health services include arrive at companies which runs

services paid for by public funds? Doesn't include third sector

organisations? Yes, as long as the services are publicly funded, it

doesn't matter how they are delivered, they will enjoy the same

protections. And finally, we get a lot of nonsense from the EU, and

this couldn't be simpler answer. Is there any opportunity after the

exclusion of any public services from TTIP for other companies to

challenge that exclusion, and what is the process? The very simple

answer we got was, no. With a big fat fall stop after it. As above, in

the commission's view, there is no need to take any further action to

ensure this result, as public services are always protected in EU

trade agreements, and we received similar things with regard to

charitable providers when the national government takes a service

back in. So this nonsense which has been perpetuated about the risks of

TTIP to the NHS is fairly shameful, it is about trying to present an

image to people in this country that big, bad, nasty American health

providers will come in and sweep up the NHS for private profit. Nothing

could be further from the truth, as has been made clear by US

negotiators, and he was really clear in this insult. He said TTIP is not

a way of the US trying to get access to the publicly funded health system

in the United Kingdom. He specifically use the United Kingdom.

The EU trade negotiator was very clear, we don't need extra

protection because it is wholly excluded already. It is protected

and outside. So when people run around campaigning against TTIP and

raising legitimate concerns, which there have been, about the process,

and even questions around ISDS, the one thing they must not do is

frighten people that what this is about is somehow American businesses

coming in and destroying the NHS. The response from the EU, and I

never quote them, I don't like them, I will be campaigning to leave, but

they are absolutely clear on this, the NHS is safe whether there is

TTIP or not, and the only people who could really cause any damage to our

NHS and challenge this on the terms some of the people opposing it say

is national governments. They are the people who are in a position to

do the damage to the NHS that they claim TTIP is doing. And I would

argue that in England that is not the case, because we have an

excellent Government doing good things for the NHS. In other parts

of the the UK, that matter maybe be up to debate.

The Speaker: Before I bring in the next Speaker, I am going to reduce

the limit to seven minutes. I would like to begin by

congratulating the honourable member and thank him for bringing this

important debate to the committee, both about the risks of TTIP and

about the need for us to think more deeply about the institutional

architecture as we move forward. So, the trade and environment and labour

standards or all put on an equal footing. I also want to say what an

excellent speech I thought my honourable friend the Member for

Chester made drawing out the problem that similar arrangements have

caused in developing countries, and I think the point that he made

demonstrated that those of us who are raising questions are really the

ones who are fully in the tradition of the human rights and democratic

values of Europe and America. The Department for Business, Innovation

and Skills have done an analysis of the benefit from TTIP, and their

estimate is that the gain in terms of higher GDP in this country would

be ?7 billion. When one hears the be ?7 billion. When one hears the

figure 7000000000 pounds ee, that sounds like quite a lot,

-- ?7 billion a year. Statistics are bandied about, and she is quite

right about 7 billion, even if it was true, how does that compare with

the ?62 billion trade deficit with the European Union? Those other of

figures that just make 7 billion look very small indeed.

The point I was going to make was that the Office of Budget

Responsibility in their forecast of GDP out to 2020 have got an

uncertainty of 6% in GDP, that is ?160 billion, so ?7 billion, we

really do lose the economic benefits in the rounding. I am not saying

that there will not be economic benefits, I'm just saying, let's

look at how significant they are and we then against the disadvantages

which other honourable members have raised. Will this have a significant

benefit for the level of our exports? By comparison, the impact

of the level of growth in the markets to which we export is

expected to be 338 billion over the next five years, and if we have

variations in the exchange rate, these will be far greater than the

possible benefits that we can get from this trade deal.

Anyway, I am resting my case on the analysis from the Minister's

department, and on the assumption that they have got this right, each

person in this country would benefit to the tune of ?110 a year. And that

would be about ?2 a week. It is very nice to have, I'm sure we would

always rather have ?2 a week and not have it. But if the price that has

to be paid is a loss in terms of working conditions, labour

standards, potential improvement in the national minimum wage or the

National living wage, then these are not benefits which are in practice

going to accrue to ordinary people in this country, and that is why

people have doubts about this. Other colleagues have raised