Ref. Ares(2015)4588601 - 26/10/2015
Ref. Ares(2017)3665978 - 20/07/2017
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Trade
Directorate E - Neighbouring countries, USA and Canada
USA and Canada
Brussels,
USA and Canada
Meeting Report
Report on the Scottish Parliament EERC Committee session on TTIP– 15
January 2015
Dear all,
Here's a quick note of today's EERC (European and External Relations Committee) session in the
Scottish Parliament on TTIP, at which Art. gave evidence. Please pass on as needed.
4.1b
Unfortunately we had technical trouble with the video connection, so the Committee is likely to
come back for clarification in writing on some points once it has finished gathering evidence
next month. It will next be meeting John Swinney, Scottish health minister (5 Feb), and Lord
Livingston, UK trade minister (19 Feb) – these sessions are likely to be much more political.
Summary: A useful session despite the technical issues, offering opportunities to clearly rebut
some of the well-known concerns (NHS, food standards). Positive feedback received by MSPs.
Further explanations in writing might be helpful on economic evidence and NHS, if requested.
Detail:
• The Convener, Christina McKelvie (SNP), opened with a question about the results of
CETA and the lessons that might be learned for TTIP.
se
Art. 4.1b t out the example of the
ISDS provisions in CETA being, from the EU perspective, a very high standard but that
does not mean that improvements cannot be found for TTIP.
• Roderick Campbell (SNP) asked for more detail about how exactly the Commission
intended to move forward on
ISDS.
des
Art. 4.1b
cribed the upcoming process of
consultation with the Council, Parliament and stakeholders. Campbell specifically asked
whether (in relation to the point on interaction of ISDS with national court systems in
the report)
representatives of the Scottish judicial system would be asked for their
views, alongside those of other MS – Hiddo indicated yes.
• Jamie McGrigor (Con) asked whether there would be a
role for national Parliaments in
ratifying TTIP, and also for Hiddo to confirm that governments could continue to set
policy without fear of litigation via TTIP.
Art. 4.1bgave a clear explanation of the situation
on mixity, noting that at the political level it had already been stated that TTIP is very
likely to be a mixed agreement (if it achieves the desired ambition), and explained why
TTIP will not affect the
right to regulate.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
• McGrigor followed up with a question about the media coverage on
TTIP and the NHS,
asking for confirmation that the NHS would be excluded.
e
Art. 4.1b xplained that public
services are protected in EU trade agreements. Later in the session, William Coffey
(SNP) asked Hiddo how US companies could gain access to the NHS, and upon hearing
that the choice of whether to open contracts to the market would be up to the Scottish
Government, asked for confirmation that the UK (Westminster) could not override this.
He appeared surprised to learn not, at least not according to our understanding that
health policy is a devolved power. Hiddo clarified that no matter how this power was
divided in the UK, TTIP could not in any way affect the choice of governments to open
up publicly funded services to the market.
• Adam Ingram (SNP) inquired about the
economic evidence and possible
winners and
losers from TTIP.
explained the case for free trade and acknowledged that there
Art. 4.1b
would be a small number of losers – but overall, the benefits far outweigh these
according to the evidence. Ingram followed up by suggesting that NAFTA has caused
capital flows to Mexico, a low wage economy, and wondered whether an accidental
result of TTIP might be that richer EU economies see less US
investment. Hiddo
countered this by describing the broad and deep nature of the EU-US investment
relationship.
• Hanzala Malik (Lab) asked about
education and TTIP, in particular whether there could
be impacts on the rights of students to continue working in Scotland after receiving
their degrees.
e
Art. 4.1b xplained the potential results of TTIP in
mutual recognition of
professional qualifications and also touched on
Mode 4 elements.
• Anne McTaggart (Lab) asked about agricultural and food standards.
Art. 4.1bexplained
the aims on
SPS and was very clear that TTIP would not lower standards in this area –
cooperation could only lead upwards, this is not about a tit-for-tat negotiation but
about mutual benefit.
• Jamie McGrigor (Con) asked a final question about the "Cornish pasty" / "German
sausage" debacle.
e
Art. 4.1b xplained that the EU's aims on
geographical indications
relate to gaining stronger protection for EU products in the US, rather than reducing the
existing protection in the EU.
Background:
Members of the European and External Relations Committee, an
d its future business on TTIP
Written evidence received from Scottish MEPs including David Martin
Past sessions on TTIP:
•
On 20 November 2014, the Committee took evidence from five of the Scottish MEPs,
including David Martin MEP who is on the EP Trade Committee. There are a few
comments in the OR from that meeting relating to TTIP.
•
On 27 November 2014, the Committee took evidence from a range of third sector
organisations on TTIP.
•
On 11 December 2014, the Committee took evidence from businesses and
representatives of business organisations on TTIP.
2
Document Outline