Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is good news that we are discussing the TTIP which, as far as I am aware, is the most ambitious free trade agreement ever attempted. On these complex agreements, national legislators, in their worthy pursuit of job creation, growth and trade, do not always pay attention to the finer details.

Some years ago when I interviewed Ralph Nader, the consumer activist and occasional presidential candidate, about the North American Free Trade Agreement, he told me that even though Congress was set overwhelmingly to back the treaty, he was convinced from his discussions with members that few of them, if any, had bothered even to read the text. He eventually offered a substantial prize to any member who was willing publicly to answer 12 simple questions about NAFTA. Following a long pause, a strongly NAFTA-supporting Republican, Senator Hank Brown of Colorado, accepted the challenge and reserved the Senate Foreign Relations Committee room for the ordeal. The cameras and journalists were there and, to everyone’s amazement, he answered each of the 12 questions correctly, but when he had finished, he turned away from Ralph Nader to the cameras and said that having read the treaty, which he had not previously done, he realised just how awful it was, so he chose to do a U-turn and to vote against it.

At this stage, we do not have a huge amount to go on regarding the TTIP but, whatever one thinks about it, it clearly has serious implications and it merits close scrutiny. On the whole, free trade agreements are about lowering barriers to trade—that is their purpose—but, compared with the situation in other countries, there are relatively few barriers to trade between the EU and the US, so the main focus must be standards and regulations, with the goal of trying to harmonise them. However, it is hard to imagine that the process will involve any key standards going up; on the contrary, I suspect that we will see a spiral downwards. We only have to read several of the publications put forward by some of the most substantial big business lobby groups to see that they are openly talking about removing under the TTIP whole rafts of standards and regulations that businesses believe hinder their activities. One does not have to believe in a conspiracy theory; one just needs to read the communications of some of the companies that are playing an active role in the process.

We are already seeing an emphasis on lobbying with regard to food, about which several hon. Members have spoken, and it is difficult to imagine the harmonisation of food standards working in our interest. Europe believes that providing clear labelling for genetically modified food is a consumer right, but such practice is absolutely opposed by the vast majority of states in the US.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the subject of food, two companies in my constituency wanted to export to the United States, but the border controls and financial conditions to which they were subjected ensured that they could not be competitive there. They therefore had to franchise out in the United States, which meant that the company back home could not grow or create jobs here, which shows the unfairness of the system.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

There are so many differences between the US and the EU, and not only in the quality of standards, but in the approach to developing them. I cannot imagine a situation in which harmonising standards and regulations would work in the interests of the consumer. I have given the example of GM food labelling, but there are many others. A number of countries around the world, and indeed the EU as a whole, have chosen not to allow the import from the US of beef from cows fed a diet that includes the hormone ractopamine, because of the fairly grave health concerns. I suspect that most British consumers would support that position. Would that be challenged? Well, there is already plenty of talk among agribusiness in the United States that it should be.

Most worryingly, US agribusiness is strongly opposed to EU attempts to limit endocrine disruptors. The links between the use of such chemicals and the alarming increase in precocious puberty among young girls are not disputed. Will those standards that we have set across Europe be adhered to and maintained? That remains to be seen, but we know that plenty of lobby groups in the United States have their sights set on reducing those standards.

It is easy to imagine that regulatory convergence will mean chasing the lowest common denominator. It is worth noting that, according to a whole raft of freedom of information requests conducted by the Corporate Europe Observatory in the context of the TTIP, the Commission has met civil society groups just eight times over the course of those discussions, whereas it has met corporate lobby groups—I do not know how they are defined and am only repeating what has been reported—119 times.

I suspect that most Members across the House would agree that removing or simplifying unnecessary regulations, removing barriers to entry, particularly for small firms, and encouraging free trade are all laudable aims, but they need not happen at the expense of democracy. My concern is that the proposed ISDS mechanisms, which we have already heard a great deal about, will undermine democracy. Under those mechanisms, companies wishing to challenge a national regulation could effectively bypass the usual process and go straight to an investment tribunal. Often hugely important outcomes therefore rest on the shoulders of just three arbitrators—one is chosen by the company, another by the state and the third is a compromise of the two. It is hard to understand how this country would want or need such a system.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister was asked recently—

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

He is about to intervene, but I am going to quote him anyway, because he might be about to repeat this. When asked why that would be useful for this country, and indeed for Europe, he stated:

“Investor protection is designed to support businesses investing in countries where the rule of law is unpredictable, to say the least.”

There have been so many requests to this Government and to the European Commission for examples of countries in the EU that are beyond the pale along the lines of the description he offered, but not one country has so far been listed, so why do we need this process? Why do we need these tribunals for countries where the rule of law is adhered to more or less across the board?

[Mr Clarke]

As I understand it, an investor who has access to this process would not be able to start arguing in favour of reducing standards in any regulation that has been passed by the legislature. Regulating will remain the responsibility of the authorities that already regulate. The only claim that can be made through the ISDS is that the state has gone back on its treaty obligation. Therefore, unless in the course of negotiations some agreement has been entered into to change regulatory standards on either side of the Atlantic, there is no way our existing rules on food standards or anything else could be challenged by some American company that suddenly decides that now that we have signed a TTIP it has the right to try to change the rules. What we are trying to get rid of is unnecessary regulation and the duplication by regulators on either side of the Atlantic of processes designed to reach the same public objective. That is the kind of thing that can be eliminated, to the huge advantage of companies on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I very much appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention. At this stage it is very hard to know how things will pan out. Much will depend on the terms of reference, but there are plenty of examples from around the world—as he pointed out, this is not a new concept—of companies using similar provisions in other trade agreements in order to undermine domestic legislation.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is a good example. According to a succession of polls in the past year, just 15% of US citizens want to remain in NAFTA. It has become one of the most unpopular free trade agreements of all; it makes the Euroscepticism that my right hon. and learned Friend talked about earlier look like a joke. A striking example in relation to NAFTA concerns Canada being sued via one of these dispute mechanisms by Ethyl Corporation—he is probably familiar with the case—for banning the chemical MMT, which Canada considers to be a highly dangerous toxin. Canada had to settle; it paid millions of dollars in compensation and eventually had to reverse its ban. Incidentally, the ban still stands in the United States, which makes the decision even more perverse. There are many more examples, and I was going to rattle off hundreds, but time is short and Members will be pleased to know that I will not.

As this treaty unfolds, it is essential that we remain mindful of who it is designed to serve. A guard needs to be erected against the voracious lobbying by big businesses that have a direct interest in undermining a number of the standards that I cited and have been cited by other Members. I personally do not trust the Commission to balance those competing interests, for all kinds of reasons, some of which I have hinted at in my short speech. I strongly believe that it falls to legislators like us to apply scrutiny throughout this process, and I very much hope that we do.