Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I hope to be able to respond to some of the concerns she voiced. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on initiating this important debate.

I share the sentiment, which was expressed by many hon. Members, that trade is the cornerstone of our national wealth. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) speak about its impact on our economy. Without that trade and our national wealth, there would not be funding for vital services such as our NHS; it is that long-term economic plan that will guarantee its future. However, I would like to speak today about the NHS and express some of my concerns.

The Leader of the Opposition has spoken of his desire to weaponise the NHS. It is shameful in itself, but it also detracts from some of the genuine arguments and important issues that we need to raise about health within TTIP.

Initially, I would like to clear up the points raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. They are important and I would not support the deal if I thought that it would have the effects she outlined, but I think that they have been rather used as part of that weapon to try to damn this partnership and to damn the Government’s record. That is regrettable.

After reading the letter from the European Commission about the NHS, I wrote back because I wanted to clarify some points. As Chair of the Select Committee on Health, I heard back from Jean-Luc Demarty, the director-general for trade. He wrote to me on 11 December and a copy of that letter is available on the Health Committee’s website if people want to look at it in detail. He made it absolutely clear that all publicly funded health services, including NHS services, would be protected under TTIP.

I pressed him further on that point, asking about the definition of publicly funded health services—in other words, would they include organisations such as those in the third sector? He was very clear that as long as the services are publicly funded, it does not matter how they are delivered. That is an important point of clarity. He also made the point that any investor-state dispute settlement provisions in TTIP could have no impact on the UK’s sovereign right to make changes to the NHS. In other words, that deals with the concerns that have been raised that this is somehow a one-way street and that no future Government would be able to change policy. He is very clear on that point and I urge Members to look at his letter. The issue of ratchet clauses is also very important, and the ratchet clause will not apply in this case.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

If an incoming Government decided to terminate a contract in the NHS or in the public social care sector under which that company claimed that a very large investment had been made in building a care home or something similar, would the company not be able to use TTIP to prosecute the Government for the potential loss of investment?

[Dr Wollaston]

Already within domestic contract law there are provisions that mean that one cannot arbitrarily reverse a contract. A state would be able to announce that it was changing policy and moving forward, but the point about TTIP is that it works on both sides of the Atlantic. We would not wish to have British companies arbitrarily lose their investment in the US. It is about that; it is not some conspiracy of an evil empire, which is how it has been portrayed. I think that that would be a reasonable process.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

May I make the point that an ISDS tribunal is empowered to award compensation for genuine loss but is not empowered to overturn policy or national regulation?

[Dr Wollaston]

Indeed, and that is the point that we want to make clear.

The concern is legitimate and if the NHS were threatened by TTIP we should be explicit about that, but it is not. We need to be clear about that and it would be helpful if Opposition Members withdrew the insinuation that is constantly being put out to our constituents that this is a conspiracy to do so.

I also pressed the Commission on whether it would be sensible for the Government explicitly to ask to exclude the NHS, and it could not have been clearer that it was not necessary because it was going to do so itself. May we please bring that aspect of the debate to an end and focus on the issues that matter?

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Wollaston]

I am afraid I do not have time to take further interventions, so I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

The issues I think are important are those to do with public health in areas such as smoking and alcohol. Other Members have pointed out the impact on the Uruguayan Government of their being sued by a tobacco company. The company’s profits dwarf the domestic product of Uruguay. We cannot allow that to happen. This has serious implications. I would like the Minister to respond specifically on whether, during these negotiations, the tobacco industry—an industry that kills half its customers—can be specifically prevented from using the investor state dispute procedures in such a manner.

I would also like protections in relation to alcohol. Of course, part of our transatlantic trade should legitimately cover alcohol, a product enjoyed by many. However, the Scotch Whisky Association has been able to use legal mechanisms to delay the proposed minimum pricing measures which are desperately needed in Scotland and which I fully support. I would like further detail on what measures the Government propose to protect public health as TTIP goes forward.

Finally, I would like to make a point on behalf of transition town Totnes. Will the Minister explain the implications of this for our obligations under the climate change legislation? The transition towns movement has done a huge amount of work on local food networks and sustainability. Will he assure me that he will continue to look after the interests of those vital food networks and make sure that that they are protected alongside trade? We need to strike a balance. I know that it is a difficult issue, but it is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Had it not been for a great deal of campaigning, I suspect that we would not have been able to debate either TTIP or many other things. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested that there has been plenty of parliamentary debate of this issue. There has been some debate, and perhaps the amount is increasing, but it is largely because people have raised the issue and kept campaigning on it that we have got to this stage. The Government have not initiated the debate or said what they are trying to achieve, and it seems that Ministers at times answer questions only grudgingly.

When TTIP was first raised with me a considerable time ago—a year ago, if not more—by members of a constituency peace and justice group that is involved in international development issues, I confess that I had not heard about it. I did not know what they were talking about, and I had to research and find out about it; it was not on our agenda in this place. We must give credit to such people, even if we sometimes think that they get particularly exercised about such issues. I am firmly convinced that we would not be having this debate had it not been for them.

We have to ask our Government: if we do not need to worry about such issues, what is the problem with stating that explicitly? Some months ago, when the Prime Minister made a statement on a recent summit, he said, “No, we don’t need to worry about the health service in all of this.” I asked him whether that could be explicitly stated in the agreement. I did not get a clear answer that that was his position. It was more, “Well, it’ll be all right because it is understood by everyone in some way that it will not be included.” If we are saying that the health service and public services are safe and will not be undermined by the treaty in any way, there is no harm in making that explicit in the wording of the treaty, because apparently there is no problem.

I am concerned about what constitutes a public service: it is not just the NHS; there are many other public services. Many countries, including the UK, have a mixed provision of services, and whether we think that is good, bad or indifferent, it exists. For example, a lot of social care services are provided by private companies and sometimes third sector companies. Whether good or bad, are those covered by the exclusion for public services? We must be clear about that because more and more is being provided by private companies that, perhaps rather oddly, describe themselves as “public service companies” and provide a variety of services in various fields. We must be clear about the definition of public services—I think the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) suggested that such a definition should exist for something that is publicly funded, but we need that to be explicit in the treaty.

[Dr Wollaston]

To reassure the hon. Lady, it was not that I said the definition should exist, but that I was reassured by Jean-Luc Demarty that it would exist. It is about who funds the service, not who provides it.

[Sheila Gilmore]

That would be clear if such a definition was in the treaty and there were no caveats, provisos or wiggle room. The same point applies to opportunities that might exist for companies to sue outwith our normal courts. I agree that if there is a clear breach of contract under our existing law, people have the right to take action to protect their financial interests. We do not always like that and it sometimes causes problems when a Government change, or indeed change their course, but on the whole we accept that because we can see clearly where it is happening, what criteria are being applied, and it is publicly reported. That is the concern about the potential tribunals.

The reason often given for having special tribunals to deal with such issues is that certain countries with whom we may be trading may not have a legal system that we trust to uphold the agreement and protect our traders. That is not the case with this treaty, given the countries involved. If that was the derivation of this provision, I argue that we do not need it, and if we do not need it, it should not be there. It is not good enough to say, “It will be there, but it will not cover this or that; it will be all right because we have always won in the past.” If we do not need the treaty because we are equal partners—perhaps not entirely equal, but much more equal than has been the case with some trade treaties—we do not need a special regime. I do not say that there will never be a need to litigate. If some of our companies felt that they were being barred illegitimately from the United States despite the terms of the treaty, they might want to litigate, but I argue that the opportunity to do that through normal court processes in the United States exists and we do not need anything special.

This treaty must be as public and open as possible. That is the purpose of the motion, but it must also be ongoing. The people who contact us are deeply concerned and want to know that their interests are being protected. The onus is on the Government of the day who are negotiating the treaty to bring it back at regular intervals and update us on what is happening and what provisions they have managed to include. They should not expect us and our constituents to accept some reassurance that things are all right and we should not be worried or frightened. If we have nothing to be frightened of, the Government have nothing to be afraid of in keeping us fully abreast of negotiations.