 Good morning and welcome to the first meeting of 2015 of the European and External Relations Committee. I make the usual request that mobile phones are switched off. Our first agenda item this morning is to welcome Ann McTaggart to the committee. Welcome Ann, I hope you enjoy your time on the committee. We're certainly doing a lot of very interesting work, I'm sure you'll find it interesting for yourself. Can we take this opportunity to thank Alec Rowley for his contributions to the committee? I'm sure that Alec's legacy of looking at ferries and other infrastructure projects through the committee in relation to Europe will carry on into the next year. Ann, could I invite you to make any declaration in relation to this committee? Thank you chair and I'm pleased to be here and just really to refer people to my register of interests. Thank you very much and can we invite this morning Jean Urquhart to committee, who has a long-standing interest in this topic. Welcome Jean, you're more than welcome to contribute if you so wish. Moving on to agenda item 2, which is the purpose of our meeting this morning in our inquiry on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I'm delighted to extend a very warm welcome, it's a bit of a cold and blowy welcome from Edinburgh to Mr Hiddle Hoobin, who is a deputy chief negotiator for the European Commission and who is joining us this week by video conference from Brussels. Good morning Mr Hoobin, I think to get the deputy chief negotiator on this topic is a real win for our committee, so we're delighted to have you here this morning and very very interested in what you have to say. I believe you have an opening statement. Well thank you very much Mr Kelvie. Let me first of all say that I would have preferred to actually be with you in Edinburgh. I think most of us still see a trip to Edinburgh as combining a lot of things that we like, so if I had been able I would have come. So I apologise to having to do this by video conference and maybe just to introduce myself very briefly. My name is Hiddle Hoobin, I'm a Dutch national. I've been working in the commission for about 25 years, mainly on international trade policy and I've been based in, I was the head of our economic department in the embassy, in the European embassy in Washington for five years and I've just returned as of September where here I lead a small department who work on the TTIP negotiations and it's a great pleasure to be with you even if it's just by video and I just wanted to maybe say very briefly just a few points and then really to leave the space for you and your colleagues so that any questions that you may have you can put them to me and I will try as best I can to respond and then we can just take it from there but I just wanted to say a few things. We have of course a new commission since November, a new leadership, a new commissioner for trade and one of the first things that this commissioner has done is she has increased the transparency. Sorry, sorry, we're losing the sound from you. Okay. Does this help? Does this help? No, I think maybe we'll suspend slightly for our technical people to address the issue. Hi there. Hello? Is it better now? No, we're still getting a frying noise. I think it might be a microphone connection. That's it gone now. That's clean now. Can you speak to me please? Can you hear me now? No, it comes on. Because I think it is at your end. The problems we think are at your end and not at our end. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you clearly now. Ah, okay, so we seem to have solved it. That sounds so much better, yes, aha. Okay, okay, want to carry on then. It's perhaps when you move in your chair is there a cable or something that you're disturbing or? Not that I can see, but we have each other again. We have, yes. Okay, so I was just very briefly trying to just highlight a few points on which I thought you as members of the committee might have a specific interest. They are on the transparency of the negotiations just to flag to you that we have launched a transparency initiative two weeks ago as a result of which all of the negotiating texts are now available on the internet. So any of you who want to see the actual texts of what we negotiate, these are available and they are accompanied by fact sheets, by subject. So that should help you forward in terms of actually interacting on the on the substance and of course we are in your hands as are, you know, the or my colleagues working in London at the at the BIS to help you with any specific requests you have. I mean we are of course very conscious if we think of Scotland that a lot of the products you export or are very competitive in have a strong interaction with trade policy. I mean if you if we for example just take spirits as an example spirits historically have faced very very high trade barriers in international trade and I think at the European level we've been very successful over the last 30 years to actually open foreign markets to two exports of spirits and you'll see that in most markets of the world exports are free of duties if you are a whiskey producer or another spirits producer and the same applies to other products like textiles where you make high quality textile products and I think that the way we see t-tip is that t-tip actually takes this to a next level. It is also has an ambitious services component so services international trade commitments to open services sectors are not as developed as for manufactured goods so t-tip intends to sort of move the needle and to open those markets. The energy sector is historically also less open than others and that is also an area where t-tip wants to provide significant market opening and so I think that in all of those respects what we do as trade negotiators on behalf of the European member states regions economies is to really work to open markets in order to serve high paid jobs in our different regions and member states across Europe. Generally speaking jobs that depend on exports are more well paid than jobs that are for people who just work for the domestic economy so trade related jobs usually are high quality they require of course often very well qualified workforce but it's usually a very good stimulus for the economy and of course the important thing about market opening is it doesn't cost any fiscal there's no fiscal weight when you take a trade liberalisation initiative so you're creating jobs without actually increasing government spending and that's very important. There are a few things I think maybe in concluding that I should say and then really any question that you may have I think you should feel free to try it on me I'm not sure I'll be able to answer all of it but I can I will really do my very best. We are of course aware in Brussels of the specific situation regarding healthcare in Scotland, in Wales, in other parts in which you have a specific responsibility that is a proper to Scotland and so any questions that you may have in that regard I would be happy to try to to respond to that. The final point I would make is on one specific item which is maybe the most controversial one in TTIP at this point in time which is this often quoted investment dispute settlement mechanism which allows an investor to take a government to courts or to an arbitration tribunal it's actually not a court not a formal court in case he feels that he has been discriminated against in relation to a domestic investor and the only thing I can say there is that we published yesterday so the timing of today's meeting is actually quite fortuitous we published yesterday the outcome of our consultation on this instrument it's available on the web we would be happy to send it to you if you want it's a 150 page document full of legalisms but it includes a number of recommendations on three or four pages in which basically we've we've identified the core problems and the core issues and they and on the basis of those core issues I think the commission intends to now interact with the European parliament our member states so the 28 member states and stakeholders writ large and this is a process that we envisage will take about three months and we hope I would say by around April May to be able to condense that into a policy recommendation as to first of all weather and then secondly if so what kind of investment dispute settlement mechanism is appropriate to negotiate with our American friends now the only thing I would say and concluding is that of course all of these things are hugely important but they don't take place in a vacuum so whatever we decide with our very complex processes in Brussels because we try to take account of different member states of the European parliament of the council of civil society we still also subsequently have to negotiate that with our American counterparts and as you can imagine they have a lot of advantages that we don't have because they have a you know very strong self a federated system of government so they have one voice one negotiator it's much more centralized than our European system so whatever outcome we come with in our interaction with the United States subsequently still depends of course on the feedback we receive from them and on the way that the Americans define their priorities for their negotiation with with Europe and I think broadly speaking we can say that we have similar interests we both need growth America needs growth as much as we do we both need competitiveness because we're facing huge competitive challenge from Asia and that will remain in the next 10 to 15 years so this is an agreement in which we can help each other become more competitive but of course like all very very large trade negotiations there's also aspects where we have offensive interests where they are defensive and vice versa and we also have areas where we basically will not be wishing to change European policy in the same way as there are areas on the American side where they will not be wanting to change American policy so I think with that maybe a last comment these negotiations are far from concluded we're now about to get into the real meat of the negotiation we have said that we hope we may be able to conclude these with the Obama administration that is an administration that is still has two years to go it's it's not a certainty that we are able to do that but we are going to try we have a commissioner who's very free trade oriented Cecilia Malmstrom so she's going to put her best foot forward and try but we have to come we can only envisage this if the outcome is balanced and if it really finds support among broad categories of the European population and I think currently the general feeling at the political level is that there is still too much controversy so we need to work through some of the more controversial elements so that we can we can build a broader support of consensus of people who feel that this is the right thing to do thank you very much thank you very much that was very extensive and you answered some of the first questions that I had in mind about progress and timetable and and things like that I had the pleasure on Saturday to meet a representative of the Canadian government Greg Hulahan who had been involved in the Canadian agreement and given you know the recognition from the commission that this whole t-tip negotiation is surrounded by controversy and I understand that the contributions to the consultation have been within the hundreds thousands of people putting in their concerns and their ideas. I wonder if you were involved in the Canadian side of their agreement because I know that there's a signed and you know on the opinion of Mr Hulahan they managed to resolve all of the issues in the controversies that this t-tip agreement is now facing and I wonder if you've got any information you can give us and what lessons have been learned from that and how you would foresee using those lessons to take forward to resolve in some of the issues in the controversies around the current t-tip arrangements yes and thank you very much because I mean the point you raised is at least in political terms it is the most the most sensitive one currently which is you know well what do we do with this investment mechanism and does it belong in an agreement with the United States and there are lots of you know I think legitimate questions that people have Americans are more litigative in their societal structures they litigate more than we do and you know there are legitimate questions in very established legal jurisdictions like Europe and America if you really need an instrument so the question putting the question is of course I'm a trade specialist I look at macroeconomics my main job is to contribute to jobs and growth and sorry mr Mr Hooban I think we have to suspend again we're losing you again is this helping let me just see gosh is this helping can you hear me right we can hear you but there's a noise that appears over your voice distortion of some sort I don't know if there's other devices in the room that could be causing that or maybe your phone which if you could maybe switch that off that might help is this better there's no papers sitting on top of the mic there's no papers sitting leaning on the microphone or anything like that no there's nothing I'm sure we're moving everything out I don't have any phones around I'm very sorry I really should have come to Edinburgh sorry you'd be welcome to come here if ever you wish you know if ever you wish to do a field trip and meet you know I know that MEPs of course from Scotland have been interacting with you but if ever you wish to do a field trip you know not just on TTIP but also on other issues you really should feel free to let us know and we'd be more than happy to to roll out the red the red carpet for you because we really see this as as you know a core task to interact also with with parliaments like like yours thank you very much I think maybe we'll keep our fingers crossed it sounds quite clean just now and we'll continue okay coming through nice and clear now so we'll restart the restart the committee and you can finish your your response right okay so I was just responding to your question on the the investment instrument I think the questions are legitimate and it's political I think people on the on the left more on the left wing are slightly more critical and people more on the right wing are slightly more favourable I'm a trade policy specialist and of course if I look at say European what is the European interest over the longer term we also have to look at these investment instruments in a larger context because if we don't have an instrument of this kind with the United States it will be more difficult to request this of the Indians of the Chinese of the Russians etc because the agreement between Europe and America really is a standard setting agreement which will be seen as such by other partners in the world and so that is an important component it's not the decisive component but it's an important one I think what is fair to say about investment is this most of the of these investment instruments around the world are actually they belong to European member states so it's one of those paradoxes of politics which you come across every now and then there's a huge controversy around the investment instrument but actually if you look at around the world the countries that have these instruments most of all are European member states including the UK including Germany including France including smaller EU member states like Holland where I come from and we are the largest users across the world of investment dispute settlement not just for big business also for small and medium sized enterprises about one quarter of cases that we launch are launched by small SMEs and the only important thing to bear in mind there is that if you are an SME and you have a problem on a third country market you can activate an instrument like this but it's less likely that government to government dispute settlement will work to solve your problem as an SME so the public perception that this investment instrument really only helps big business is not completely on target that's a first point the second point is that the Canada agreement to which you refer to which you referred actually in our view tries to overcome a lot of the criticism that exists about the member state investment instruments that member state have in their bilateral agreements with third countries so we've already made a huge qualitative step to improve the instrument in order to do away with some of the things that civil society has such difficulty with in other words the proceedings have to be transparent in the Canada agreement they cannot be done in secret it's no longer a secret tribunal the arbitration has to be done in public the competence of the arbitrators the qualitative criteria that are applied are more rigorous but that's not to say I think that the Canada agreement in and of itself is the answer for the EU-US agreement firstly because a number of people in the European Parliament I think quite correctly have said that we can still improve on the Canada model so to the point that your Canadian that the Canadian diplomat made to you is true but it's the instrument in the CETA agreement we believe could still at least potentially be improved further in TTRT sorry I'm thinking we're going to have to we've lost you again I've got I'm so sorry I'm very sorry well that's fine now it's fine now is it well whenever whenever somebody lifts up their hand I will press this button again because every time I press a button here it seems to improve so okay let's well let's resume again yes so I apologize so the in in a nutshell I think what we what we want to do in the next months is to try and identify whether there are further improvements to the Canada model that can be envisaged one of those for example is an appeals mechanism the canadaic the Canadian investment instrument does not include an appeals mechanism there are a number of other further tweaks that we are looking at and I think that what we then subsequently envisage is really to put the question to the politicians I mean I of course I'm a civil servant so I will defer well maybe not to yourselves but I will defer to the governments of our 28 member states the members of the European parliament and they will defer to you I mean that's how you know our democracies our democracies work so in a sense the the conversation that we are engaged in after the consultation was made public the study yesterday is both of a technical nature so people like myself have to come with technical improvements and then the politicians like yourselves and they will may have different views depending on their party will ultimately say well you know this is something that we think does belong in an agreement with the US and maybe it doesn't I mean my only point as a technician is that I say please let's let's not look at this only in the context of the transatlantic relation but let's also look at this in the context of the globalizing world in which we operate and in which in many third country markets we have every interest in having an instrument of this kind because we are a net exporter of capital as as the European economy is high value added it's knowledge intensive so when we operate on third country markets whether it's through investments or through sales we have every interest for our own workers in Europe to protect the assets that we have in those markets and to protect the access that we get through trade agreements to those markets so when that access is nullified instruments like these have their place now the legitimate question for politicians is how can we think this through in the context of the EU-US relationship where we do have very very developed legal systems that are independent that are trustworthy and that have stood the test of time and we can all I think in America as well as in Europe be extremely proud of the judicial systems we have okay thank you very much I'm going to open out to to my colleagues and if I could ask colleagues to introduce yourself for the sake of the record and for the sake of our guests this morning I'm going to go to Rod Campbell first morning mr who my name is Roderick Campbell I'm MSP for northeast five if I may I just like to to home in on the ISDS point I think you said a little while ago that by April May time you hope to get to the point where as to have you being taken as to whether or not ISDS would be appropriate in the in t-tip could you just put a little more flesh on what you're hoping to achieve over the next three months obviously a disadvantage I haven't as yet seen the the document you've placed on on the web yesterday outlining the consultation response but a little more information on what you're hoping to achieve in the next three months would be helpful I'm very happy to do that and I've been told that you're a lawyer so no doubt you'll enjoy reading the study or the the report of the consultation because it's it's quite a lengthy document but it includes it includes an executive summary but it's quite a lengthy document but it shows the subtlety I think in a very objective way of you know both the challenges and the difficulties of navigating our way through these this conundrum of this this instrument what is true of course is that this is an instrument that provides a private access to remedies which doesn't yet exist for other stakeholders in a trade agreement so if you are a labor movement and there's a violation of labor law in a third country you don't have this private right of access but you have to go through government to government dispute settlements so that political criticism which people on the left make is I think well founded that ISDS provides a privileged avenue legal avenue for business which is not available for other stakeholders in in society however my reply to that would be still to say that you know the good shouldn't be the enemy of or the better shouldn't be the enemy of the good because if you have a labor problem sorry you're losing uh do you have me again um can you hear me can you hear me hello we can hear you but there's background noise again up I'm so sorry I don't know I I really I apologise for this um I really apologise the whole connection's gone everything's frozen we've lost it lost the line okay well remain suspended briefly to see if we can reconnect hello hello hello hi okay so we found each other again well okay let I just ask just just for the record I'll just for the record I'll I'll resume the committee and allow us to continue with questions but yes and I will I've asked one of our secretaries to come up so that if there's any further problems that we have technical technical support I'll just oh no I'm sorry I'm sorry it's it's completely lost you again we can only do this so often yeah should we just if they can get some technical support I think we'll we'll suspend we'll suspend until maybe you've got some technical support and then we can see if we can make a reconnection okay okay we'll see you soon hello there this is the technical operator Nedinbrook can you hear me yes we can we're we're still we're still trying to invest go ahead we're still trying to investigate this we we think it sounds like it might be a cable problem um maybe the cable going from your microphone um into the wall maybe it's not connected properly or something like that you could maybe just check your connections we're doing that as we speak uh what is it do you hear a background noise or what yes it's it's it's like um a frying noise or something like that on top of the the sound and it breaks breaks up it crackles very loudly oh no because we we're looking we can't see anything here um is there any way you can listen to your own output uh that's a good question um that is a very good question it's very difficult I really do apologise for this that's okay these things happen and sometimes they're out with our control sorry I know I don't I'll get I'll get Brian from the office so what's this ah he's coming okay and where's he coming from okay great so we'll be there anyway great thanks okay so we have a technician who will be here in uh just a couple of minutes sorry thank you although it sounds it sounds clean just now are you sure are you sure it is at our end I mean I'm I'm happy to believe that uh but I'm we can't see anything here that might be causing the problem but you've checked all your connections from the microphone to the wall yes yes and we have no we have no um phones or things around that could that could distort the signal uh huh well we'll wait till your technician comes and see if he or she has a better idea right but now you don't hear any background noise is that correct at the moment but it continues to build off once you start speaking it it kind of slowly comes ah it must be me I don't think so Dominic is David again David again I can see that there's a conference phone on your desk there do you happen to know the number of that in case we can possibly do the audio over the the conference phone right we have a technician who has just come in so yeah I mean in the alternative I think we we we could also use this phone and then use the the picture technician says it's the first time he's heard of this problem in this room that we've not had this before maybe maybe we can lower the the speakers I don't make this which one is that volume just to put it just this evening it was on the max ah does this help um you can't no it doesn't no it just started as soon as you started speaking okay I start as soon as we start speaking I think we're maybe getting some interference from the other phone it's not on you can hear them correctly yes it's just them who are not listening to us yes so they guess it's a microphone problem shall we shall we cut the line and call you back call you back just to see just to see yes can you call us back would you be hello yeah hi we we can try and re-establish the link but we did that once already and the problem occurred the second time as well so I'm not convinced that that was the the answer could you give us your number so we call you yep okay do you want to give us your number yep um it would be 00441313485875 okay we will be calling you uh shortly sorry are you do you mean the the audio phone or are you going to redial over the the video link we'll try the video link and then if it's really uh not working then maybe okay okay a different number then can I give you the the ISDN number for the room 00441313486450 so we call this last number you call that last number yeah okay thank you thank you okay hello hello hello there it sounds quite is this better it sounds quite clean at the moment yes oh oh wonderful wonderful so if that works then um then we can resume if you wish hi Hiddo it's hi it's Katie I'm the clerk to the committee what I was going to suggest was that we try this one more time if it fails again then we'll move over to audio and use your conferencing call facility to get a cleaner audio but keep the visual um so what so what we'll do is we'll continue um if there's a problem somebody will raise their hand again and then we'll suspend the meeting at that point and then we'll ask you for the telephone number for your conferencing facility if that's possible so if you had that number ready just in case it collapses again thank you yes okay that's wonderful so we'll try one last time if it fails we'll move to the audio okay yes apologies for this and thank you for your patience okay thank you okay we'll just do this in the committee now yeah so I'm I'm ready to uh we've heard back to um Roderick Campbell's question yeah I was I was trying to get a flavour mr Hooban of really um a bit more about who was going to be involved in the three months to April to May before a decision has reached us to whether or not ISDS would be appropriate in the treaty um so a bit more information on that in it and what's planned would be helpful yes and thank you I think uh the uh the sequence that we envisage currently is that in normal trade negotiations of this kind we negotiate on behalf of the EU but we do this in consultation with mainly two bodies the first is the council of member states so that means that we will engage both at a technical level so at my level but also at a political level which is the level of the commissioner and the the secretary for trade in in in in London um uh and that is a discussion that takes place in which member states express their national position so each member state has to reflect what a government policy is and that comes together uh and then the usual approach we have uh in europe is that decisions are usually guided by qualified majority uh since the latest EU treaty investment is a european competence and that means that the european parliament is fully part and parcel of any deliberative process that we have regarding the negotiations that we are having on t-tip so our commissioner because that again is at the political level she will interact with the european parliament and notably its trade uh its trade committee uh and uh she will have to also engage with david martin and other meps uh david is on the trade committee if i'm not mistaken uh and there again different political parties will also express different priorities and different emphasis and the purpose of all of that is to find a balance which is broadly acceptable to a majority of member states and a majority of the parliament so that that that does require quite a lot of engagement between the commission and these two other institutions and then lastly what also is part of our outreach going forward is outreach with civil society and we have both formal and informal processes with which we engage with civil society we have a formal advisory group on t-tip in which civil society is represented they will be meeting i believe the commissioner tomorrow they meet on average every six weeks or so every month every six weeks and we also have larger stakeholder sessions for a much larger group because this advisory committee is just 20 i'd say about 20 odd people and then of course what we also do i mean my job is of course to be open uh to anybody who wants to meet uh on an issue whether it's an NGO whether it's a company uh whether it's a law firm and what we try to do is we try to distill uh the best possible approaches to uh this question on ISDS in such a way that the politicians can take can take decisions and in a nutshell what has come out of the consultation is that we have identified four questions and on those four questions the politicians will have to guide the commission and they are the protection of the right to regulate so investment dispute settlement should not undermine the right of governments to regulate how that should be defined legally the second question is the question of the establishment and functioning of arbitral tribunals so again this is the question of the competence of the arbitras the public nature of the proceedings the right of third parties to submit position papers etc the third question is possibly the most complicated one and that is the relationship between domestic judicial systems and uh ISDS which as you know is an arbitral uh proceeding and so the the most complex question from a legal point of view is how these two processes interact with each other so that they don't undermine the judicial process that exists in in in your country or in the united states or elsewhere in europe and the last question is this issue of an appellate mechanism uh which doesn't exist in current investment mechanism so this is the possibility like exists you know in in legal proceedings in most of our systems to to to be able to appeal and those four questions are the key questions on which we will now engage the stakeholders uh and then uh in that process we hope i think by april may uh to have distilled something uh that is a political uh that takes us forward politically thank you mr hoon a couple of points arise from that obviously we have a separate legal system in scotland and uh for the record i ought to put on the refer to my register of interest as a member the faculty of advocates i take it that you'll be inviting a response from representatives of that separate legal system on that third point of that issue in scotland on this issue before me yes absolutely and the other thing i would mention i think mr martin stated position to date is that he regards ids is entirely unnecessary between trading partners so there may be it'll be interesting to see how he responds to the four questions posed i think we're getting that interference over the line again mr hoon i'm so sorry if if we could maybe use the conference call and i'll suspend our meeting briefly to allow you to do that it's okay we're calling you back to the the questioning i know that we were scheduled to to finish with you at 10 30 11 30 your time i don't know how much more time you've got mr hoon i mean your hands you are the elected official so i will stay as long as you wish me okay well we'll resume our committee now and we'll go to jimmy migriga thank you mr hoon um i am a msp for highlands and islands can you i'm sorry if if my questions cross cut some of your previous answers i'm sorry but due to the confusion that may be the case um i want to know whether there will be a role for national parlance in the ratification of t-tip that's the first question and the second question is again to do with isds um can you outline what measures exist in t-tip to ensure that member states retain their right to set policy without the threat of litigation from us companies well there's a there's a very good questions thank you for that i think that in terms of your question on the potential mixity we that's the legal term we use here in brussels uh of t-tip agreement the the line we take is the following we are currently negotiating but we don't yet know what will be in the final agreement and i think isds is a good example because we can't say at this point of time whether it will be inside the agreement or outside the agreement and the general modus operandi that we have is that we engage the negotiations on the basis of a mandate that we have received from member states from the council and on the basis of that mandate we negotiate and at the end when we have a product that we submit for approval to the parliament and to our member states in the council the lawyers then look at what is in the agreement and determine whether european law provides that it need only be adopted at the european level or that it also needs to be adopted by individual parliaments of 28 member states and if the latter is the case then of course it goes through all of the parliaments an example for example is visas if there is anything on visa movement of people of workers that would make the agreement a mixed agreement and i think at this stage what the politicians have said so at a pay grade above mine is that this will be decided at the end of the road but that the scope and importance of the agreement probably implies that we can already anticipate now that it will pass through individual national parliaments as well as the european parliaments and the council so that's on that question on ISDS and the right to regulate what you may wish to see to look at is the text in the canada agreement to which mrs mckelvey referred where you will see that there are explicit provisions to protect the rights of governments to regulate i would also add that most nearly all ISDS procedures are oppose implementing measures of states rather than legislation that countries have adopted but even if that is the case the TTRP agreement if it were to include an ISDS instrument would explicitly protect the right of states and the EU to regulate and what is then adopted through a democratic process could not be overturned by a ISDS judgment so the only thing that an ISDS procedure can lead to is damages for a company that has been negatively affected it cannot lead to a to an overturning of of the legislation itself in a country whether this is in the united states or in europe um can i just one more question um just relating to the um that there's been a lot of media coverage uh and speculation in the UK that TTIP could lead to privatisation of the national health service now i know in a letter from the director general to my colleague ian duncan MEP uh he states that the EU approach would not lead to this but can you um would you anticipate uh there being a specific exemption for health services within TTIP yes well in legal speak we call the exemption a reservation and we will incorporate in TTIP a reservation which basically does two things the first is that it provides that the TTIP agreement could never impose an obligation to privatise or liberalise a sector that is under a public funding but in addition to that TTIP would also provide that if a government wants to reverse a privatisation it will be free to do that so it's not just that you cannot be obliged to privatise but you are also given the additional latitude to be able to reintroduce public funding and public provision of a service if you wish i would add that this is also an American interest so it's not just that as Europeans we are asking for this and the Americans want us to privatise because there are a significant number of areas where the Americans well they call it a different term it's provision in the exercise of a government monopoly i think is the term they use in the united states but they have a similar interest that in areas which they define as wanting to provide a service publicly that that should be possible and that the treaty itself could not impose an obligation that would that would limit that in any way i'm grateful for those clear answers thank you thank you very much adam ingham thank you can can be a morning mr huban adam ingham msp for carrot cumbent in dun valley which is in the airshare in the west of scotland i'd like to ask a nitty gritty question about the economic impact of TTIP much is claimed for TTIP in terms of economic growth and jobs benefits but if truth be told it's a bit hit and miss is it not for every job gained here in scotland from say lower tariffs on knitwear we could lose several others in financial services or food and drink with increased competition from the usa so there'll be winners and losers across economic sectors will there not so predicting outcomes from complex trade negotiations and agreements at a guessing game are there not you can't you can't guarantee anything by way of economic benefits well that's a good question i think how we look at it as trade specialists when we look at a process of liberalisation and that is what at heart we are trying to do here the americans will liberalise sectors that benefit from some protection and we will do the same and those sectors may not be the same the usual economic assessment is that the the costs are concentrated and the benefits are spread out so sectors that lose out to international competition and there have been many in the last decades there are always losers when there is liberalisation and that's why it is rightly for politicians to decide for or against an agreement of this of this of this kind in our policies in europe of course we try to have mitigating mechanisms that allow the economy to adjust because our long-term philosophy is that overall we benefit from openness and of course europe as a continent and its individual member states you could say we invented international trade over the last century whether it is the spanish venus the uk on dutch it's in it's in our veins even though the americans may claim that they have taken on the mantle of competitiveness there are always costs to liberalisation but liberalisation helps you compete and protects you over the longer term because it enables you to have what we have in europe which is a very strong knowledge base and a competitive economy liberalisation in and of itself doesn't need to lead to long-term unemployment if you look at america today for example it's a very open economy their unemployment is below six percent so if we have unemployment in europe which is unacceptably high and it is too high i think everybody agrees on that certainly here in brussels in our analysis it's not trade policy which is at the source of that unemployment and we have to take other measures that help to reduce the unemployment but that's not to say that there won't be losers to a process of liberalisation i would not be telling you truth to you if i suggested otherwise yes we're not just talking about trade flows here we're talking about capital flows and one of the outcomes of international trade agreements for example in north america with the NAFTA agreement there was a flow of capital from the us to mexico which is a low wage economy now there are concerns here for example we want to have a high wage economy we're not looking for that kind of investment but we are concerned we do have a lot of american investment in us investment in scotland and could we actually lose some of that as a consequence of this agreement i think your questions are legitimate the economic modelling suggests that there would be an increase both in trade and in reciprocal foreign investment and what distinguishes the relationship between europe and america from all other parts of the world is two things firstly that our trade historically has been more or less balanced so we import as much to each other as we export to each other this is very different with china it's very different with rasha it's very different with india with whom we have large imbalances over the longer term in the relationship with the united states there is this deep perception of fairness and of mutual benefit so that's the first point and the second point is sorry i've lost my my thought um i have to apologise i'm just past 50 so i've lost my my so the yes so the second is on the investment stock in excuse me in response to your question compared to any other region with the world of the world what defines the transatlantic relationship is the depth of our reciprocal investment stock so we invest more in each other's economies than anywhere else in the world our relationship with china for example is much more a trading relationship rather than an investment relationship the relationship with america arguably is more an investment relationship than a trading relation so it's a very very deep relationship that until now provides for mutual benefits and i think it is this perception of a shared interest that we think that the t-tip can help us compete better against the rest of the world because there are four billion people who have joined the market economy since 1990 they're all in asia they have lots of standards of protections which are lower than ours and if with the united states we can help each other to increase the competitiveness of our economies we will better be able to face the the the competition challenge that we are together facing from asia oh thank you very much i'm not entirely convinced by your answers but wait and also wait till you hit 60 and then you'll have something to complain about okay pass back to the convener willy cofie very much convener good morning mr huban i'm willy cofie i'm the member of the parliament for the constituency of comarnac and the urban valley which is in earshire could i return to the question that was asked of you by my colleague jamey magrigger and it relates to access to scotland's health care services once again could i ask you the question in a different manner perhaps what are the circumstances that might allow access to scotland's publicly funded health care services i know you said that the t-tip cannot impose this but are there any circumstances where it could still happen right i mean what i'm thought by my colleague miranda who is a seconded uk official working in the commission is that you have a specific situation in scotland in which any decision to tender out certain activities would have to be taken by the scottish parliament now none of that would be changed by t-tip in both directions so both in terms of a decision you as a parliament may take to contract out and any subsequent decision that a later government may take to contract in if you want to turn back any privatisation measure that you have taken before so if there are market experiments a government wants to take anywhere in europe they are they can be made but if in addition you have an election a new government comes in and they wish to reverse a privatisation that will also be possible now the only point i think on which you can have a discussion between trade policy experts is whether if you decide to open up the market whether there should then be non-discrimination between an american bidder and a european bidder that is trade policy business but the choice of whether or not you wish to exercise a monopoly in public policy that is and will remain yours as a national parliament or as a government let me just ask you to clarify that are you telling me that the scottish government could prevent access to our publicly funded health services even if the united kingdom government decided to open them up through t-tip yes at least as far as t-tip is concerned i i don't know the specificities of your constitutional relationship with the uk but t-tip will not in any way affect the relationship between scotland and the uk so if you can do it in your constitutional relationship t-tip will not in any way put a hurdle on that but the competence here lies with the united kingdom government doesn't it should it decide otherwise that's where the decision would rest is that not the case my my the only point i am able to make to you is that t-tip would not impact that thank you very much for that i'll let other members ask a question thank you thank you hands out good morning mr hoban thank you for being so patient and i really appreciated your input this morning i wanted to ask you something that we are very passionate about and that's education in scotland we have a a very historic institution of education and we have we've always encouraged education for people to come to scotland for education and in particular the us and and we enjoy a very warm and very friendly relationship in that i'm wondering that with t-tip is there going to be any additional burdens or restrictions on how we continue that relationship in terms of one the number of students to the value of fees and three whether they would be entitled to engage in other activities while the students here will there be any impact on that for our industry the short answer to that is no the longer answer to that is that we will try to t-tip to make any facilitating measures that would foster such exchange for example by encouraging a mutual recognition of diplomas so that for example if you go and study in america but you want to practice afterwards in scotland that your american diploma can be recognized in europe and vice versa so t-tip will try again it's not yet clear whether you know we we will be successful in that but t-tip will try to encourage uh the recognition of diplomas and for workers we may also try to improve mobility so that if you want to work on the american market currently it's very difficult to get a visa to work and if the americans agree we would be very interested in having measures that facilitate the exchange of workers because we think that would appeal to young notably to young people but again that is something where we are still at the beginning of this negotiation and we don't know whether there will be appetite for this uh uh going forward in terms of fees and charges uh i don't think that t-tip in any way impacts uh either your system in in scotland or the very diverse system of private and public education that they have in the united states that sounds helpful and i use the word cautionary sounds helpful because um in terms of visas for students to come and go uh the freedom of to exercise that and and also in terms of allowing the students to work in the host country because also that's not only helpful financially but it's also helpful in terms of understanding or getting a greater understanding of the culture of europe and america so i'm just uh trying to tease out the the whether there's going to be any restrictions in that and whether this is going to be open to national members to make those decisions or will it be done central in europe and if it's going to be done in central europe we i'm wondering what the process of lobbying would be to try and ensure that we have a satisfactory outcome in the issue right i can only offer this which is that if any progress is made on these issues it will have to fully involve the national level because this is not a european competence so if member states and the european parliament see promise in trying to improve the mobility of students or workers and the the rapidity with which they can access each other's markets so that you have a a european person who is qualified who can work in in america and possibly also that the partner of the person is allowed to work i mean all of these attendant conditions are also very important whether we can move forward on that depends on a green light from member states because this is a national competence so we will be looking very carefully for guidance uh because we're very attentive to what is a european competence and what we depend on for for the member state level thank you very much that's very helpful thank you thank you and thank you convener and good morning mr huban and thank you for your patience um i'm i'm not quite sure if i'm the unlucky omen in the committee this is my first day within the committee um my name is ann mc taggart i'm an msp from glasgo and this as i say this my first day within the committee as i have just been selected to be the shadow minister for europe and international development so i'm keen to hear all that you've had to say this morning but can i ask about some of the standards questions um how the euws higher agricultural and food standards which oppose extra cost to the european farmers can be protected under t-tip well i you ask a hugely difficult question because next to the investment instrument i think the the question of food standards is uh is the most controversial one in in in t-tip our position as we have i think articulated it is that we are not going to change through t-tip our legislation on for example genetically modified foods or organisms we are not going to change the ban we have uh on injecting cattle with hormones in order to make them grow more quickly which is a current practice in the united states all of those practices in the food chain will not be up for negotiation in t-tip however t-tip will provide for greater access for products that we are allowed to share on each other's market so the border protection will be reduced and that will allow more exports from the european farmers to the us market and vice versa and i would add that in the agricultural trade we have a net surplus with the united states since the number of years so we think that in the end there are very significant export interests of europe uh in in in negotiation and not just defensive interests thank you mr human for your answer could i possibly extend on on that answer and ask about what discussions decisions have been made or agreed regarding the set no standards within other industries and trade agreements and taking it out with the agricultural and the food standards yes that is uh a question that is difficult to answer because in the field of standards there are certain things that we are not doing and there are certain things that we are wanting to do so uh where our standards are fundamentally different like for example in how we treat chemicals t-tip will not bring about change but where standards lead to redundancies and to higher costs for our industry there we are trying to find common outcomes so for example in the field of car safety standards these are different in america and europe and they lead to a huge unnecessary burden on car factories because if they could use a car that is exported to the us it has to respect safety requirements which in practice lead to the same level of safety but the car has to be built completely differently and there we are trying to find mechanisms of mutual recognition but in the field of chemicals for example we have legislation called reach in europe which provides for the registration of hazardous chemicals the united states don't have that and that is not going to change they are not going to adopt our system and we are not going to adopt theirs so that's still a thorny issue then that has to be negotiated and i undoubt correct so there you see that in the end uh the negotiation is not a mathematical thing but it's really more of an art in which on both sides we have to identify the areas where we can make our standards more compatible and in some cases we will succeed and in some cases we will not so then after that could be about reducing standards no i think what both sides have said quite clearly is that there is never going to be a lowering of standards never but what we can have is who cross sharing of information we can have standards that are more intelligent and more compatible but the only direction is up that's super thank you very much mr holman that's what i was hoping to hear thank you thanks kina jimmy migrego thank you just on that point mr holman i understand that in written evidence to the committee ian Duncan MEP referred to comments made by the german agriculture minister christian smith suggesting that the protected food name schemes will be removed under t-tip and this would be very bad for scotland you know with our scotland and stawn away black pudding and other very important products and um i just wondered what your comments might be on that yes well that's a very good question i have to say i'm very impressed by the level of your questions i think the german minister in the meantime has qualified those comments and they were referred to the difficulties that your products or other products with what we call geographic indications in our technical speak in brussels so parma ham cheeses and the like they are insufficiently protected in america they are only protected by the trademark system whereas in europe we have specific geographic indication protection which is a higher level of protection and through t-tip we are trying to export in the certain way some of that extra protection that we that we give in europe and we're not going to get everything because the americans don't like it but we will get certainly an improvement on the us markets in comparison to the current situation thank you okay thank you very much mr huban it's just went on to 11 o'clock and i think you know given all our technical problems this morning i wonder if you would mind if our committee has some additional questions for you that we send them to you and i hope that you can maybe answer some more detail on some of the things that we've maybe not managed to cover this morning would that be acceptable to you absolutely and i think this unfortunate experience with the video confirms that the next time either one of my colleagues or myself should come over to edinburgh or you should come over here and and speak to us in person yeah i think maybe that's that's the best way to do things but we're sorry about the technical challenges this morning and we really appreciate your time and your candor and your openness and hopefully this will be a conversation that we can continue as we go through our deliberations on t-tip and its implications on scotland but for the committee's point of view this morning can i thank you very much and as i say we look forward to to hearing from you again and hopefully seeing you in edinburgh soon thank you absolutely and thanks to you it was a pleasure to be with you thank you very much okay that finishes that section of our deliberations this morning i'd now like to close this meeting and remind members that our next meeting is on the 22nd of january where we will take evidence from jackie minar on the european commissions work program thank you very much