 I will allow a few moments for members to change positions. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 13007 in the name of Christina McKelvie on the implications of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership for Scotland. I could invite those members who wish to be considered to speak in the debate. Press a request to speak buttons now please. I call on Christina McKelvie to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the European and External Relations Committee. Ms McKelvie, 14 minutes or so. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to move this motion on behalf of the committee. It's not often you get a European and External Relations Committee, but you've got one last week and one this week, so I'm sure you're all being very keen to take part in that. Presiding Officer, T-Tip, sometimes I think it's become the most emotive four-letter word of the last year. So what is T-Tip and why has it provoked such a strong public reaction? By the measure of all of our inboxes over the past few days, the reaction is very strong indeed. T-Tip is a trade agreement that is currently being negotiated by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union and the United States. There have been around 50 such trade deals with the EU and international partners, the most recent being the conclusion of the comprehensive trade and economic agreement with Canada that never make these things easy to say. The negotiations on T-Tip started in July 2013 and is unclear when or even if the negotiations will be concluded. The new European Commission has made a reasonable and balanced free trade agreement with the US, one of its 10 priorities, and the ninth round of negotiations has recently concluded in the US. However, the timetable for the agreement remains fluid. Even if there is an agreement, it will be many years before the impact is felt. EU trade deals in the past have all been agreed without attracting much attention. So why is T-Tip proving to be so controversial? All over the EU, civil society organisations have campaigned and rallied in opposition to T-Tip. A genuine European anti-Tip movement has emerged. Organisations in Scotland have been part of the movement and have articulated strong concerns about the potential agreement. The committee concluded that much of this concern about T-Tip has arisen as a result of the lack of transparency that has historically surrounded trade negotiations and which initially surrounded the T-Tip negotiations. Concerns mounted both over what would be in the agreement and what the potential implications were. That was highlighted in evidence to the committee. For example, the university and college union told us that the secrecy, including the secret negotiating positions and the lack of public engagement and involvement in the whole process, has set alarm bells ringing. The STUC stated that the secrecy surrounding the negotiation is unacceptable and likely to undermine trust in both trade policy and the EU institutions responsible for directing it. When Cecilia Mamstrung took over as the new European trade commissioner in late 2014, she responded to repeated calls for more transparency and disclosure by promising greater levels of transparency in relation to the negotiations. That included making some public negotiating texts more public, making the negotiation texts available to all MEPs and publishing information on meetings held by the European commissioners and senior European commission officials. In addition, the commission responded to calls from the European ombudsman Emily O'Reilly for greater public access to consolidated negotiating texts by publishing a number of textual proposals that set out EU proposals for the legal text in T-Tip. I first became aware of the strength of concerns relating to T-Tip in Scotland last year when I attended a national farmers union hustings in my constituency in Larkhall during the European elections. From that point on, T-Tip began to come up regularly in contacts with the constituents, in my meetings with trade unions and most pervasively on Twitter. Last August, I proposed to the committee that we should conduct some inquiry work on T-Tip. When we discussed it, we were particularly concerned by the number of unanswered questions in relation to T-Tip. What would be the impact on public services? Would our regulatory standards be lowered? Would our shops be flooded with meat with hormones? Would there be an effect on jobs? How beneficial would it be for the Scottish economy? In addition, the lack of transparency surrounding the whole process made it difficult to get clear or reassuring answers. For that reason, one of our key motivations was to explore the implications of T-Tip, especially for Scotland and the people of Scotland, in order that we hoped to shed some light on what the trade agreement would mean for us. We were keen that the evidence should be balanced, so we decided to hear from both organisations that were concerned by T-Tip and those who were in favour. Before talking in more detail about the evidence that we heard, I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to all those who engaged with the committee in the context of its inquiry work into T-Tip. That thank you is extended to the clerks on the committee who have been no small feat, managed to bring amazing people around the table that have given us wonderful information and allowed us to negotiate our way through that properly. I would like to thank not only those, yes, certainly. Patrick Harvie. I would also like to thank the committee and those who contributed to its work for the report that has been produced. The committee is asking Parliament, not as we normally see in committee debates, merely to note the report, but to welcome the recommendations as well. In reading those recommendations, I have been a little unclear whether the committee is recommending that the T-Tip deal should in fact progress at all, and that assumption seems not to be addressed. Can the committee convener tell us whether the report is intended to imply a recommendation that T-Tip should proceed? Christine McKelvie. I thank Patrick Harvie for that intervention and I also thank Patrick Harvie for calling me out in the chamber last year to ask the committee to do something on this, in which, hopefully, we have responded. Patrick Harvie is absolutely right in his assumptions and conclusions of the recommendations. As I will say closer to the end of my contribution, the committee has not yet finished and there are many aspects of it that we still want to keep an eye on before we come to any real final conclusions. What we wanted to do was to raise the profile, raise the understanding and to bring it to the floor of this chamber to allow us to debate those things. I think that the committee did not come to any clear understanding about whether it should go ahead or it shouldn't. We certainly do believe that there are aspects of it at the ISDS that should be kept a close eye on and certainly the concerns about how public services would be affected by this. That is not finished and we can give you that reassurance. Presiding Officer, I would like to thank not only those who engaged formally with the committee through oral and written evidence, but also all those who engaged via Twitter and by email with their views on the proposed TTIP agreement. We as a committee benefited from all of that engagement, whether it was formal or informal. Towards the end of the committee's inquiry, I hosted an event organised by the Hansel Society in the European Parliament office in Edinburgh on TTIP. I would like to thank those two organisations for taking the initiative to organise this event for the public, which was sold out. Basically, the room was packed with very, very interesting exchanges indeed. It was held in the evening and it was completely full, as I said. The places have been taken up very, very quickly by all those who were interested in TTIP. For two hours, a number of speakers and participants discussed the intricacies of TTIP and I think it would be fair to say that we could have gone on all night. The stamina of some of the participants was remarkable as they travelled to attend the committee's evidence session with Lord Livingston first thing in the morning and then stayed in Edinburgh all day waiting to attend the evening event. My thanks also goes to Scotland's MEPs and members of the Committee of the Regions who provided written submissions on TTIP and who have been actively engaged on the issue in Brussels. The interaction between the committee and Scotland's representatives in the EU has been a very, very positive example of how sharing and collaboration can improve understanding and scrutiny of EU policies. Finally, I thank the Scottish Government for its response to the committee's report, a very timely response. The committee is looking forward to the UK Government after something that is happening next week is finished with. Hopefully when a new Government is formed we will get a timuous and detailed response from the UK Government. We are also looking forward to a response from the European Commission too. In terms of the oral evidence heard by the committee we heard first from the third sector organisations and trade unions in late November last year then in December we heard from businesses and business organisations. The measures from the roundtables was often very concerning and notably we heard more about specific concerns that we heard about specific benefits. Yes, we heard that the reduction in tariffs the involvement in regulatory coherence and better co-operation would boost the economy. But what sectors would benefit the most we asked? What are the realistic projections of economic growth? Would it just be big companies or would it be small and medium enterprises which make up the majority of firms in Scotland? Who would benefit? What will be the impact on jobs? Who would be the trade-offs? Because presumably a trade deal will also open up the Scottish market to the U.S. I was certainly quite struck by the lack of information of some of these areas and lack of awareness among some Scottish businesses and their representative bodies about the implications of T-Tip. Of course the trade deal is being negotiated but it would seem to be fundamental not to enter into an agreement unless real tangible benefits could be identified and we wanted to know what those would be for Scotland. I therefore welcome the commitments made by the Deputy First Minister in his response to the committee to work with the enterprise agencies and other existing structures to help to raise awareness and understanding of T-Tip and then there were the concerns. Primarily among those was the NHS and the potential impact on public services. I am sure that many members will focus their comments on those issues today. I also note the importance attributed to the issue by the Deputy First Minister in his response to the committee. Another key area of concern was the prospect of the eventual agreement having a detrimental effect on regulatory and environmental standards. In particular there were concerns raised about maintaining restrictions on GM food and the entry into the EU market of meat derived from animals fed with growth hormones and chicken washed in chlorine. The very complex issue of the use of investor state dispute settlement mechanism and the potential for large multinationals to sow governments emerged. The issue of protected food names came up to, particularly in relation to the cherished products such as black pudding. We listened closely to those concerns and raised them in subsequent evidence sessions that we held with European Commission's deputy chief negotiator, the UK Government's trade and investment minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and the Economy. Fall on these sessions we still had some concerns which informed the conclusions and recommendations in our reports and I will highlight some of these now but leave Hans Alamallek in his opinion to speak about some of the others when he closes the debate. In relation to the lack of transparency around the negotiations and the lack of clarity on certain issues notably with regards to public services we called on the European Commission to make such information as possible available during the course of the negotiations. As neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Scottish Government has a formal role either in the negotiations or the eventual ratification of the agreement we concluded that it was crucial that there were strong mechanisms and structures in place to ensure that the Scottish Government is consulted and kept informed of developments of relevance to devolved policy areas. This inquiry demonstrated to us that the Scottish Government is primarily dependent on intergovernmental contact with, I think, him. How long have I got? John Finnie. I'm grateful for the member taking intervention. You said to be kept informed of areas that are within the devolved competency. Worker's terms and conditions are a reserved matter. I take it that the committee would still wish to hear about the potential erosion of worker's terms and conditions. Christine McHill, I can't give you the extra time to make up for the interventions. Absolutely. As you would understand when there's intergovernmental discussions going on they tend to focus on some of the things that we deal in devolved areas but certainly deal with issues on reserved areas that have an impact on jobs, workers and the economy in Scotland and that's certainly something that we have had assurances from the Deputy First Minister that that would be raised and dealt with. Certainly. Neil Findlay. Can I ask you if any of the people given evidence raised the fact that secret behind closed doors negotiations away from the prying eyes of the voters and the taxpayer are only likely to drive people more to extremist parties like UKIP. Was that a concern raised by anyone given evidence? Christine McHill. It's a bit of a leap, Mr Findlay, but certainly that wasn't raised by the UKIP who came to committee. He thought it was a great idea but didn't want to be a part of Europe but wanted the trade. So it showed you that sort of a two-faced attitude that UKIP have to this. I think I'm going to have to try and finish. I still got a bit to get going with. No, I'm going to finish, sorry. In relation to the economic benefits of TTIP, they are presented as the key driving factor behind the negotiations that maybe answers some of the questions. It's fair to say that the economic modelling conducted either in the EU or at UK level to estimate the contribution that an EU-US trade agreement could make in GDP growth lacks rigor. Moreover, we felt that there was insufficient information on the likely impact of the agreement on the key economic sectors in Scotland. The committee welcomed the commitment of the Scottish Government and the Enterprise Agency to conduct further research and asked the Scottish Government to carry out a more detailed economic impact assessment covering both GDP growth and the impact on key sectors in Scotland if and when the agreement is finally signed. I don't know how much more time I've got left. I could give you another minute. Excellent, thank you very much. I will now turn to two of the big issues that emerged, the investor state dispute settlement mechanism, which I'm hoping my colleague Rod Campbell will pick up on in his contribution. I might have just put him in the spot there, but hopefully he will. The committee was told that the ISDS model used in the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada might provide a model for the TTIP agreement. However, the fundamental issue for us was why there was a need for the ISDS mechanism to protect against discriminative action against EU companies in the US or US companies in the EU when we have established a well-developed legal system within our own nation states. The committee therefore concluded that genuine and well-founded concerns had been expressed to us about the risk of national court systems being bypassed by major corporations and any disputes that should be resolved in accordance with the legal systems that involve the country. I would like to conclude by asking Parliament to welcome the committee's work. I look forward to hearing the contributions across the chamber from many interested colleagues in this matter. Many thanks. I have a little bit of time in hand. I should advise the chamber for interventions. I felt that it was important to give extra time to the committee. The cabinet secretary has looked around 10 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the convener for her remarks. Let me begin by welcoming the committee's inquiry into this important issue. I applaud the committee for the way in which it has gone about the task and the breadth and the depths of its scrutiny. As the committee and MSPs are aware and as we will hear during our debate many organisations from trade unions to environmental organisations and many members of the public have deep concerns about TTIP. The Scottish Government believes that those concerns should be raised, represented and addressed not just dismissed out of hand. The committee heard evidence from a range of interests from trade unions, NGOs and businesses from the European Commission, live by video from New York, from the UK Government's Minister for Trade Lord Livingston and from the Deputy First Minister. The committee has covered a wide range of complex issues that cut across the roles and responsibilities of the EU institutions, Westminster and, of course, the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. On that latter point we must reluctantly recognise that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament currently have no formal role in the TTIP negotiations or if and when it happens the ratification of any agreement. Nonetheless, we have a critical role in representing the people and businesses of Scotland and ensuring that the UK Government takes full account of Scottish priorities and concerns. The committee has already played an important role in that and the Scottish Government has formally responded to its conclusions and recommendations. Today's debate gives Parliament the opportunity to play its role. Let me use my time to focus on some of the key themes in the committee's report. Scotland has a strong economic relationship with the US and, as the committee recognised, TTIP could, and I emphasised could help to build on that by improving market access for Scottish goods and services and reducing non-tariff barriers. Indeed, our indicative modelling of the impacts of TTIP that the committee requested suggested is that there should be a strong economic relationship and a positive impact on headline indicators such as DDP and total international exports. However, we must recognise that this is not a one-way street. Although the aggregate economic impact might be positive, there could be some sub-sectors and some companies that are adversely affected. There will be winners and losers. We must acknowledge, as the committee has done, that the assumptions used by the commission, or other studies such as that by Tufts University, suggest a more negative economic outcome. Truth be told, no one can be absolutely certain of the scale and scope of the economic benefits and challenges that TTIP might bring or how it will play out across businesses and communities of Scotland. I give way to Kevin Stewart. Kevin Stewart. I thank the cabinet secretary for that. Obviously, there could be economic advantage. There may be economic disadvantages that has been highlighted by Tufts. But what about reputation? I have great concern about GMOs. If genetic modification is part of signing up to TTIP, that is something that I do not think that Scotland can afford reputationally. Could the cabinet secretary respond to that, please? Cabinet secretary. I want to come on to the point of speculation. Kevin Stewart raises an important about reputation. In Scotland's beef and lamb and our agriculture more generally, the importance of our status and reputation is paramount in considering the benefits or otherwise to Scotland. In terms of what we also need to look at, the Scottish Government is absolutely clear that any agreement must under no circumstances be a standard. That is the point that Kevin Stewart is raising. We are absolutely clear the importance on the right of this Government and this Parliament to regulate in the public interest and certainly not at the expense of our NHS or other vital public services. As many in this chamber will be aware, TTIP is not just about reducing tariffs between the EU and the US still further. It is also about reducing so-called non-tariff barriers to regulatory coherence. As the committee has pointed out, this could help reduce the red tape and associated costs that Scottish businesses especially small businesses face when exporting to the US. The principle of regulatory coherence or harmonisation sounds sensible and is after all central to the European single market but we must not forget that the primary purpose of regulation is to protect consumers, workers and the environment. The committee is right to point out that, although the UK Government and the Commission have said that TTIP will not affect standards, we cannot be assured of that until we see the final text. The UK Government and the Commission must be held to their word on this and must resist the lobbying of those who would put profit before protection and shareholders before citizens. That is why, for example, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead raised the issue with the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Agriculture before last month's EU Agricultural Council. The Scottish Government is clear that regulatory coherence must not lower standards and must not put regulatory decision making in the hands of technocrats or big business. Those are decisions for democratically elected institutions no one else. Turning to the committee's consideration of investment protection and investor state dispute settlement ISDS, over the last 15 years this Parliament has taken bold and ambitious legislative action on issues such as smoking in public places and climate change. Many other decisions which might not grab the headlines but are all about acting in the interests of the people of Scotland. Every so often we disagree with each other on what those interests are and how they should be achieved, but we do not, I think, disagree that it is for this democratically elected institution to make those decisions. Nothing should undermine that. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking a brief intervention. The cabinet secretary has mentioned twice now that it is elected members that should be making decisions. Is the cabinet secretary not concerned therefore that UK Government put unelected lords to the EU to make representation on fisheries on Scotland's behalf? I absolutely agree with that. I will come on to that in my concluding remarks. The committee heard concerns from organisations like Friends of the Earth Scotland that proposals, for example, for ISDS might undermine our decision making or that Governments and legislators might hold back from legislation for fear of being sued so-called regulatory chill. Those concerns are not unique to Scotland. They are reflected across Europe in the 150,000 responses to the commission's consultation on ISDS and the fact that six of the 14 committees of the European Parliament involving and drafting the Parliament's resolution on teeth tip have recently passed draft opinions rejecting the ISDS clause that is currently part of the agreement. The European Commission has stated that nothing would limit the right of Governments to regulate. However, in our view, the committee's skepticism of the need for ISDS is justified. As it happens, Westminster's Business Innovation and Skill Committee agrees when the business committee published its teeth tip report on 25 March. Its chair said, "...we are not convinced the case has been made for the inclusion of ISDS clauses." Well, neither is the Scottish Government. We are not convinced that ISDS is required for an agreement between advanced economies such as the EU and the US which have established legal systems and a strong rule of law. In our view, disputes between investors and the state should be settled in domestic courts and nothing should undermine the Scottish Government's and Scottish Parliament's freedom to act and regulate in the public interest. The committee also heard concerns from trade unions and others that teeth tip would lead to the privatisation of our NHS and other vital public services. I am sure that many members have heard those concerns from their constituents. In our view, those concerns are too strong, too loud and too important to be dismissed with a glib assurance from Lord Livingston that everything will be fine. That is why the Scottish Government has been pressing the UK Government and the European Commission for an explicit exemption for the NHS on the face of the agreement. I give way to Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful. Does the minister acknowledge that it goes a little bit beyond the NHS and beyond the threat of further future privatisations? That deal threatens the right of national governments to bring back to the public sector things that have already been privatised. There are many of us across the chamber who would like to see some of our infrastructure brought back under public ownership. That could be made more difficult by this deal. The issue of public services more generally is something that the committee addressed and is something that we have raised with the UK Government. Particularly on the NHS, we have raised it with the Secretary of State for Health. The First Minister has raised it with the Prime Minister. A commitment on exemption, however, is coming even just on the NHS where even Lord Livingston has attempted to give reassurances. We therefore fully endorse the committee's support for the double lock, which would explicitly exempt the NHS from the agreement and in the context of TTIP provide absolute clarity that any decisions on the NHS south of the border such as opening it up to more private providers in no way interferes with the Scottish Government's and Scottish Parliament's ability to determine how and by whom the NHS and other publicly funded public services are provided, I'm coming to the end of my remarks. As the First Minister has said, and as she has reiterated to the STUC last week, no ifs, no buts, but there must be an explicit protection for the NHS on the face of the agreement. Let me conclude, Presiding Officer, with two broader points which the committee's inquiry has brought into sharp relief. Firstly, whether it is TTIP or some other aspect of EU policy, the existing structures and mechanisms of consultation and engagement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government are not working and action is needed to reform and improve the current intergovernmental machinery and the concordat and co-ordination of European policy issues. Furthermore, if MPs and the unelected House of Lords are to have access to TB documentation, then MSPs should also have such access. Secondly, as the committee highlights, TTIP exemplifies the disconnect and concluded my remarks. The TTIP exemplifies the disconnect between people and organisations in Scotland and EU decision making processes. The Government has set out our agenda for EU reform and reiterated our refresh action plan for EU engagement. It is our view that the EU and its institutions must do more to reconnect with citizens. The committee's inquiry has made an important contribution to that and the first that our debate will today add to that contribution. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now call on Jenny Marra. Seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We welcome this debate from the European and External Affairs Committee on the issue of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and its implications for Scotland. I know that I'm not the only member who has been inundated with emails from constituents in the last couple of days on their sincere concerns about this trade deal. They show the strength of feeling among the public on the potential threat this could pose and it is very right that we debate this year in the Scottish Parliament today. The committee's report cites evidence from the cabinet secretary for finance John Swinney that TTIP will bring considerable economic benefits to Scotland and he echoed earlier comments by the then First Minister, Alex Salmond and his successor, Nicola Sturgeon who both described TTIP as especially good news. And while there are some who would take issue with this we can agree the real bone of contention is the hidden impact this deal could have on public services particularly on our NHS and the threat of opening these up to the market and I think these points were very well put by both the convener and the cabinet secretary just some moments ago. Because, Presiding Officer, there is a strong and unchallengeable consensus in this Parliament and across Scotland to have a health service in public hands which is free at the point of need and funded through general taxation. And Labour will resist any attempts to defy the will of the Scottish people for a publicly run NHS which holds to the ideals instilled by Clement Atley's Labour Government when our health service was created more than six decades ago. So we all welcome the assurances from the EU Commission and from the UK Government that there is no risk to public service from TTIP. In particular I would highlight the evidence given to the committee by my Labour colleague David Martin NEP, an acknowledged expert on European trade issues. David Martin said to committee, TTIP is expected to follow the model of previously negotiated EU trade agreements which are already in force. All EU trade agreements to date have included broad carve out for public services which protects EU member states rights to keep services such as health, education and water in the public sector. In addition he continued, member state national governments are able to take out additional reservations on particular sectors including for example public health care services. Governments are and must remain free to re-nationalise any service they reclassify as a public service and this is currently the requirement irrespective of TTIP. No, I'm a bit short of time but that's okay. I think we can take some confidence that we have strong MEPs like David Martin and Catherine Stuyler arguing the progressive case in these trade deals in the European Parliament. Can I say that if elected next week a Labour Government would not put our NHS at risk under TTIP? Ed Miliband as Prime Minister would demand a clear and robust exemption for our NHS and our public services from any deal as the Cabinet Secretary demanded. We are right to be vigilant. Part of the problem as identified by the committee convener has been the secret nature in the way this has been negotiated. While this may be normal for trade talks, people need clarity and assurances when something as important as our NHS and our public services are being discussed. I would like to take the opportunity today to acknowledge the efforts of the TTIP campaigns particularly the trade union movement in shining a light on the potential threat and wringing out these assurances. Dave Watson of Unison Scotland called for an unequivocal exclusion of public services from the TTIP negotiations. Through this report and the campaign work by the trade unions and others, I hope that those negotiating TTIP recognise the level of mistrust among the public about this issue and do their utmost to remove any grey areas which could give rise to fears of exploitation by vested interests. We all have a duty in this Parliament to hold those involved in TTIP to their assurances that our NHS will not be impacted by this trade deal on a cross-party basis. The committee report also highlights the feeling of distance that people and organisations can feel from decisions taking in Brussels. That reminds us that fears and misunderstandings of our place in Europe are not just confined to UKIP and the Tory backbenches. Fears about Europe and its role in our lives exist in all our communities and the politics may seem opaque and distant at times. It is important that those of us here who believe in co-operation on solidarity with our neighbours across the European Union and who believe that this union serves us well, the economic and social union of Europe continue to fight for it. Thank you. Seven minutes please at this point if members wish to take intervention. Thank you very much. To start with I would like to thank all the stakeholders that attended our evidence sessions all of which was most interesting and enlightening. I would also like to extend my thanks to the committee clerks for all their work especially with the compiling of the report. I just thought perhaps it's worth putting on record the objective of the agreement which was the negotiating mandate for TTIP states that the objective of the agreement is to increase trade and investment between the EU and the US by realising the untapped potential of a truly transatlantic marketplace generating new economic opportunities for the creation of jobs and growth through increased market access and greater regulatory compatibility and setting the path for global standards. I don't think there's anything too sinister about that but I do agree with what Jenny Marra said about looking at the areas which people are worried about and exposing these and seeing if there really is anything sinister behind them. Now today's debate on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership or TTIP is very important for a number of reasons. The US is an important market for Scotland both in terms of exports and foreign investments into Scotland. TTIP holds the potential to further reduce red tape that is hampering business. It will lower tariffs and will allow for the creation of high international standards by reinforcing the EU-US trading power. This trade agreement is also a natural development of the UK-US special relationship albeit in a slightly different role with the EU this time acting as a negotiator. Free trade is one of the fundamental drivers of economic growth and prosperity in the world and it was only when trade was increasingly liberalised that the United Kingdom strengthened by the Union of 1707 could step out of the dark ages into an era of greater prosperity. TTIP is a logical step towards a world based on free trade. A conclusion of TTIP negotiations might hopefully also put additional pressure on the ongoing Doha development round of the world trade organisation that holds a never-freer world trade. Suddenly Of course he would say that being a Tory but does he realise that this is not about free trade this is about the developed world protecting its trade at the expense of everyone else? I just have to say that I disagree with that. The Scottish North America Business Council made a valuable contribution during the committee inquiry pointing out that whilst the trade barriers we have between the EU and the US are portrayed as small an average of 3%, the total cost for British companies is over 1 billion US dollars. Imagine if we were to remove these tariff barriers further and shackling business. The economic benefits for Scotland and Britain would be significant indeed. Estimates show that up to 10 billion could be added to the British economy every single year but not even this would be enough to cover the SNP Government's black hole but it is a significant amount of money. TTIP will not change the fact that it is up to the UK Government alone to decide how our public services including the NHS are run. There's nothing in the agreement that has the power to change our laws or lower consumer labour or environmental standards. The setting of standards are and will remain the right of the EU and national governments. This deal however will allow for greater sharing of best practices but also the creation of better international standards if they are used by both the EU and the US and this would allow us to create higher pressure on our trade partners across the world in terms of any new deals. If they want to gain access to the EU-US markets they will have to adhere to the standards that TTIP can help to create. Those can be higher standards. The EU has also made it clear in responding to public concern TTIP will not lead to a lowering of standards unless the European Parliament and national governments, I think there's 28 of them decide to do so. I'm aware that people fear that investors could sue governments for losses and win if the governments take a decision in the wider public interest whether on health, the environment or consumer standards and the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms is very common in terms of international trade. They are there to protect companies from government decisions that are discriminatory and unfair. Protection that is already part of UK law and the UK hasn't suffered from any of these. This mechanism gives investors higher confidence thus increasing investments. However it is important that if ISDS mechanisms are included in the final draft that they are as tight as possible minimising the risk of any abuse. In response to those that argue that this deal will only benefit big business this is far from the case. TTIP will grant British and Scottish firms unprecedented access to the American market with its 300 million consumers. Thanks to lower regulated differences lower trade tariffs smoother customs processes and access to US public procurement markets will directly benefit small businesses that previously might have been unable to bear the costs of all this. It would be luddite to reject this deal. It would deliver up 10 billion per year to the British economy unshackled business from red tape trade tariffs and other obstacles to free trade and the prosperity that this can deliver. Will this not only benefit the UK? Order, please. I'm suspending the Parliament for a few moments. I'm just stopping, Presiding Officer. I hear that I reconvened the Parliament and I would ask guests in the gallery not to clap proceedings. Mr McGregor, please proceed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I said, this will not only benefit the UK it will benefit the whole of the EU. It's due to the stagnant EU economy and weakness of the euro that farmers, for example, are getting about 20% less for their farming subsidies than they got last year. An injection of up to 100 billion would kickstart the economy and I'd indirectly benefit a great many people because it might do something to start some growth in Europe that is exactly what is desperately needed. Now there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding TTIP that are wrongfully undermining a genuinely good trade deal and it's a shame if this kind of scamongering is going to scupper something that could be good for people, working people. It is likely to be another year before we can see the final draft of the agreement but the US, the EU and the UK negotiators and governments have all reassured that standards would not be affected and that the NHS remains in public hands for as long as the Scottish and UK governments decide that this is the preferred course of action. It is important that we do not succumb to these myths and anti-American sentiments that sometimes are evident in this country. I think that the member has closed, thank you very much. The open debate speeches of around six minutes are so pleased with a little bit of time at this stage 4 interventions. I call Linda Fabiani to be followed by Anne McTaggart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I just say one of the things that I love about this country is people's right to protest? Another thing that I love about this country is the right of democracy to discuss such things that we're discussing today. I'm really pleased that the European Committee took this inquiry on board, especially when, as they note the report that the European Commission has as one of its 10 priorities for the term of office identified a real reason to balance free trade agreement with the US. So this is really precedent and it's very, very important. I'm also pleased to see that the committee intend to actively consider the potential impacts of T-Tip in Scotland as the negotiations unfold because I think it's very, very important, especially when we are not at the nation state that we have the committee looking very carefully at everything that comes up here. The committee did recognise that neither this Parliament nor the Scottish Government has a formal role either in the negotiations or the eventual ratification of the agreement. So it's... Yes. I thank the member for giving away. Can I put you up on that point? The minister said earlier that we would need to see the final text in order to see the benefits or not, but given that no one has been able to come to the committee and actually show any benefits, economic benefits, any evidence any benefits for Scotland, should this Parliament and indeed this Scottish Government not now to start the campaign right across the United Kingdom to put a stop to this? Thank you, Fabiani. What I should say is that this Government, this Parliament has a right to know what's going on and that it's up to whatever Westminster Government is there to make sure that the devolved legislators within the UK do know what's going on. We put forward in our proposal to the Smith commission that we should have that right and we absolutely should and I would ask everybody across this chamber to make sure that happens because what I was going to say is that this takes me back to the first Parliament and at that point the general agreement was being discussed. I think that it was the Doha round following on from the initial Gats agreement and I kept asking parliamentary questions of the then Government or executive as they called themselves saying you know how does this affect us? How does this affect us? What are we doing about it? They're basically just saying it's a reserved matter, nothing to worry about Westminster Government's looking after us. Well do you know I don't believe any Westminster Government looks after Scotland properly. So if there's a plea I would make today it's let us be properly involved let us be there at these discussions because this impacts hugely on Scotland potentially and I think it's so very very important. People have talked about transparency Neil Findlay's tried to talk about you know the transparency of our own Government here. Well let's have transparency at European level at US level and at UK level so that we know what is going on. I'm talking about transparency at that level I tried to intervene in Jenny Marra because she was quite rightly saying that the health service has not in a minute let me finish while you're sitting down. Order Ms Fabiani if you don't wish to take the intervention please just say no. Perhaps if he stopped rabbitting in my ear from a sedentary position it would be easier not to get annoyed. Ms Fabiani if I think the level is getting too high I will shout for order please continue with your speech. My apologies My apologies I was talking about Ms Marra and her comments about the health service and I totally agreed with everything she says there is a real concern that the privatisation of health services could come into this and we have to guard against it very very strongly I liked everything she said but what I would ask in Labour's closing statement that a future Labour Government in Westminster will in fact put in an explicit exemption for public services as far as these negotiations are concerned Jenny Marra If I can clarify I gave that assurance in my opening speech I didn't find it as explicit as I would have liked and I really appreciate that intervention now Can I say that many many people who are exercised about this many people who are terribly concerned about it and I completely understand that and it is absolutely crucial that we work together as Scotland, Team Scotland if you like, right across the parties even the Conservative Party can have a role in this in saying we demand that there is transparency and openness here we should be working with our European representatives and I was heartened by a lot of the stuff that was said by our European representatives and their evidence given to the European Committee apart from the UKIP person and I think we can all work together in this to look at both the trade implications I'm worried about the rights of corporations to sue governments I think that is completely and utterly something that we have to fight against very very strongly because investor-state dispute settlement is something that is absolutely not needed because individual nations have their own regulations I thank the member for taking the intervention I agree with the people's right to protest as well by the way but does she understand that this deal could be very good for small businesses as well as big corporations Linda Fabiani I think that the amount of small and medium enterprises we have and the trade between Scotland and America is actually rather good but I would wish that there would be further discussion of the benefits that the UK Government at Lord Livingstone has been saying will accrue because if you look at some of the evidence from the STUC for example from the world development movement and indeed even our own Cabinet Secretary for Finance has said and are not convinced that the benefits are there that are being discussed and if you tie that in with the investor-state dispute settlement I would say that if that goes forward as it is looking here I think that the disadvantages would far outweith the advantages because there are many many cases across the world through the World Trade Organization agreements where big organisations and Kevin Smith mentioned the GMO organisations have tried to take on national governments I remember there was a point where I can't remember who it was it may have been Monsanto if I'm wrong I take it back we're actually trying to insist that Basmati rice was not Indian or from the Indian subcontinent and the right to grow GMO rice that they could call Basmati so when you start to talk in the level of ISDS that's when you get really really worried because if we really do believe in the right to protest and the right to democracy we should never ever put ourselves in a position where a big corporation that's unelected and that goes entirely by money can hold a state government to ransom and a people to ransom and therefore transparency is absolutely required Thank you very much to be followed by Roderick Campbell Thank you, Presiding Officer I'm grateful to be given the opportunity to speak in this debate not only as a member of the European and External Relations Committee but also because I had like other speakers many constituents contact me with their concerns regarding the current T-Tip negotiations for a new transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the EU and the USA The European Commission runs negotiations on behalf of the European Union and its member states but it is important for the individual member states the United Kingdom and Scotland included to consider the effects that such an agreement would have on them as well The establishment of a transatlantic trade investment partnership has been voiced by the UK Government as being positive the fact that the T-Tip agreement could pave the road for numerous economic benefits citing results from a study by the Centre of Economic Policy Research stating that the UK's annual income could potentially grow by £4 to £10 million if trade barriers were eliminated However, some skeptics including members of the public have expressed their concerns that entering into such trade agreement of this sort would undermine regulations of goods, softened environmental and labour protections and forced privatisation All things which are not attractive to the people of the United Kingdom and Scotland for obvious reasons Proponents of the plan argue that the monetary benefits including more jobs and cheaper prices for goods outweigh any other factors Other major concern especially for Scotland was that T-Tip would impede on the delivery of public services such as the national health service But this concern was eased by the assurance that member states would have the ability to choose not to outsource to private providers Transparency of the agreement itself has also been a problem throughout the negotiations With the European Commission taking strides to address those concerns themselves and other speakers have emphasised this While aligning some technical procedures on both sides of the Atlantic could lower the cost of exporting to the US and therefore create new opportunities for businesses across the UK to grow and hire The British public has, by and large, made it very clear our public services, our social model and our democratic principles are not up for trade I share the concerns of the committee, my colleagues and my constituents and I have signed a pledge to protect the NHS under T-Tip and I believe we should only support a deal if that fully protects our public services the NHS in particular I know particular concerns have also been expressed about the proposed inclusion of investor state dispute settlement the ISDS provision in the T-Tip that the proposed ISDS mechanism is either necessary or desirable in its current forum and believe there needs to be greater transparency on this Therefore, I am delighted that the Scottish Labour Party has called on David Cameron to ensure appropriate safeguards are put in place to protect such services and furthermore that there is no case for investor state dispute settlement instruments in the ISDS in the negotiations While the negotiations lie under the reserved powers list and the Scottish Government does not have any formal role within the agreement it is still essential that the policies set forth under the T-Tip agreement are equally beneficial to Scotland as well as the rest of the UK and the European Union The European and External Affairs Committee within the Scottish Parliament has dedicated multiple sessions the most recent being in February to discussions regarding the T-Tip The committee members have taken evidence from multiple stakeholders and have discussed the details of the agreement as they become available at length in order to decide whether or not the deal would be in the best interests of the Scottish people In conclusion I believe that it is crucial that the committee continues its work and works closely with the progress of T-Tip as it goes along However, it is important to remember that the United States is Scotland's biggest export market and inward investor outside of the European Union and the establishment of T-Tip could strengthen a relationship I hope that the Scottish Government will work alongside the UK Government to call for a far greater transparency and ensure that the interests of voters are fully protected and ensure that they receive the maximum number of benefits while still addressing any and all concerns that T-Tip may bring I have enjoyed being part of the committee's work on T-Tip The evidence sessions have been informative although often raising more questions and answers I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the interests of many of my constituents including the very well informed St Andrew's T-Tip group It's been good to see such a strong public response on the matter of this importance Despite assurances from the UK Government Minister, Lord Livingston that there is no threat to the UK's national health service from T-Tip Can I begin by highlighting one matter that emerged towards the end of the committee's deliberations that of CETA the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada which has been agreed but not yet ratified Indeed, after the committee's formal evidence session on T-Tip had closed in connection with our work on another matter we heard evidence from Christos Ciros the agent general of the Government of Quebec based in London He told the committee that the individual provinces of Canada such as Quebec have pastissipated in the CETA negotiations albeit speaking through the Canadian negotiator but in marked contracts to Scotland's experience of T-Tip they were directly involved in the process from A to Z As we know, Scotland is in contrast not at the top table which makes failings in the transparency of negotiations on T-Tip even more of an important issue Speaking of transparency, Glenn Campbell of BBC Scotland in the leaked draft of the EU's offer to the US on T-Tip revealed the wording of the reservation on health which mirrors the wording in CETA which Lord Livingston described to us as the state of the art but CETA has not been subject to scrutiny in any meaningful way by either the House of Commons or the House of Lords and in February I could trace only one European plenary debate on it so I believe that there is a substantial amount of work that needs to be done the position now is of course that the European Parliament and indeed Member States can now only reject or accept this agreement but in my view it certainly doesn't support an argument that if CETA is ratified somehow or other it means that T-Tip must follow Indeed only today a report in the magazine Politico suggests that concerns over ISDS in T-Tip may have indeed influenced a delay in the ratification of CETA If I can just refer to a specific quote from that article it refers to concerns on the parts of many members of the European Parliament I believe now posing one critical question why should we ratify the Canadian trade pact which includes an outdated version of ISDS that no-one wants to accept in the American deal so whatever the outcome of the election next week I can but hope that the new Westminster Parliament will look seriously not only at T-Tip but also at CETA and indeed that this Parliament will continue to monitor this issue as indeed the committee recommend In relation to the economic benefits of T-Tip to Scotland as we know the US is Scotland's greatest export market out with the EU and most significant source of inward investment The Deputy First Minister's evidence to us was of a potential expansion in GDP through T-Tip although in their report to the committee since it's referred to as only a modest expansion but I'm also mindful of the evidence of Stephen Boyd of the STUC that even if the model used by the European Commission that of the Centre for Economic Policy Research is correct and many regarded as hopelessly optimistic the EU economy would have grown by the annual increment of only 0.03 by 2027 so whilst T-Tip is under negotiation however it's impossible to accurately model the economic impact the STUC also raised issues on the distributional impact of T-Tip and I think this is something that I would like the Scottish Government to continue to keep under review in accordance with our pledge to tackle inequality As to ISDS the European Commission may well have been surprised by the hostility to its incorporation demonstrated by the public consultation I await with interest a decision from the commission on whether it's appropriate to have an ISDS mechanism in the treaty at all we heard evidence from a representative of the commission Mr Hooban who gave evidence on the four matters which the European Commission are particularly looking at in terms of ISDS protecting the Government's right to regulate the establishment of functionality of arbitral tribunals and the third and most important matter the relationship between domestic judicial systems and ISDS it's my informal understanding that despite assurances given to the committee that there would be engagement with domestic legal systems like Scotland that engagement has not taken place and the fourth matter for the record which was also supposed to be considered by the commission was the appellate mechanism which doesn't exist in CETA so there's an awful lot of work which needs to be considered and I share the concerns that have been expressed about its inclusion at all I'm definitely on the side of those who have concerns about its incorporation and when commissioner Maelstrom attempts to reassure us that the European Commission would never even consider an agreement which would lower our standards or limit our Government's right to regulate neither would EU member states nor the European Parliament so she said I think we should remember that the national health service in Scotland is an institution that is at the heart of what we do business and as negotiations stand protection is not there the Deputy First Minister is right to tell us we want there to be no restriction and no danger of restriction on our ability to act properly in exercising our devolved competence in that area in order to achieve that the oft referred to double lock is an absolute necessity in order to provide protection to the member state at the UK level and also protection for the devolved competence of Scottish Parliament's consent when I questioned Lord Livingston during the evidence session with the committee on why the UK Government does not want to listen to the deep concerns about the NHS and go for a belt and braces approach he concluded that his approach is pretty belt and braces referring to the wording in the leaked draft to BBC Scotland but Scotland's NHS is too important to be put at risk for the moment the draft simply does not contain explicit protection and indeed you might well wonder why negotiators are afraid of spelling it out and putting an explicit protection in in addition, as the STUC say in their evidence, TTIP is institutionalising the regulatory arbitrage that corporations have become so skilled at exploiting in some key areas it will necessarily dilute key social, consumer and environmental protections those regulatory concerns remain in conclusion what TTIP exemplifies is a disconnect between people in Scotland, the UK and EU decision making. Let's, as a Parliament on behalf of the people of Scotland continue to voice those concerns. Many thanks. Now we call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Adam Ingram. As other members have pointed out two of the main concerns most frequently raised about TTIP involved the inclusion of the health service and the controversial investor state dispute settlement I will come to both of these but first there is the overwhelming concern of many witnesses to the inquiry that the discussions around TTIP have not been open and transparent. It seems almost absurd that we are in this chamber discussing this enormous trade deal before we have any reliable insight into the detail of the discussions that are taking place. The European Ombudsman has made recommendations that the process should be made more transparent so that accountability is assured and I believe that the commission in moving forward should respond to this proposal. One of the main concerns made I think expressed by all members today is of course the NHS and I want to re-emphasise how crucial it is that the national health service is in no way compromised by TTIP. The NHS as I'm sure we all agree is not an economic asset but a public benefit crucial to the health of our country and a vital thread in our shared social fabric. I know that reassurances have been given and it may seem that this is less problematic in Scotland than in England since we don't have a market health system here but I strongly support the call of unison for explicit protection for the NHS. A call which is also echoed by the Royal College of Nursing who have asked for a cast iron guarantee. I'm very pleased of course that my own party at UK level is supporting that position as well as the NHS. Moving on, the cabinet secretary and his evidence to the committee made the case in favour of the economic impact that it may have on Scotland and this is clearly a very important area. He said that it could provide and a quote market access for Scottish goods and services and reduce non-tariff barriers if that delivers growth and jobs for Scotland. It should be welcomed. Early monitoring using the Scottish Government's internal economic model suggests that the impact could mean that Scotland's GDP expands by 0.2 to 0.3 per cent of GDP. The Government estimates that the range of export growth is between 1.8 and 3.6 per cent but the range of import growth is expected to be between 0.8 and 1.5 per cent. As many have pointed out however that is a best case scenario and other scenarios were worked out also by the Scottish Government which had far less beneficial consequences and many people believed that the modelling is based on a half picture. Steven Boyd of the STUC and his contribution to the committee has highlighted two key reasons for the pervasive skepticism of TTIP's economic benefits. Traditional trade barriers between the EU and the US are already very low and the gains from TTIP are likely to be minimal at best. Therefore the costs may easily outweigh the benefits. Furthermore TTIP may lead to a general lowering of standards across the whole economy by introducing new harmonised regulatory standards which could not be implemented through domestic democratic process thereby threatening the dilution of vital worker, consumer and environmental protection. To co-attest Steven Boyd it is crucial that we understand that this is not about removing what we would traditionally describe as barriers to trade but about imposing a common regulatory structure that will be policed by an international mechanism that will not have been passed by the normal democratic process in each country. We would be relinquishing some of our control to a country thousands of miles away for the sake of freer trade based on an agreement we are yet to fully comprehend. In a similar trade deal between Canada and the United States a regulatory co-operation council has worked to produce a joint forward plan that sets the stage for fundamental changes and the way regulatory departments and agencies in both countries work together making it easier for businesses to operate in both countries. I'm grateful that the member has been very clear that his concerns are primary around the protection of the NHS and the threat of lowering regulatory standards. Is it Mr Chisholm's understanding that Labour's position is that it will oppose TETA I'm not in a position to state what Labour's position on that but I know that Labour has expressed concerns certainly about the health service but also about ISDS which I now move on to since the inclusion of ISDS would potentially add insult to injury and would be completely unacceptable. The cabinet secretary and his evidence to the committee, the cabinet secretary for finance talked about lifting restrictions about the possibility of restrictions being lifted on the export of crude oil to Europe. He gave that as one example but the question that I would ask is what would happen if we were then to legislate in a manner that affected crude oil for example by taking action on fossil fuel use or by making a transition to clean energy. ISDS would mean that we would be open to punitive legal action that could cost us dearly. The Government and the citizen would lose out on two fronts and develop a system of governance that takes into account the profit of big international investors as a deciding factor in whether policy to affect a greater good should be passed and we would also potentially lose a chunk of our taxes in claims. That affects our ability to implement progressive energy policies implement the living wage and push for safer and more equal workplaces. That puts business in the US at the driving seat of our parliamentary process and we can draw from the experience and sign up to the system. There are examples of that happening in Australia and in Canada where Governments have been sued for pursuing their policies put in place for the common good respectively legislation on tobacco in Australia and a moratorium on unconventional shale gas extraction in Quebec. Finally ISDS also led to the Swedish energy giant Vattenfall suing the German Government for losses as a result of Germany phasing out its nuclear programme. Therefore ISDS must go. The NHS must be explicitly protected but we should also look with some skepticism at the stated economic benefits. Many thanks. Adam Ingram to be followed by Alex Rowney a little time for interventions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by commending the committee's report to Parliament as a member of this place for some 16 years? I can safely say that this is one of the most important and wide-ranging pieces of work that has been involved in as a committee member. Evidence not least by the substantial level of correspondence I have had with concerned constituents over the implications of TTIP. Now there is an irony to such an observation given that the Scottish Parliament and Government have no formal role in the negotiation or ratification of EU trade agreements. Despite the fact that TTIP could have a significant effect on a broad range of devolved issues from the delivery of public services like the NHS to democratic policymaking and regulation. We are currently dependent on the UK Government to represent Scottish interests including devolved matters and I would question whether there is sufficient engagement with the Scottish Government by the UK to secure those interests. I note the Deputy First Minister's comments in that regard in his response to the committee's report. I hope and trust this matter will be addressed as a priority when the new UK Parliament reconvenes after May 7 and I'm sure we'll hear a stronger and louder Scottish voice in that place then. The Scottish public's concerns deserve much more serious attention. Turning to the substance of TTIP it's hard to determine the scale of costs and benefits of an agreement yet to be reached. As ever, the devil will be in the detail. We also know that there will be winners and there will be losers. The economic modelling that has been done with the limited information available suggests a relatively modest net gain of just 0.2 to 0.3 per cent of GDP for Scotland with increased exports being offset in part at least by increased imports from the USA. The US is of course a large trading partner outside the EU. We can tell them some £3.9 billion worth of goods and services per annum. There are, arguably, gains to be made not just by abolishing tariffs and speeding up customs but for SMEs in particular doing away with particular licensing regimes or duplicate testing regimes would make life easier for them. I give raise. The microphone, Mr Doris, please face the microphone. Should we try that again? If you speak through the microphone, that will help as well. Yes. I wonder third time lucky, Presiding Officer. I wonder if Mr Ingram would agree with me that much of the predicted economic boost that has been modelled in relation to this would be at the expense of jobs being more jobs being low paid, more insecure and in poor conditions. That would be an economic boost at all. It would be a negative in terms of T-Tip. I thank the member for his intervention he got there in the end. That could well be the outcome. As I said earlier, we actually need to see what the agreement is before or the draft agreement is before we can actually make proper assessments. The question remains what will be in and what will be out of the scope of T-Tip. For example, one of our potential winners could have been financial services. In times past, Scottish financial institutions were key players in opening up the west in the United States. It would appear that regulators are insisting that financial services are excluded from T-Tip. In short, economic opportunities are difficult to assess at this distance from a published draft agreement. In any case, potential economic gains must not come at the expense of publicly funded services like the NHS, lower standards or the right of governments to regulate. As other speakers have highlighted, the protection of public services in Scotland was a key concern of those giving evidence to the committee. While reassurances have been sought and given by the UK Government and the European Commission, the patent lack of public trust in the negotiating process underlines the need for the double lock suggested by the Deputy First Minister for the final agreement. That double lock would explicitly exempt the NHS from the agreement and, secondly, provide absolute clarity that, although the UK is the member state, any decisions that it takes in the context of T-Tip such as opening up the NHS in England to more private providers in no way interferes with the Scottish Government's and Parliament's devolved responsibilities. The committee also remains concerned about definitions of public services and whether the reservations contained in the final agreement effectively protect the full range of public services in the T-Tip agreement. That has to be a red line issue for an incoming UK Government. The same should be said for ISDS. The committee is clear that any disputes between business corporations and states should be resolved in accordance with the legal systems and processes of the country concerned. We are living in times when rich and powerful global corporations can hold democratically elected Governments to ransom. We should guard against the kind of oligarchic control of our economies that we can see, for example, in the Russian state. We need to stand up for the democratic right of Governments and legislatures to regulate in the public interest including where necessary to cut down to size overbearing power. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Alex Rowley to be followed by George Adam in a general six minutes. Presiding Officer, I would also welcome your report and congratulate those on the committee clerks and others who worked on the report. I did sit on the committee for the first part of the evidence and I did enjoy the evidence sessions. I think that the committee report only takes us a certain way and this debate today, while other than Jamie McGregor, I have not heard anybody actually talk in favour of T-Tap, but this cannot be the end yet and then we blame Westminster because we blame some other unelected quango across Europe. The Parliament and the Government in Scotland if we believe that this is a bad deal for Scotland then we need to start to set out the case against that deal and look at how we campaign and put a stop to it. There is a bit of confusion in 2013, Nicola Sturgeon spoke to the European Policy Centre in Brussels and she said I quote earlier this month the European Union and the US announced that they would work to establish a transatlantic trade and investment partnership. She then went on to say for Scotland for whom the USA is our largest trading partner outside the EU, such a partnership will be especially good news. That was the position of the Scottish Government back in 2013. The position seems to have moved a bit for there to recognise that perhaps it's not as good news but we do need clarity because what struck me when the evidence was being given was that there were some big claims being made about this deal and how good this deal would be one of the submissions for example talked about raising global prosperity and when challenged they were not able to actually back that up with any evidence and that perhaps is the key point because there have been many claims made about what this would be good for but no evidence to back it up and I think the evidence coming for the STUC and for the trade unions has been particularly important. Unison talked about yes the NHS and I hear members today talk about excluding the NHS but it's not just the NHS it's actually all public services and if you were going to go ahead with this deal then we should be talking about excluding all public services and we should be removing any investor state dispute settlement where you could have a large multinational co-operation to a government in order to get access to the public services and access to the funding and access to how we actually govern in our own country in terms of public procurement and how we would set out to deliver those services COSLA has also made that point but even if you get the guarantee on the NHS and the guarantee on public services and by the way there are those who are off the opinion that if you were able to secure all those agreements then actually there would be very little interest in America to come across here and get into some kind of trade agreement because if they can't get into our public services what's actually in it for them but the question what's in it for us because there has been no evidence given today that actually shows that there would be any major benefits the TUC for example say no authority including the US trade representatives the European Commission the UK or Scottish Government currently seems able to present a precise of case on the economics of t-tap the available evidence points towards a deal that may boost corporate profits but do little to create quality sustainable jobs and when the Scottish Enterprise gave evidence to the committee that point was made to Scottish Enterprise in terms of the talked about the advantages of America and major employers such as Amazon coming to Scotland whereas the Government lined up to put millions of pounds of taxpayers money in Scotland into Amazon are we really saying that those type of employment practices are the type of employment practices that we would want to support in Scotland if that's what t-pap has to offer then would we want that I thank the member for taking intervention he's saying about any possible benefits or economic benefits his own MEPs Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stuyler said that an written statement said t-tip also has great potential for SMEs to access the transatlantic market too often still only fully accessible to multinational corporations I accept the point that Jimmy McGregor makes there are many people lining up to tell us what these advantages would be but there's no actual evidence being shown to prove it the STC went on to say no serious efforts have been made to quantify the impact of t-tip on the Scottish economy all the evidence presented so far at EU, UK and Scottish level indicates that the best case scenario is a small positive impact on growth and jobs so there is not been the evidence that's presented and I would say to the minister and to the Scottish Government that they, I believe, need to start to look at these arguments and start to get the analysis into these arguments put to place to actually demonstrate whether or not there is any economic benefits that can be accrued from t-tip because the evidence certainly would suggest that there is not. Trade agreements have most impact on growth where traditional barriers to trade tariffs and quotas are high and traditional barriers to trade between the US and the EU are already very low. The trade weight tariff protection in the US for EU exports is estimated at 2.1 per cent while the trade weighted tariff for the US exports is to the EU is estimated at 2.8 per cent. Therefore removing these already slight barriers will have minimal impact on growth, a conclusion borne out by the very research that the commission uses to promote the benefits of t-tip. According to the STUC the very best case scenario presented by the commission one that is highly unlikely to be achieved is not 0.5 per cent increase in EU GDP. My suggestion would be that the only people that would benefit from t-tip would be the multinational companies but I do say to the Scottish Government it is one thing to be mown this, it is another thing to get the evidence and then start to build the case and if we say t-tip is bad for Scotland and it is bad for the rest of the UK then we can build a campaign across the UK that says we reject t-tip, we are not going to accept it we are not going to give up on the terms and conditions and the inequality life that we have put in place for workers across Scotland and across the United Kingdom. Thanks very much and I now call on George Adam Gnerker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I take this opportunity to commend the European External Relations Committee for all their work in producing this report and, convener, Christina McKelvie for dealing with the issue with our usual passion and vigor. T-tip has been one of the biggest issues dominating my mailbox and discussions at local meetings in recent times. Like many of my constituents I have been concerned by the lack of information to date on the proposed trade investment partnership, particularly with regards to public services. We all have stories of how the NHS has helped us personally or helped family members and friends. A universal free at the point of need national health services is a cornerstone of our society which must be protected with every fibre of our being. To that end I intend to speak up on behalf of my constituents voicing their concerns and I join with the First Minister saying I will fight tooth and nail against any moves to privatise NHS Scotland by the backdoor and if the T-tip agreement ever put that threat it would be opposed strongly by the Scottish Government. The United States is an important market for Scotland and this has been mentioned during this debate today. Around a third of all whisky distilled is bottled in Paisley and obviously that has a knock-on effect for me with local jobs as well but anything that would move that would make for indeed any of our exports would be welcomed as already has been mentioned exports to USA account for £3.9 billion which is 14 percent of Scotland's total international exports but this cannot be done at the expense of lowering of regulatory standards in production and quality. Products carrying the logos of Scottish farm salmon or Scottish beef to name but two are trusted in this country and around the world for products and being prepared to the highest standards. Any move to lower or remove regulation could tarnish our national brands and lower international exports." That ties in with my next point surrounding the investor-state dispute settlement, and I believe that one of the most alarming elements of that form of companies operating in Scotland would be given the power to dispute with our Government, even suit outwith the framework of our national court system. I do not want to see a situation when a US tobacco firm can take action against the Scottish Government if it chooses to legislate and introduce plain packaging and cigarette packets. This decision would be made by a nationally elected representative in the public interest. However, if TTIP includes that provision, that said that US tobacco firm would have the ability to go over the heads of the Scottish Government and seek to reverse the decision. France and Germany have already voiced major concerns over ISDS. Regardless of which party leads the UK Government next week, they will need to take a strong line on this issue. Yes, I will. Thank you. I am grateful for the member for taking the intervention on the point. Does he also agree that the ISDS mechanism suggests that, although the civil law of this land is good enough for you or me, we need some super-duper one for the corporations? I would think that we have to ensure that the laws of these lands are actually registered with those companies and that those companies will be brought to task. That is one of the reasons why ISDS is such an important element of that, because it is effectively taking away the laws of this land and allowing those companies to dictate to the democratically elected government. However, it is imperative that the UK Government represents the interests of all component parts when negotiating this deal, not just the interests of one part or big business. Remember the respect agenda, there was much said about that in recent months. It is more important than ever that the next UK Government takes on board the concerns of the Scottish people. Unfortunately, the current UK Government is a poor track record in speaking up for Scotland at a European level. Our fisheries minister Richard Lochhead has his hands tied behind his back while Scotland has received less than half of the UK European Fisheries Fund allocation, despite 87 per cent of UK landings coming ashore in Scotland. I hope that we have a strong group of Scottish MPs elected to speak up for Scotland. In the next UK Parliament, a major concern of my constituents has been the lack of transparency in the whole process. That has been mentioned by other members during the debate. As with any negotiations, I appreciate that aspects will be discussed behind closed doors before a final proposal is drafted, but it appears that this negotiation process has caused real anxiety among regular people the length and breadth of our country. Recently, a discussion on TTIP was removed from the agenda of an agricultural council of ministers meeting in March. Instead, it was discussed in private. That does not fill me with confidence with regards to perceived transparency. Richard Lochhead urged the council and commission to be more transparent in forthcoming discussions around TTIP, and I asked that it remains a topic on future agendas. I welcome the publication of key documents and position papers on the negotiations by commissioner Malmstrom since she took up the post of trade commissioner, and I encourage the commission to consider the European ombudsman's recommendations on how to improve transparency and engage with stakeholders. However, the main issue and the focus of much of the correspondence that I have been receiving on TTIP centres on the NHS is that I was pleased to read in the SNP manifesto that we will seek to an explicit exemption for the NHS in Scottish Water as part of the general public sector exemption from the terms of the proposed TTIP. With the increased privatisation of the NHS in England, we need to be more cautious of any attempts to allow private interests into the NHS in Scotland. We must make it absolutely clear that the NHS in Scotland will remain in public hands and will remain free at the point of need. The shameful use of the NHS by other political parties during the recent election campaign has been a sight to behold and the weaponisation of it, but it makes it even more crucial that the Scottish Government retains full control of our NHS. The best way to layer public and the public's concern over the threat to our NHS is to have a double lock enshrined in the TTIP. The best way is to have the double lock enshrined in the TTIP agreement, which explicitly exempts the NHS from the scope of TTIP, and respects the Scottish Parliament's devolved responsibilities. There is this word again, respect. Both the European Parliament and the UK Parliament must respect the democratic will of the democratic elected Scottish Parliament and allow it to operate the NHS. Just this morning, Stacey and I, my wife, were talking about our MS and how our treatment and care within the NHS has improved dramatically since she was diagnosed in her teens. This is MS Awareness Week, so now, more than ever, I want to talk and defend the NHS. However, I would challenge both Labour and Conservatives in closing... No, you must close now, in fairness to others. At this stage, I would like to ask my colleagues to stand up for a right to keep the public services in public hands. I thank the European and External Relations Committee for producing the report and bringing this timely debate to the chamber today. I would also like to acknowledge the enormous and almost overwhelming number of emails, meetings and campaigning that has gone on around this issue, the upsurge in campaigning, petitioning and letter writing against the TTIP agreement is, of course, not limited to Scotland. It is, in fact, a European wide movement, and it is one that links with people who share the same opposition to it in the United States. Ordinary people have ensured that TTIP is exposed to public scrutiny. It seems that that was not what was planned. Negotiations for the transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the European Union and the United States began in July 2013, and those negotiations were meant to be constructed and agreed by corporate lawyers and multinational corporations behind closed doors. The TTIP negotiations are not open to public scrutiny. Indeed, it is only down to the determined investigative work of campaigners that the public have even a limited idea of what TTIP is about and what it will mean for the communities that we represent. Democracy is at stake with this treaty, both in its formation and in its implementation. What is the exact nature of the threat that TTIP poses to democracy? If we are to have Governments elected by the people, they must be accountable to the people. TTIP usurps the basic principle by handing unmitigated power to the corporations. That is encapsulated in the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS. ISDS would allow US businesses to sue the Scottish Government in secret tribunals outside of national legal jurisdiction over any public policy that threatens their property titles and the planned profits from those investments. Profits for already dominant transnational corporations come at any cost in regards to TTIP. That treaty is not just about removing tariffs on trade. It is designed to take away other so-called barriers, such as regulations, standards and certifications. TTIP begins the process of reducing such regulatory safeguards to allow corporate interests to dictate regulations to all fields of trade. I wonder if she shares my fears that companies such as those that promote genetic modification, who go to court a fair bit in various countries, would use ISDS to break down the barriers that we have put up to stop GMOs operating in this country and to protect the quality of our agriculture. That puts at terrible risk the measures hard-won in years gone by to protect public health, worker rights and the environment. If passed, TTIP will hand unprecedented powers to big business and become the new model for future trade agreements worldwide. The campaigning journalist and author George Mombio puts ISDS in stark terms. He says, where this has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big corporations to sue governments before secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass domestic courts and override the will of parliaments. That mechanism could threaten almost any means by which governments might seek to defend their citizens or protect the natural world. That, I think, says it all. There is the evidence. Some of those arrangements are already in place. Another less talked about feature of TTIP is the Regulatory Cooperation Council, a proposal to create a permanent structure to harmonise standards long-term. That would give corporations the first look on proposed legislation before it comes to EU or national parliaments and would allow a long-term process of standard setting to be conducted outside of the democratic process. TTIP and austerity fit each other hand in glove. They are part of the same agenda. Austerity lays the groundwork by slashing the services that are then to be privatised. I thank the member very much for taking the intervention. I wonder if she's aware of any example where the UK Government has suffered from ISDS in the past. I'm not aware of that, but I've moved on to austerity. I would like to say that I attended a business breakfast where the new or newly appointed at that time managing director said that as governments, and he said it, I'm sure and meant every word of it, as governments find it harder and harder to deliver public services, their company would be there to help. Anyway, I want to finish my speech, but austerity lays the groundwork by slashing the services that are then to be privatised in a harmonised and internationalised manner via TTIP. In that sense, TTIP marks the final nail of the coffin of safeguarding what remains of the post-war consensus based on social need and public service. That struggle will be augmented and made all the more difficult if TTIP allows the corporate lobby to privatise all that lies in the wake of austerity. As John Hillary of war on want says, TTIP threatens to be the single greatest transfer of power to transnational capital in a generation, which is why there is now a growing movement of opposition to it. I say to the Scottish Government that we should ensure all of our public services are safeguarded from TTIP and that such a position would have a popular resonance with people in Scotland and beyond. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. I now call on Willie Coffey after which we'll move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's probably best to start with a reminder to people who might be listening to the debate that Scotland and the Scottish Government is not being consulted by the UK Government on the TTIP process rather than negotiations taking place. We will not be asked for our opinion when the proposal finally arrives and we will basically have to go along with whatever the UK Government decides it wants to do. That's the position that we are currently in and it goes a long way to explaining why so many people have expressed concern about TTIP and are looking to our own Scottish Government for some answers. In the absence of any clarity and any transparency from the European Commission, all the UK Government concerns will naturally emerge as a consequence of that. Our committee's inquiry has at least provided an opportunity for everyone with an interest in TTIP to share their views and concerns. It has provided us with some expert advice to help to guide us through the TTIP issue. While people will not find all the answers that they might be seeking in our report, it has been a valuable piece of work, very well put together by our clerks, and I commend the report to anyone who is interested in finding out a little more. The report also serves as a clear message to the commission and to the UK Government that this cloak of secrecy and lack of transparency just isn't good enough and that has to change. People throughout Europe are interested in their future and how to trade, and how to trade deals like this may or may not impact on them. It is no longer acceptable for bureaucrats or Governments for that matter to operate like this, adopting a, we know what is best for you, attitude. That will have to change within Europe and within the UK Government that takes office next week. Discretion should never be used as a cover for secrecy and lack of transparency. I sincerely hope that colleagues and all the parties in here will support that view. We had some notable contributions during the committee's inquiry, and for me, one of the early contributions from Dr Arianna Ange and Jelly, who lectures in competition law at Edinburgh University, was particularly helpful in dealing with the issue of competence and whether the commission had the power to negotiate away access to the NHS and access to other public services. Basically, in her view, it does not, but the member state, in our case, the UK Government, can if it wants to. In her evidence, she said, it is not through TTIP that the power of the member states to decide whether to provide healthcare services through the market or outside is threatened. That is simply because the EU has no power unless the member states confer that power on it to modify the choices of the member states and it cannot mandate them on what form and framework they should construct for provision on healthcare services. Simply put, it would require a treaty change to confer the power in order to see it within the trade agreement, so is that the end of it? I am not so sure. There is still nothing stopping our recommendation coming forward to begin opening up access to things like public health services. That is a separate matter from having the power to enact it. There is nothing stopping the member states themselves taking whatever view they like and seeking to establish some kind of access to healthcare services. They always had the power to do that within their own jurisdictions. In fact, they did just that recently when they overturned the commission's intention to phase out mobile phone roaming charges by this December. It is now going to take years to achieve that. That is where the dangers still lie for Scotland's NHS. If a future UK Government chose to open up access to the NHS to private health providers in the United States in order to, for example, save money, then clearly that would have a consequential effect on the budget available for the NHS here in Scotland. Lord Livingston and his evidence basically confirmed that when he said that it will remain up to the UK Government and devolved Governments to decide how to run publicly funded health services, whether private companies should be involved in providing them under contract and, if so, to what extent. He went on to say that, where publicly funded health services are opened up to private providers, TTIP may entitle US providers to compete on an equal footing with UK and EU providers. There we have it. It is up to the UK Government to agree or not whether that would be done. The potential knock-on effect in Scotland is surely obvious now. Macaulay Gadaam, Ingram and others, explained the economic case, examined the economic case for TTIP, and when our committee tried to get the details of the analysis for this, none there came. It seemed more like guesswork than calculations based on any competent analysis. No-one produced any figures that could stand up to any scrutiny from the committee, and I do not think that that is good enough either. Lord Livingston claimed that it could deliver £10 billion a year in benefits, but it could not tell us how it worked us out, so our committee has been unable to test those claims by examining any supporting data simply because there is not any. Those claims were ridiculed by several witnesses who said that they were too simplistic and overly optimistic. Both the STUC representative and the representative from the world development movement came to those conclusions. The TTIP inquiry by our committee has been very worthwhile if only to highlight to the public how little involvement Scotland actually has over the process and the outcome that we might see. Disappointingly too, we had no input from the United States of America on this issue despite asking for that balanced view to be presented at our committee. Surely though at the end of the day a positive trade agreement can emerge from this and can deliver benefits to the citizens in Europe and the United States without detriment to our public services, jobs or health. At the end of the day, though, it is member states that will decide whether to go along with the commission's proposals for TTIP, and that is where I suggest the focus of attention will now shift after next Thursday's general election. Thank you very much. Before we move to closing spaces, I invite all members to have taken part in the debate to return to the chamber. I am pleased to heal the closing speeches. Now I call on Jamie McGregor. Just over six minutes please, Mr McGregor. Thank you. Well, this has been a very lively and interesting debate this afternoon and I'd like to thank all members who took part for making the contributions. TTIP is a very important issue to Scotland and the Scottish economy. The levels of public interest regarding TTIP are unprecedented, I think. A picture seen across the EU. In my opening remarks, I spoke about building bridges with America and I think that's worth doing. I believe that TTIP is a logical step, partially merging some of the world's largest markets, adding an additional 10 billion to the British economy every year for a start and 100 billion to the EU economy every year for a start. But the debate that surrounds TTIP, just not at the minute, but the debate that surrounds TTIP from this very start, long before the committee's inquiry has been started, was sometimes misinformed and based on myths and misconceptions and I want to address some of those today. I will take an intervention. I'm very grateful to Mr McGregor for taking an intervention. We've heard from a number of members the challenge that the committee had in getting substantive facts to back up some of the figures. Perhaps Mr McGregor would tell us the source of that 10 billion-pound figure, please. I can't go into it. It was an accepted figure at the time and the 100 billion for the EU was an accepted figure at the time and it was accepted by the committee as well, I think. The committee report has been a very good one. A misconception and a myth about TTIP and the NHS have successfully been spread in Scotland and whilst it's important that we as elected politicians understand and acknowledge the fact that the general public are expressing concerns, it's also important we provide them with facts and not spread the myth further. The commission, the UK government and indeed the government of the United States of America has made it all very clear. The NHS is not and cannot and will not be privatised against the will of the public. The only instance that privatisation of the NHS would happen would be if we as the Scottish Parliament would have voted in favour of such a move. The US chief negotiator, Dan Malaney, said last October, I wish to stress that our approach to services negotiations excludes any commitments on public services and the governments remain free at any time to decide that certain services should be provided by the public sector. And don't forget there's 28 nations in Europe who have to sign up to this. Not just now, I have to make some progress. A very similar position has been adopted by the EU's chief negotiator that explicitly stated that the NHS would not be under any sort of threat by TTIP. TTIP will deliver a very positive impact for the NHS and by extension to the patients it will open up the market to US products and services as well as harmonising regulation to both avoid costly duplication and setting a common standard, a very high standard. It can be good for Scottish businesses, small Scottish businesses. The notion that the now infamous investor-state dispute settlement mechanism or ISDS could be invoked by private companies in order to change public policy has historic precedents. Many ISDS tribunals are in effect held in secret, which has helped to create this picture of mistrust. In its current form, there is no ISDS clauses included in the TTIP agreement, but if it will be included, things will be different from what they were in the past. Both the EU and the US have pledged themselves to full transparency, meaning that there will be no secret tribunals. Similar clauses were included in the free trade agreement in Canada, which seems to be on its way to be something good. It is also important to acknowledge the usefulness of ISDS as it can help create a positive investment climate and promote growth. I would also like to address another of the main concerns that the public has expressed to me throughout the inquiry held by the committee, namely that of transparency. Transparency of government is an essential pillar of democracy, I agree with that, and without it we cannot scrutinise. There is however a significant difference here that must be pointed out. In the report conclusion, the committee acknowledges that in any negotiations it is important to attain a degree of discretion about negotiating positions. Well, there are 28 countries out there in the EU and this is a trade deal and calling for transparency in trade negotiations would not only be similar to playing poker whilst showing one's own hand, but also telling your fellow players what your next move is going to be. In business negotiations there has to be some form of lack of transparency so that people can get their positions on the table. Despite this, despite this, the European Commission has, in a move rarely seen by the EU, decided to listen to concerns expressed by the general public and introduced a great deal of transparency. It has allowed for unprecedented and extensive access for elected politicians to scrutinise the negotiations. Much of this is also available to the general public. A lot of myths, being quite successfully spread to TTIP, are nothing more than just myths. In conclusion, if I may be allowed to do so, TTIP has the potential to deliver extensive economic benefits to Scotland and the UK. It will reduce red tape on business, remove unnecessary procedures and grant us access to a market of 300 million people. There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding TTIP. It is important that we take public concern seriously but we must also challenge the myths surrounding TTIP that are simply not true. I hope that we in the near future will see a completed transatlantic trade and investment partnership agreement so that we can continue to build on a strong economic recovery that we are seeing in the UK, thanks to the Conservative Government. Thank you very much. I now call on Rhoda Grant. I am round the same amount of time. I refer members to my register of members' interests and specifically my unison membership. I also thank the committee for its report and its on-going monitoring of the issue. It is helpful. Like others, I pay tribute to the TTIP campaign, which highlighted a lot of the issues that have been e-mailing us all. I think that I have over 300 e-mails to respond to, so I hope that they will bear with me while I do that. Full employment has always been and will remain a name for the Scottish Labour Party, and that is why we are broadly supportive of agreements that have the potential to bring benefit by boosting trade and economic growth, securing and creating jobs. We are also the party that created the NHS free of the point of use and we believe better delivered by the public sector. Therefore, we would never agree to support a trade agreement that threatened our NHS or indeed our wider public services. Whilst being supportive of the overall principle of ease of trade, we do have major concerns about certain aspects of TTIP. Can I reiterate what Jenny Marra said in her opening remarks? She said that the Labour Government will seek a clear, robust exemption for our NHS and public services from TTIP. Therefore, a deal must not be done at any cost. The most serious concern over TTIP is indeed our NHS and public services. The Scottish and UK Governments have increased the role of the private sector in our health service, and that would leave us vulnerable under TTIP if American companies would be able to come in and bid for those services. Unison raised concerns with the committee around public services. They called for an unequivocal exclusion of public services from the TTIP negotiations. They called for a positive list, a list that included what was covered rather than the exclusion of certain things, as is normal under trade agreements. We have seen how private companies in America have responded to the introduction of a limited public health system that they have dubbed Obamacare. If that is how they react to modest health care reforms in America, we need to make it crystal clear that our NHS is beyond the reach of international money-making instincts. A number of members talked about contracting within the public services, and I think that Alex Rowley made the point that we must have freedom to contract within our public services. I think that that is especially true if we are wanting to ensure best value. If I could give you an example of women's aid, we contract with them not only because of their expert service delivery but also because of their ethos. That is true with many parts of the third sector, where organisations focus on a specific group and build on expertise and ethos around that. That is impossible to replicate in an open market, and we must protect that. A number of members spoke about Government policies and priorities. We, in the Scottish Labour Party, have the priority of taking trained services back into public control. Would that also be protected? Could a Government do that be open to challenge, and we must make sure that that is not the case? A number of people talked about ISDS, which is the nub of those things, where an independent provision would be set up where companies could challenge Government decisions. Like a number of speakers, I believe that the law of the land is adequate for all of us, and we must not have a state dispute settlement. On ISDS, I wonder if she could give a clear line from Labour. Ms Marra mentioned David Martin and Catherine Stiler earlier. My understanding is that Mr Martin is in favour of ISDS being in the treaty, and Ms Stiler is against ISDS being in the treaty. What is the actual Labour Party line on ISDS? We believe that the law of the land obviously takes priority. If there are systems for negotiation, we will obviously look at those, but the truth is that the law must come first. We are not alone, as a country, having concerns about this. Both France and Germany have raised those concerns. A number of speakers have spoken about this, and we must take a robust line that the law of the land and indeed Government's freedom to legislate must have a priority. If that is included in a dispute settlement, we would look at that. I turn to standards. A number of speakers talked about a race to the bottom under a T-tip. The benefits of any treaty must be filtered down to workers and consumers. There is potential for international agreements to submit and even increase Labour-consumed environmental and safety standards. While there are concerns over T-tip reducing standards, the principle must be to maintain or increase standards rather than to reduce them. Again, Labour would only support an agreement that will avoid a race to the bottom and an agreement that promotes decent jobs and growth and safeguards and standards. That must also be the case with standards regarding GM hormones and beef and the like that others have talked about. As people have said, medical devices that come from other countries must have at least the same standards, if not better than we have here. I welcome the debate and commend the work of the committee to bring forward these issues to Parliament. I am grateful to them that they will continue to do this for us. Although we have sought reassurance on a number of issues, I believe that we must take the precautionary principle. It is our duty as a Parliament to protect our constituents and their public services. That means that the T-tip agreement must never interfere with how the Government provides those services to its people. I send in my opening remarks that T-tip exemplified the disconnect between the EU decision making processes and citizens. As far as T-tip goes, the committee's inquiry has helped to close that gap a little bit. I think that our debate today has closed it just a bit further. Nonetheless, it is clear from members' contributions and from the emails letters that we have received as MSPs that many people across Scotland are deeply concerned about T-tip. It is right that their concerns are heard, their views are represented and that is what democracy is about and institutions at all levels have a duty and a responsibility to respond. In that respect, I welcome the steps that the commissioner, Maelstrom, has taken to improve the transparency of the negotiations, but I also agree with Malcolm Chisholm and others that that transparency should go further. There is an almighty debate across Europe and within the European Parliament about the investor-state dispute settlement. Scotland's voice is not alone in that. As evidenced by our debate today, whatever one's view of T-tip, it has put international trade policy on the political and public agenda in a way that has not been seen before and that in itself is a good thing. However, as with other EU policy issues and as the committee has rightly identified, the mechanisms and structures for proper engagement with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament leave a lot to be desired. It is our view that the UK Government should consult and engage with the Scottish Government from the very outset of any negotiations. There is significant room to improve the operation of the joint ministerial committee and the Concordat and the co-ordination of European policy issues, and Linda Fabiani herself said in her contribution that she has been involved. We also take the view that it is unacceptable that, although MPs and unelected members of the House of Lords can have access to key documents, that right does not extend to the democratically elected Scottish Government and to MSPs. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I acknowledge the distance that the Scottish Government has moved over the past couple of years and I welcome the stronger line that is being taken. The position in relation to the Scottish Parliament's ability to take a view on that matter is somewhat limited today. We still have before us only a motion about a committee report. Can the Scottish Government commit to bringing forward a full substantive debate on TTIP that will allow motions and amendments to be voted on so that members can express a view on the substance of TTIP? That is a very important point. I think that the issue is at what point in terms of the determination of any final decision. Clearly, in terms of competency, every member state will have to have a debate and a view taken in the individual Parliament. I think that the timing of such a contribution in our position would depend on the timing of the final negotiation, but I very much take on his point that we need to come back to Parliament and debate this more fully as it progresses. I thought that Rod Campbell made an interesting contribution when he talked about the evidence from Quebec on CETA. He talked about its regulatory co-operative council. I think that it is important also in relation to TTIP that we cannot have a regulatory council as a substitute for a democratic institution of standards. He also talked about the importance of engagement by the EU on legal issues that has been committed and that that has not happened. I think that that is also something that needs to be pursued. In relation to some of the other issues, members of all parties have ably reflected the concerns of a wide range of stakeholders and constituents that TTIP threatens many of the things that hold dear the NHS and other public services are high food and environmental standards. As Willie Coffey pointed out, we have also heard from members who are concerned about particular aspects of the agreement. The committee in its inquiry did also hear that TTIP could deliver some important economic benefits. Although we have mostly focused in this debate on concerns, the committee's inquiry also heard about the importance of Scotland's economic relationship with the United States and the opportunities. Jeremy McGregor set out how TTIP could help British Scottish exports in improving market access and reducing red tape and the cost of exporting. I would say to Jeremy McGregor that we already have access to a market of 300 million people. Yes, the United States is our biggest export market and our biggest inward investor. The issue is what improvements could we have and is that a price worth paying? I thought that an important aspect of this is what the impact might be on small businesses. We do want to make sure that small businesses in Scotland export more. However, the issue is what impact would that have elsewhere. I thought that the contribution about looking at the distributional impact of TTIP is one that we should consider further. Adam Ingram made a thoughtful speech and analysis. He talked about economic modelling, as did Alex Rowley. Adam Ingram also talked about the balance between responsibility and power. Alex Rowley called for further analysis, unlike the UK. The Scottish Government has provided analysis, but, as Malcolm Chisholm said, some of the basis and the benchmarks of that will have to be considered going forward. We also heard from members from rural areas about the potential impact on TTIP on agriculture, reservations about the economic assumptions from the commission, which, necessarily, inform our own economic modelling, were addressed by a number of members. As I said in my opening remarks and as reflected in our debate, we cannot be certain about the economic impacts of TTIP. However, the Scottish Government is clear that whatever those impacts TTIP must not result in a lowering of standards, it must not affect Government's ability to regulate and, most certainly, not come at the expense of the NHS and other public services. Many members expressed concerns that TTIP would result in a lowering of standards. Kevin Stewart talked about GMOs, the issue around environment, food and other standards, and that a regulatory coherence might lower standards by the back door. I think that concerns in different areas in the rural areas must be given consideration. That is why the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs has been pressing the UK Government on those issues, and, while we will continue to hold the commission to its word that standards will not be lowered. George Adam was absolutely right to say that the agricultural council was wrong to move TTIP into private session, and that should have been a public discussion. The committee's inquiry has helped to set out what TTIP is in relation to our analysis. It has also discussed ISDS and how it works, but many of us are still unconvinced, particularly around ISDS. That scepticism stems from the examples that we have heard. We also know that tobacco companies and others have used ISDS in other countries to undermine Government's ability to act in the public interest. It stems from the knowledge that both the EU and the United States have strong and well-developed judicial systems, so in terms of domestic courts dealing with those disputes, that perhaps is the place that is best laid. To Jeane Freeman, I would say that the Scottish Government is not convinced that ISDS is necessary and takes the view that disputes between investors and the state should be settled in domestic courts. Most of all, we have strong concerns that TTIP could lead to the privatisation of the NHS and other public services. Members argue that TTIP will force NHS services to be put out to the tender and reminded us that this threat applies across public services. We have also heard concerns that, as the UK is the member state, the privatisation of services south of the border could set a precedent in terms of market access for US healthcare companies here in Scotland. That is not acceptable. In terms of our concerns, I think that they have been able to set out in this debate. In many of those regards, what we have heard from the UK Government has done nothing to put our concerns to rest. That is easily done by guaranteeing an explicit exemption for the NHS on the face of any agreement, and the Scottish Government will continue to press the case. Let me finish by once again applauding the committee for its effective scrutiny of the complex issue for shining a light on what TTIP might mean for Scotland. Adam Ingram commented that this was one of the most important pieces of work conducted in his 16 years in the Parliament. Let me reiterate this Government's strong view that wherever the economic impacts of TTIP, those impacts must not come at the expense of the NHS and other public services of the right of government to regulate or of lower standards. I commend the committee on its work and its commitment to continue that work. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. In closing today's debate, I start by thanking all members who have spoken in this debate. The TTIP debate has been lively and wide-ranging and it is important to have the opportunity for the committee's report to be debated in the chamber today. I also thank all those who have given evidence to the committee as witnesses, as well as the minister, the cabinet secretary, MEPs and the committee clerks for all the support and assistance. We have valued their input immensely. Our convener, Christine McKelven, and others acknowledge that the Scottish Parliament has no direct role in ratifying the TTIP agreement. However, this inquiry has allowed the Scottish voice to be heard on this issue. The committee's report was sent to the Scottish Government, the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission raising specific issues for each of those bodies. Only one response has been received to date, that of the Scottish Government, and I thank them once again for their input. Whilst the committee received responses from the United Kingdom Government, when the committee received responses from the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission, I hope that they will provide clear clarity on issues that the committee raised in its reports. I also hope that the committee's report can help influence other negotiations of an agreement that is helpful to Scotland. The key findings of this inquiry were decisions relating to TTIP, which have to go through layers of governments, the European Commission to the United Kingdom Government as the European Union Member State and from the United Kingdom Government to the Scottish Government. Whilst there are concerns in Scotland, these have to be set back through the same layers in the hope that they will take into account in any eventual negotiation. It is therefore understandable why there is a feeling of frustration in some quarters. Today we have heard many of the concerns repeating the TTIP brought up again before turning to those I would like to highlight three areas in which there could be positive outcomes for Scotland. First, in relation to the elimination of tariffs, the Scottish Textile and Leather Association described the problems faced by this sector in relation to current tariff barriers as different products attract different, very different tariffs. They suggested that the TTIP would bring simplicity and level playing field because there are countries in other parts of the world outside the European Union that have zero tariffs on their textile goods. Speaks about conditions that might benefit trade here, but what about the impact of this trade deal on low-income countries? The Westminster Environmental Audit Committee said that TTIP is likely to produce a negative impact on a number of other countries. The increase in trade between the two partners will be mirrored by substantial trade diversion. That carries threats for low-income companies who will lose market share. I would be grateful if the member could confirm that the committee will look at this aspect of the deal in their on-going investigations. I am quite happy to take the undertaking that we would look at those issues as well. I will go on to say that the European Union has zero tariffs on the textile removed from tariffs will therefore help the Scottish businesses export to the US markets. Secondly, we would see some positive developments in relation to imports, cooperation and unnecessary regulatory barriers would be removed. Thirdly, in evidence to us, the Scottish Enterprise highlighted the importance of US investments leaving in Scotland and suggested that the trade agreement could further prove inward investment to Scotland. Any inward investment to Scotland is a positive for our economy. However, in addition to the positive developments as well as we heard, there are also negative issues. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy acknowledged in evidence to the committee that TETAP can open up our markets here in the same way as it opens up markets to which we hope to gain access. However, until it is being finalized, we will not know which sectors will benefit and which sections will not. This is why the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government assess the impact of its final agreement and work with businesses and the enterprise agencies to follow developments in relation to TETAP very carefully. Another area of debate is public sector. Despite assurances from Lord Livingstone, I think we agreed that the protection of public services in particular our health service, investment, protection and investor to state is important for us. Hence, despite settlement provisions in TETAP, it is vitally important and therefore this will be particularly important to our committee and we will follow this work on TETAP. The National Framework Farmers Union in Scotland told the committee that it was concerned that there would be erosion over the course of time in relation to food standards. Similarly, the World Development Movement was worried about the watering down of regularity in products, health service and health workers concerns and the environment. There are areas which will be discussed in future around negotiations and needs are watchful eye on them. I would like to conclude by emphasising that this is not the end of the committee's work on TETAP. The recommendation set out in our report and debated by the Chamber today represents our initial position in relation to TETAP. As a committee, we have agreed to continue further inquiry work on TETAP particularly to explore issues relating to ISDS and public services. I want to emphasise the fact that public services are a very important element in all of this for us because we feel that all the elements that have taken, the discussions have taken place, this was a particular concern to us in protecting the health service and other such services. I think it is important that we implement the implements of the agreement for Scotland, continue to be scrutinised throughout the committee's deliverances. Presiding officer, I wanted to add at the very end of this that I'm really once again very grateful for all the evidences that we've received. People went to a great deal of lengths to give us written submissions. It's already been mentioned that we received a lot of emails. It was clear that the feeling and the depth of concern in Scotland in particular is very high about TETAP and I think a lot of people want to see that we give it our very best scrutiny to ensure that we continue this work. Therefore, I think what I can sum up in the end is that the committee is committed to ensuring that we continue this programme to the best of our abilities. We will continue to get support from the industry. I think one of the things that perhaps was we need to concentrate more on is some of the agencies that actually provide information for our small industries to make sure that we continue the good work that's been done to date. I'm very proud in particular and I'm sure my convener is as well of all the support that we have received in terms of evidence. It has given us a great deal of insight and also the current emails that we're receiving just now from our constituents has also proven the fact that there are concerns out there. I think that despite the fact that we don't have a direct input into the TETAP agreement, we nevertheless have a responsibility to ensure that we pass on our concerns to all concerned to make sure that those concerns are related and taken account of when it ultimately comes to making an agreement at the long last. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Many thanks indeed, Mr Manwick. That concludes the debate on the European Next in our Relations Committee report on the implications of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership for Scotland. We now move to the next site of business, which is consideration of business motion number 13037, in the name of Jofix-Patrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request to speak button now. I call on Jofix-Patrick to move motion number 13037. Formally moved. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13037, in the name of Jofix-Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next site of business is consideration of three parliamentary business motions. I have asked Jofix-Patrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motion number 13034 to 13036, setting out stage 1 and stage 2 time pables for various bills on block. I propose to ask a single question on motions number 13034 to 13036. If any member objects to a single question, please say so now. No member has objected to a single question being put, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motions number 13034 to 13036, in the name of Jofix-Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed to. The next site of business is consideration of one parliamentary bureau motion. I would ask Jofix-Patrick to move motion number 13033 on the designation of a lead committee. This motion will put decision time to which we now come. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion number 1307, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on the European and Extended Relations Committee's report on the implications of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for Scotland, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote to our motion number 1307, in the name of Christina McKelvie, is as follows. Yes, 77, no, 0. There were 15 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is that motion number 13033, in the name of Jofix-Patrick, on the designation of a lead committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave in the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.