On Thursday 15 January, the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee held a debate on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

The Committee was debating whether or not TTIP, together with the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, should be subject to scrutiny in the European and UK Parliament.

The motion was passed, although this only really serves a persuasive function since backbench motions aren't binding on Parliament.

An amendment, tabled by Caroline Lucas for the Green Party, to halt TTIP negotiations altogether was rejected.

This means that in practical terms the motion was not able to secure anything in concrete. So what can we take from the debate?
  • The debate wouldn't have taken place at all but for grassroots activism
This was broadly accepted by all Members who took part in the debate. A number of Members have clearly been heavily influenced by direct lobbying from ordinary constituents. There was generally a great deal of praise for the ever increasing numbers of "knowledgeable" constituents taking direct action.

Worryingly, one Member (Labour MP Sheila Gilmore) admitted that she didn't even know what TTIP was until a constituent got in touch and told her about it. While this particular Member at least deserves some credit for acknowledging the apathy that exists within her party towards TTIP, the lack of oversight within Parliament on this issue is a disgraceful state of affairs.

Government Ministers (and those on the shadow front benches) should be leading the debate and encouraging scrutiny on this incredibly important trade deal, not quietly ushering it through the back door. Yet had it not been for grassroots activists, this is precisely what would have happened.

  • Lack of transparency remains a concern for all parties
The one thing all parties agreed on was that the lack of transparency regarding the negotiations on both sides of the Atlantic is unacceptable. Even those who want to defend the treaty are scuppered by the fact that they don't have access to all the necessary information.

This lack of transparency is very much at the heart of the mistrust ordinary people have towards TTIP. All this mistrust is well founded; the secrecy in which the negotiations are shrouded only exists to protect the commercial interests of the corporate lobbyists who are at the heart of the talks.

In order to report back to the UK Government on the ongoing negotiations, Trade and Investment Minister Lord Livingston is forced to enter a closed room to view the documents without any photocopier or camera and "memorise" the contents. This is how Ministers are being kept abreast of developments. The situation is a farce.

  • There is cross-party concern about the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system too
Concern in relation to the inclusion of ISDS appears to be catching on.

For those who don't know, ISDS is the system by which an "investor" (i.e. a private company) could sue the UK Government if it implements a new law or changes its policies in such a way that it might cause financial loss to the overseas investor.

There was some strong debate on this. A number of examples of ISDS working against the interests of everyday consumers were raised. Many of these have been mentioned elsewhere, but I summarise them here:
  • The Canadian Government has been sued 35 times under current ISDS mechanisms. For example:
    • It was sued by Ethyl Corporation via an ISDS mechanism for banning the highly toxic chemical and fuel additive, MMT. Despite clear evidence the chemical was toxic, the Candian Government had to settle with Ethyl and reverse the ban.
    • Canada is also being sued by Lone Pine because Quebec wants a moratorium on fracking.
  • Dutch insurer Achmea is suing the Slovakian Government for trying to reverse privatisation in its public health service.
  • Argentina has paid more than $1billion to US and EU energy giants because it froze energy and water prices.
  • The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland have been sued 127 times under ISDS mechanisms. Caroline Lucas pointed out that these countries have been sued for an amount that could have employed about 300,000 nurses for a year.
  • Germany is being sued by a Swedish nuclear power company for changing its energy policy.
  • US firm Philip Morris Tobacco sued Australia and Uruguay for introducing tougher labelling laws for cigarettes.
In response, a number of Tory Members spoke out in defence of ISDS. However...

  • The Government still can't provide a compelling reason for including ISDS
The official Government line remains to point out that Britain is already party to 90 trade agreements that include ISDS or similar mechanisms. Moreover, they say, Britain has never been successfully sued under any of these mechanisms.

The Government's position is that opponents of ISDS are either "scare-mongering" or just "cynics". However this tepid defence of ISDS does nothing to reassure the ever increasing number of people who have legitimate fears over how ISDS could be used.

In any event, the notion ISDS is needed to protect overseas investment just doesn't stack up.

First and foremost, it isn't logical to compare TTIP with free trade agreements the UK has entered into in the past. These were by and large with much smaller and economically weaker countries. In fact, the boot has normally been on the other foot and it has been the profit margins of British companies that have been protected while they were profiting from cheap labour and natural resources in developing countries.

Clearly an agreement with America represents an entirely different ball game. 47 of the richest companies in the world are US companies according to PWC. Also lets not forget that US corporations have a history for being some of the most aggressive and self-serving in the world, having little regard for the economy, environment or people in the countries in which they "invest" (although that's not to say American companies have a monopoly on that kind of behaviour).

The other argument raised that undermines the inclusion of ISDS relates to the legal mechanisms we already have in place. We already have a strong, independent judicial system in our country that is more than capable of handling investor disputes. It is important to point out that ISDS mechanisms were initially introduced to provide commercial certainty in trade agreements with developing countries which did not have established or reliable legal infrastructures.

This just isn't the case here, or with the judicial systems in the other nation states involved in the treaty.

But as Caroline Lucas explained, this is more about extending the power of multi-national corporations to operate outside of ordinary, established legal systems. In a UK context this would create a two-tiered system with the "investors" entitled to enhanced protection.

To give you an example, if two English businesses enter into a contract for the sale of goods which, because of Government intervention, becomes impossible to perform (for example if the Government banned the goods that were the subject of the contract) the contract is deemed to be "frustrated." The parties have to try their best to unwind the contract and invariably both sides will end up losing out in some way. But that's all part of the commercial risks involved in business. The idea that either party could sue the Government is absurd and would be unconstitutional since the cornerstone of our constitution is the principle that Parliament can make, or unmake, any law it wants to. ISDS cuts against this principle.

  • UKIP aren't engaged with the debate at all
I think this deserves a mention. UKIP make a big show about being against handing power over to unelected bureaucrats and protecting our institutions, but only when it suits them.

There are some aspects to TTIP that I'm sure many UKIP voters would be deeply uncomfortable with, but their two MPs let them down. Mark Reckless managed only a single rambling remark in the debate before being reprimanded by the Speaker for interupting and was silent from then on.

The party's lack of a coherent ideology is clear from their unwillingness to challenge any aspect of TTIP.

  • We still can't say for sure whether the NHS will be safeguarded
The Government still insists that TTIP won't apply to public services, including health, but it is clear that they can't give any concrete assurances, nor indeed are they seeking any.

If the Tories are able to cobble together another coalition after the general election and continue to marketise the NHS there remains a fear that this will open up our system to US private healthcare behemoths, who would be able to underpin their involvement through ISDS. The British Medical Association has also raised concerns.

Geraint Davis MP made the point that Finland managed to secure an agreement specifically excluding private and public healthcare from its free trade agreement with the US and Canada. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to do the same if, as we are told, the intention is for the NHS to be protected.

  • The Government is actively misleading the public as to the benefits of TTIP
Tory MPs (joined by a number of Labour MPs) continue to salivate over the economic gains they say TTIP will bring for the UK.

As usual words such as "prize" and "goal" were mentioned to give the impression that TTIP is guaranteed to deliver a once in a lifetime billion dollar cash bonanza that will benefit everyone, everywhere.

I find it immensely troubling that Ministers are allowed to trumpet the economic benefits of TTIP as though they are some sort of undisputed science.

A Government press release put out by David Cameron on Thursday said that TTIP "will create 1,700 new jobs" (emphasis added). There's just no basis for using such unqualified language. As someone with experience of regulatory law I can tell you that if a private company made a claim like that the advertisement would be banned. Under advertising law you just aren't allowed to pass off inconclusive, disputed statistical evidence as objective fact like that.

It's a bizarre feature of the way advertising is regulated that politicians are allowed to mislead the general public in this way while companies can't, but that's another story.

In summary, it's safe to say that for every report that claims TTIP will have a net positive effect on our economy there is another one saying the opposite, such as this one by Tufts University in the US.

The benefits are unclear, and the public has a right to know this.

  • In conclusion... the battle for public opinion continues
Some people say trade agreements are just inherantly boring and you will never succeed in making TTIP a mainstream issue. I disagree. I was living in South Korea while it was negotiating a free trade agreement with the USA back in 2007 and while negotiations were ongoing the issue dominated the press for months. Everyone had an opinion on it. At one point hundreds of thousands of citizens took part in a march from City Hall to protest against inadequate controls on US beef exports.

We are up against a great deal of apathy now, but the truth is something that transcends party lines. We need to keep talking about this. To illustrate my point, I quote from Tory MP Zac Goldsmith, who broke party lines on Thursday to deliver a cutting and insightful critique of TTIP. Comparing TTIP to the North American Free Trade Agreement (widely believed to have cost 870,000 jobs in America, despite pledges that it would create jobs), he said:
"I wonder how much support there would be in my party or on the Opposition Benches for this treaty if people fully and truly understood the implications. I remember interviewing the famous consumer activist Ralph Nader for The Ecologist about NAFTA. He told me that he was reaching the end of the campaign and that Congress was going to give it a green light. He did not believe that anyone in Congress had read the report. He said that he would give a cash reward to anyone who could answer his questions. Months passed. Finally, Senator Brown of Colorado accepted the challenge and got every question right, to everyone’s amazement. He then turned to the cameras and said that having read the report he was going to vote against it as he could see how dangerous it was.
I believe that any self-respecting Member of this House should demand–no, insist—not only transparency and scrutiny by this House, but the right to approve or reject this treaty before our country is bound to it."