TTIP is perhaps an example of how not to do a trade deal. Again, it speaks to the issues of transparency, the involvement of stakeholders and so on. The current Trade Bill talks about existing trade agreements, but it does not talk about how we will conduct such agreements in the future. That is very worrying, given that—as I mentioned in my introductory remarks—as of April next year, the UK will be able to negotiate new trade agreements and we have no idea about how that is going to happen, bar the existing limited domestic mechanisms.
It is also quite important to look at TTIP in the context of the regulatory divergence that it would have created. Looking at the US system, for instance, we are in a different space in relation to environmental protections and food safety. Just a few weeks ago, the Scottish Parliament voted—unanimously, I think—in favour of maintaining EU environmental principles, with the precautionary principle at the heart of those. We know that US regulatory systems do not operate on the basis of the same principles.
Looking forward to future trade agreements, we need to know that they will not be used as an argument for diluting standards or for going back on environmental commitments. The current UK Trade Bill allows for primary legislation to be changed so that we can continue with those existing retrofitted trade agreements with third countries, which is very worrying.
We want some amendments to be made to the Trade Bill to ensure that that does not happen. Any non-technical amendments to existing trade deals should be properly scrutinised and, in our view, should be accompanied by a sustainability impact assessment that looks at the social, economic and environmental implications. That is a commitment that needs to be made when conducting new trade deals.
10:45
We are looking for a much more robust process when conducting those deals, with Westminster setting and voting on the terms of the mandate for the UK Government to negotiate trade deals. There should be a public consultation, and Parliament should have a final vote to reject or agree to the negotiated deal. Throughout the course of the negotiations, the UK International Trade Committee should be commenting and feeding back on the negotiations.
Liz Murray mentioned some very important considerations in terms of the role of devolved Governments and Parliaments. At each stage of the process, we would like to see an assessment of the implications for Scotland and for the Scottish Parliament and Government. If we look at CETA, Belgium raised concerns very late in the process. You want to avoid a situation where a trade agreement is about to be finalised and then something comes up at that final stage. You want to have those issues raised and flagged up front.