Agenda item

To consider the following motion submitted by Councillors Newman-Thompson, Gardner and Margaret Pattison:

This Council notes:

1.           That the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is currently being negotiated between the US and the EU supposedly to pursue the interest of free trade.

2.           TTIP negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors between representatives of the EU and US without transparency or democratic accountability.

3.           TTIP would open up access to government procurement markets and eliminate preferential treatment to local suppliers and introduce investment protection provisions that include investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms which allow investors to challenge state actions which they perceive as threatening to their investment.

4.           ISDS mechanisms allow for disputes between investors and governments to be heard by tribunals of "experts" rather that resolved by the host state's courts. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recently explained that "foreign investors have recently used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by states in the public interest (for example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health).

This Council believes that:

1.           The TTIP negotiations are potentially catastrophic for public services as the EU/US representatives are negotiating to hand over the right to regulate in the public interest without transparency or accountability to their electorates.

2.           IDSD mechanisms would make it hard for any government to reverse liberalisation and privatisation without being sued by foreign investors. So whatever voters actually wanted, the trade treaty would place major barriers in the way of government giving expression to their democratic will.

This Council resolves:

1.           To write to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills raising our serious concerns about the TTIP.

2.           To offer support to the campaign by Unite to defend the NHS which is drawing attention to the potential impact of the TTIP.

3.           To write to the Local Government Association to urge them to lobby on behalf of all Local Authorities on the potential impact of the TTIP.

4.           To do all we can to publicise the dangers arising from this trade agreement for our NHS and other public services and jobs.

An officer briefing note is attached.

Councillor Rollins asked to speak on a point of order, referring Councillors to Council Procedure Rules 16.3 and 16.4 in the Council’s Constitution, whereby under 16.3 a motion on the Council agenda would be accompanied by an officer drafted briefing note setting out any particular risks and financial or legal implications; and under 16.4 motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect the district.

The Chief Executive advised Council that the motion was about a matter which would have an impact on the people of the district and the officer briefing note which accompanied the motion explained why it had been difficult to provide great detail on such a complex matter. To help inform the debate, officers had provided some Government produced documentation for Members.

Following this clarification, Councillor Newman-Thompson proposed the motion, having given the required notice to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16:-

“This Council notes:

(1)          That the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is currently being negotiated between the US and the EU supposedly to pursue the interest of free trade.

(2)          TTIP negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors between representatives of the EU and US without transparency or democratic accountability.

(3)          TTIP would open up access to government procurement markets and eliminate preferential treatment to local suppliers and introduce investment protection provisions that include investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms which allow investors to challenge state actions which they perceive as threatening to their investment.

(4)          ISDS mechanisms allow for disputes between investors and governments to be heard by tribunals of "experts" rather that resolved by the host state's courts. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recently explained that "foreign investors have recently used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by states in the public interest (for example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health).

This Council believes that:

(1)          The TTIP negotiations are potentially catastrophic for public services as the EU/US representatives are negotiating to hand over the right to regulate in the public interest without transparency or accountability to their electorates.

(2)          IDSD mechanisms would make it hard for any government to reverse liberalisation and privatisation without being sued by foreign investors. So whatever voters actually wanted, the trade treaty would place major barriers in the way of government giving expression to their democratic will.

This Council resolves:

(1)          To write to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills raising our serious concerns about the TTIP.

(2)          To offer support to the campaign by Unite to defend the NHS which is drawing attention to the potential impact of the TTIP.

(3)          To write to the Local Government Association to urge them to lobby on behalf of all Local Authorities on the potential impact of the TTIP.

(4)          To do all we can to publicise the dangers arising from this trade agreement for our NHS and other public services and jobs."

Councillor Margaret Pattison seconded the motion.

The following amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Filmore and was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original motion.

“That the wording of (1) under ‘This Council resolves’ be amended to replace ‘serious concerns about’ with ‘opposition to’ and that the words ‘and to say ‘no’ to the UK becoming a signatory’ be added to the end of that sentence.”

At the conclusion of a lengthy debate a vote was taken and the motion was carried with 26 Councillor voting for the motion, 21 against and 2 abstentions.

Resolved:-

This Council notes:

(1)          That the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is currently being negotiated between the US and the EU supposedly to pursue the interest of free trade.

(2)          TTIP negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors between representatives of the EU and US without transparency or democratic accountability.

(3)          TTIP would open up access to government procurement markets and eliminate preferential treatment to local suppliers and introduce investment protection provisions that include investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms which allow investors to challenge state actions which they perceive as threatening to their investment.

(4)          ISDS mechanisms allow for disputes between investors and governments to be heard by tribunals of "experts" rather that resolved by the host state's courts. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recently explained that "foreign investors have recently used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by states in the public interest (for example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health).

This Council believes that:

(1)          The TTIP negotiations are potentially catastrophic for public services as the EU/US representatives are negotiating to hand over the right to regulate in the public interest without transparency or accountability to their electorates.

(2)          IDSD mechanisms would make it hard for any government to reverse liberalisation and privatisation without being sued by foreign investors. So whatever voters actually wanted, the trade treaty would place major barriers in the way of government giving expression to their democratic will.

This Council resolves:

(1)          To write to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills raising our opposition to the TTIP and to say ‘no’ to the UK becoming a signatory.

(2)          To offer support to the campaign by Unite to defend the NHS which is drawing attention to the potential impact of the TTIP.

(3)          To write to the Local Government Association to urge them to lobby on behalf of all Local Authorities on the potential impact of the TTIP.

(4)          To do all we can to publicise the dangers arising from this trade agreement for our NHS and other public services and jobs.

Council adjourned at 4.20pm and re-convened at 4.30pm in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.1