APPENDIX 3: CALL FOR EVIDENCE
The EU Sub-Committee on External Affairs
of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Tugendhat, is conducting
an inquiry into The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP). The Sub-Committee seeks evidence from anyone with an interest.
Written evidence is sought by 10 October
2013. Public hearings will be held from October 2013, and into
the early part of 2014. The Committee aims to report to the House,
with recommendations, in the first half of 2014. The report will
receive responses from the Government and the European Commission,
and is likely to be debated in the House.
In February 2013, the EU and US launched
the TTIP. On 14 June, the Trade Council of the European Union
agreed the negotiating mandate for the TTIP. In light of the objections
of some Member States, the final draft reads that "audiovisual
services will not be covered in this chapter". The first
round of bilateral negotiations began on 8 July with the aim of
concluding and ratifying the agreement within two years.
The EU and US already have a significant
bilateral trade relationship. Trade in goods and services between
the two economies amounts to nearly $1 trillion each year. Together,
the EU and the US account for nearly half of world GDP and 30
per cent of world trade. Each day, goods and services worth $2.7
billion/€2.0 billion are traded bilaterally.
Studies have shown that the most ambitious
and comprehensive agreement which eases behind the border impediments
to trade and investment is likely to reap the highest benefit
with estimates varying of an increase of 0.5 to 3.5 per cent of
annual GDP to both parties. The UK Government have estimated that,
in the long run, UK national income could rise by between £4
billion and £10 billion annually. Some commentators point
out that estimates have not captured the long-term benefits of
productivity growth as a consequence of trade and investment liberalisation.
On the other hand, some warn of the adverse consequences of a
deal, for instance on specific industries and sectors, or on third
countries.
The House of Lords inquiry will aim
to assess the minimal level of agreement necessary to make the
negotiations worthwhile to the UK and will explore and evaluate
the UK and EU's priorities in the negotiations.
The Sub-Committee seeks evidence on
any aspect of this topic, and in particular on the following questions:
The TTIP
(1) What are likely to be the most challenging
chapters of the TTIP and why? What is the minimum level of ambition
necessary in each chapter? How can the ambition of each chapter
be maximised?
(2) Is the time-frame of completing
negotiations within two years realistic? If not, when is it realistic
to expect a deal to be agreed, and what can be expected to be
achieved in the next two years?
(3) How should the Commission most effectively
conduct the negotiations in terms of ensuring appropriate transparency
and communication, as well as full consultation with stakeholders,
NGOs and EU Member States?
(4) How will TTIP negotiations be affected
by relations with third countries, such as China, and also developing
countries, including in relation to existing and pending bilateral
trade agreements? How do you anticipate the TTIP interacting with
the Trans Pacific Partnership and NAFTA, for example?
(5) What is the potential impact of
TTIP on consumers, whether in the UK, EU or US?
Impact of the TTIP for the UK
(6) What aspects of the negotiations
will be of the greatest significance to the UK, including its
component parts?
(7) For UK consumers and business, where
are the greatest gains to be made and where could they be disadvantaged?
What are the most significant non-tariff barriers for British
exporters and importers?
(8) What are the political and practical
challenges within the UK to an agreement?
(9) How can the UK seek to maximise
its influence at EU level as the TTIP negotiations progress?
(10) What might be the potentially adverse
effects for the UK of a failure of the TTIP negotiations?
The European Union and other Member
States
(11) How could the Commission seek to
ensure that the interests of the Member States are represented,
and that a satisfactory outcome with regard to Member States'
interests is secured?
(12) What are likely to be the most
significant potential gains and difficulties for other Member
States? How do UK interests and those of the other Member States
coincide or run counter to each other? What would you identify
as areas of common European interest?
(13) From the EU perspective, what are
likely to be the biggest political, institutional and practical
challenges to a deal? How can they be overcome?
The United States
(14) From the US perspective, what are
likely to be the biggest political, institutional and practical
challenges to a deal? How can they be overcome?
(15) What would be a mutually beneficial
solution for the EU and US? Is that the same as a mutually beneficial
solution for the EU and UK?
| 
