Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and John Spellar

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive, pro-science approach that he is taking—it is not surprising, given the constituency he represents. Do we not also need to learn from the experience of the vaccine taskforce, which demonstrated how we can achieve results at pace without in any way infringing on safety and while still applying proper regulation? Is that not the challenge for the Government tonight?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend, as always, speaks good sense. He is absolutely right; with focus and a proper attempt to meet the challenges we face, it is remarkable what can be done. But this needs leadership and, as ever, it is missing.

Let me turn in detail to the public interest test and our amendment 3. The potential benefits of gene edited crops include creating plants resistant to extreme weather conditions and diseases, which could reduce the need for pesticides and create higher yields to address rising food insecurity driven by climate change and other factors. Genetic editing could also be used to improve the nutritional quality of food. For example, giving farmers the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neonicotinoids is a prize worth having.

However, we must recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences; risks of technology being misused; and risks of commercial pressure being exerted in ways that might not be for the benefit of the wider public. Those are all risks that must be properly recognised and addressed, because unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Unfortunately, the Government’s blind faith in the market means this is a laissez-faire, minimalist Bill, which does not come close to an effective regulatory framework to guide and oversee the work of researchers and developers.

Amendment 3 would therefore require that a gene edited organism has been developed to provide one or more of the public benefit purposes listed, if it is to be released into the environment. The amendment neatly recycles much of the wording in section 1 of the Government’s own Agriculture Act 2020, which lists the public goods that can be funded. We are simply applying the same approach to the development and use of gene editing technologies. We believe they should be used only where that is clearly in the public interest, including, for instance, in protecting a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment; mitigating climate change; improving the health or welfare of animals or plants; and supporting human health and wellbeing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but of course there are always economic pressures and this is about making sure we guard against those. The Minister will be familiar with the chlorine-washed chicken debate, where lower welfare standards are disguised and the Government are always at pains to assure us, “We’re not going to tolerate that.” So they must not allow new scientific developments to be the tech equivalent; there must be no backsliding.

Referring to the power of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease, Nuffield’s 2016 ethical review of genome editing highlighted the problem. It said:

“If this risk were reduced or removed altogether then it might be easier to pack more animals together in crowded spaces.”

That is the concern, so let us guard against it. We believe we can create a regime that can do much better than that, but it requires this Bill to be strengthened to make it happen.

On transparency and labelling, the research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that although consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from genetically modified foods, they overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling.

The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term “precision breeding”. I could speak at length about this term; I will not, but there is much dispute about it. It is a term without clear scientific meaning. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer. Telling us in a rather paternalistic tone that we need not worry because there is no difference between gene edited or traditionally bred crops and livestock does not convince. There is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer—effectively, GM through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, and we had a lengthy discussion about it in Committee, but I and many others remain unconvinced.

Leaving that matter aside, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want, and to be able to know, how their food has been produced. Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. I suggest that the Government tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.

Labour is also concerned at the number of key elements of the Bill left to secondary legislation, with little or no opportunity for scrutiny or amendment. The Government must spell out the detail to boost confidence for businesses and consumers. The organic sector and those developing cultivated meat have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the Bill, which once again risks driving investment and research elsewhere.

It should not be forgotten that the Regulatory Policy Committee made a damning impact assessment of the Bill, giving it a red rating because it failed to take into account the impact of creating a new class of genetically modified organism; failed to assess the impact on businesses, especially SMEs; failed to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failed to address the impacts arising from removing labelling and traceability requirements. I hope the Minister will address those points.

In addition to that list of failures, the Bill fails to address the trade implications of the misalignment in regulation of genetically engineered organisms between the UK’s devolved nations and with our EU neighbours. That could have a significant impact on many food businesses that are struggling to rebuild trade with EU countries despite all the self-inflicted red tape, added costs and barriers that the Government have created.

[John Spellar]

Is not the EU in a slightly difficult position because of a perverse judgment from the European Court of Justice against the views of many EU nations, which would have taken the same rational position as my hon. Friend on gene editing? If we take the lead on this issue and do not wrap ourselves up in endless judicial review and litigation, could we not work with our European neighbours and partners to bring an advance not only in this country, but across Europe?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend speaks good sense once again. Of course, that quite legalistic judgment was met with surprise by many. The question is how we go forward. Others in Europe are going forward as well. I suspect that we will end up in similar places at similar times, but it would be sensible to end up in a much more similar place than looks likely if we pursue the Bill as it has been developed so far. The worry is the effects that the changes are already having on sectors such as the organic sector, which used to have exports to the EU worth some £45 million a year, according to Organic Farmers and Growers, which rightly remains concerned about the Bill as it stands.

Much more could be said on a topic that is as fascinating as it is interesting and important, but I will spare the House and direct those Members who are interested to look at the detailed discussion in Committee. Tonight I will end where I started and restate Labour’s commitment: we are pro science and pro innovation. We are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. Science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon, but to achieve that—to give investors, researchers and the general public confidence—we need a much stronger regulatory framework.

At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is simply to leave it to the market. They think that minimalist regulation is the way forward, whereas we say that good regulation is the way forward—a fundamental divide in this Chamber. I would simply say that, given the evidence from the fundamentalist deregulatory experiment carried out on our country over the last few weeks, one hopes that those on the Treasury Bench might just have learned something.

Fur Trade

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and John Spellar

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I will come very specifically to that point later in that speech, but my belief is that we do have the power.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the widespread public support. One should always be careful to differentiate grassroots and astroturf in email responses. On this issue, it is clear that there has been sustained interest for a long time from all the different areas of my constituency, all indicating a deep and long-standing concern that the trade should be ended. I am sure that that is true of other hon. Members as well. That is not just a transient mood, but a long-standing demand.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The number of hon. Members present shows the breadth of support, and the petition shows that it is consistent across the country. It has also been a response to some strong campaigns. There have been 109,554 signatures to the petition, but there is a spectrum of support behind it from significant organisations, including the Humane Society International; businesses such as Lush; and a range of cultural figures such as Brian May of Queen and Evanna Lynch of “Harry Potter”. It is fair to conclude that our country wants to ban fur.

It is not just the UK. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting a Finnish member of the European Parliament, Sirpa Pietikäinen, who leads the cross-party group on animal welfare. She assured me that there is growing and widespread support not just in the Parliament but in countries that have traditionally been more sympathetic to the fur trade.

The faux fur issue is an added complexity that is currently being probed by the EFRA Committee. The public are being duped into buying fur by mistake. We have a bizarre situation where less scrupulous retailers, or retailers that have been misled by wholesalers or people further down the supply chain, mislabel their products as faux fur when in fact they are real fur. That is partly a consequence of the fact that, from some suppliers, the real fur is very cheap, which says a lot about how it is produced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I had not necessarily considered that, but as so often with legislation, it seems that there is more scope to do things than people tell us. There may be more flexibility than is sometimes suggested, so that may certainly be worth looking at.

[John Spellar]

That is an extremely important point and is actually an important part of the wider debate. Many of these issues are not a matter of EU regulation—they are a matter of political will and choice in this country. The debate’s clear message to the Minister needs to be that the Government have options and should exercise them, and not keep hiding behind a figment of rules from Brussels, which do not have the weight that the Government put on them.

Concessionary Bus Passes

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and John Spellar

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is very prescient, because the TUC campaign was in the next paragraph of my speech; she has pre-empted it. She is right. Those of us who have done market square campaigning will know that we are not always a magnet for people to come and join us and enthuse, but I find that whenever we speak to older people, they are enthusiastic. I echo my hon. Friend’s congratulations to not only the east midlands TUC but Richard Worrall, who, when the scheme was initiated, set off on a tour of the country and was able to demonstrate that, using his bus pass, he could get round the whole country, which was very exciting. I am told that he is going to do that again, and certainly if he comes through Cambridgeshire I shall be very pleased to join him, although I shall be paying the extortionate fares that we suffer in rural Cambridgeshire—should we be lucky enough to find a bus. I say that because the enthusiasm to which I have referred is tempered by the fact that, in far too many areas, the Government seem to be managing decline rather than celebrating new routes. I will say a little about how that might be addressed, but first I would like to go back to the history of this scheme.

As I look around the Chamber, I see that some of us are old enough to remember that in the ’80s and ’90s pensioner campaigning was central to everything we did. I remember that, as a parliamentary candidate, I was summoned to many vibrant meetings—the pensioners’ organisations had a long list of demands at the time. That was because they compared, strangely enough, our situation in the UK with that in many other European countries and found that our European neighbours often enjoyed a whole series of things that pensioners in our country did not. One success of the post-1997 Labour Government was that they addressed pensioner poverty. I am thinking of measures such as free eye tests, the winter fuel payment and so on, and the bus pass was of course a key part of that.

However, there was not a particularly smooth path to that. We started with quite a panoply of schemes. Some places, such as London, had long had better schemes. Some of the urban areas—I have to say that they were almost always Labour-run areas—had been much more generous in the past. However, in the shires, it was much more of a battle. A kind of halfway house was introduced back in the Transport Act 2000, which gave pensioners half-price fares. That led to quite a lot of even more vexed campaigning.

I remember going to a Labour policy forum in 2004 with colleagues from adjoining counties in the rural east of England—I particularly remember the then leader of Norfolk County Council, Celia Cameron, and Bryony Rudkin from Suffolk. We sat with the then Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling—this was long before he realised he was to become Chancellor of the Exchequer—and explained to him why we thought that a concessionary fares scheme of this type would be not only equitable and fair but hugely popular. I remember the look on Alistair’s face: he said, “Do you know how much that would cost?” That was actually quite a good question because, as I shall explain in a minute, the question of costs has never been properly tied down. His point, of course, was that it would be quite a costly commitment. We went away, having established the idea in principle, but with no great hope that it would necessarily be adopted, so it was with huge joy that we greeted the development a year later. I am not suggesting that it was just we who achieved this; it was a wide range of campaigners, but in the 2005 Labour manifesto a full scheme was suggested, and it was finally implemented in 2006.

The issue of funding is important because, right from the beginning, it has proved to be complicated and difficult. When I was a parliamentary candidate, I spent many a happy hour trying to work out, with my local county councillors and district councillors, who was paying for what and how much it was really costing, and, frankly, coming to the conclusion that probably no one was entirely sure.

We are told that, overall, this scheme now costs £1.17 billion per annum. Not surprisingly, the cost has increased since the scheme was introduced. We are told that, in 2013-14, 9.73 million concessionary travel passes were issued across the country; that puts the average cost at £120 per person. When the scheme was first introduced, the Government provided an extra £350 million for 2006-07 through the formula grant system to fund the cost to local authorities as they then saw it. Between 2008 and 2011, the Department for Transport provided a special grant, totalling just over £650 million, to local authorities to pay for the statutory concession.

Since 2011, however, it is the formula grant that funds the bus pass; money is no longer ring-fenced. Of course, it is a familiar sleight of hand by central Government to apparently put money into the local government grant and tell local government that it has to do this. As the years go by, it becomes less and less clear what the money is for. There is a strong suspicion that it is a sleight of hand, and particularly when councils are being so heavily squeezed, it is asking a lot of them.

Therefore, my first question to the Minister is whether she would like to have a word with the Treasury about looking again at providing proper, ring-fenced funding for the scheme to local authorities. It is not entirely clear to me that the current system of local government finance, particularly with the move away from central Government funding and, supposedly, to business rates retention, actually provides a good, sustainable model for supporting a scheme such as this.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Surely a proper cost-benefit analysis ought to be part of that assessment. In many rural areas, the benefit is that people in smaller, local towns can access services. Most significantly, the benefit is to the health budget, by keeping so many of our pensioners active and engaged. There are lots of studies now on the impact of loneliness on older people. This scheme helps to get people out and about, and maintains their health for much longer.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to the social and environmental benefits in a minute. This partly shows us how complicated it is to assess the long-term benefits.

Returning to the relationship between central Government and local government, local authorities were charged with coming up with a reimbursement system that left the operator no better or worse off, but they are in a difficult place, and I will come on to the reimbursement system in a minute. The Local Government Association estimates the cost to local authorities at around £760 million a year, with a funding shortfall of £200 million. I suspect that that pressure will only get worse.

The operators are not keen on the system at all. I frequently hear complaints. It is difficult to prove what it costs to carry passengers for free, in a way that observes that reimbursement rule. Putting some extra people on half-empty buses does not necessarily cost more. If there are too many extra people, however, extra services are required.

I understand that the prime task of the bus operators—the big five and many smaller operators—is to return a profit to their shareholders. That is right and proper; that is what they do. They will inevitably claim that this costs rather a lot. In the early days—this was my experience in Cambridgeshire—the bus operators did quite well, because the reimbursement cost they extracted from the county council was rather high. Over time that seems to have settled. As has been said in questions to Ministers, the number of appeals has settled down, which suggests that there is a kind of settlement in all this. I think there is a wider question, however, of how and whether the reimbursement system works.

There is a comparison to be made between London, which has a regulated system, and the rest of the country. Thanks to the Bus Services Act 2017, we hope that some of the new mayoral authorities will adopt franchising. I hope my own in Cambridgeshire does. In London, where you have gross cost franchising, it is much simpler for Transport for London to make decisions about the public good. It decides the fares and the frequency, and then it pays the operator to deliver the service. In a way, the operator has much less to worry about, provided it does not drive up usage and extra costs too far. For London, which groups pay and which do not, and how much is made up by the fare box and how much is raised in others ways, are political choices.

In the rest of the country, it is much less clear. It could be suggested that operators have a perverse incentive to put up fares, because if they know that many of their passengers will be concessionary fare holders, they will be reimbursed for that. We will see whether that gets any response from the operators. The choice over discounts and whether young people should qualify for similar fare schemes is essentially market driven; it is not a choice around social need or the social good. There is a huge opportunity, if we shift to franchising, to move to a much clearer and more efficient model. It may reduce operators’ profits, but if it provides lower fares and space for social choices for the social good, it is worth them paying that price.

I pay tribute to the work being done by the Transport for Quality of Life team, including Lynn Sloman and Ian Taylor, who have begun to look at European systems where, effectively, transport is provided for free across an urban area—it is predominately urban areas at the moment. That is not a novel or unprecedented idea, because many people take the view that public transport—like health, education, policing, parks and museums—is an essential public service that contributes to the fabric of local life. The organisation’s work—often commissioned by my trade union, Unite—shows that this is already happening in 100 towns and cities worldwide, including more than 30 in the United States and 20 in France. Dunkirk, with a population of 200,000, will apparently become fare-free in September. The largest city in the world to have made its public transport free is Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, with a population of 440,000. Free transport was introduced to residents in 2013. It has cost the city €12 million, but it believes that that has been offset by a €14 million increase in municipal revenues, as many more people have moved there, increasing the tax base.

That links to some of the work being done by my colleagues on the Transport Committee about mobility as a service. We are looking at a whole new range of ways of getting around cities. My vision is what I see when I visit an airport. Some airports are like small cities. There are travellators, lifts, shuttle metros and shuttle buses. The noticeable thing is that we do not pay to get on each of them, because it is in the interests of that community to get people where they want to go quickly and efficiently. I argue that is in the interest of all of us, in all our cities and smaller towns, to ensure that people can get around quickly and efficiently.

That is my vision for the future, but to return to the present, extending franchising beyond the mayoralty areas would allow local authorities much more control over services in their areas. It would put them in a much stronger position to maintain stability in funding the national concessionary travel bus scheme. The additional flexibility could also be extended to the community transport sector. That is sometimes a controversial issue, but it is being raised by people in the sector. If we are looking for a flexible mix of transport solutions, particularly in rural areas, I think it should be considered.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) has already raised the social issues involved. Very good work has been done on that by Claire Haigh at Greener Journeys. She demonstrated, in research done a few years ago, that each pound spent on a bus pass generates at least £2.87 in benefits to bus pass users and the wider economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The environmental benefits are really important. I was pleased to see the Minister announce at the UK bus summit the retrofitting proposals, which I was happy to see in the Labour party manifesto last year. It is always good to see the Government adopt such things, and I will have some more suggestions for the Minister in a minute. Alongside that proposal are the very good hydrogen buses that are being developed. I suspect that other Members, like me, have been happy to go and see them. All those things add to my point that the bus is one of the important ways forward in improving the quality of life in our cities, towns and villages.

One extremely good way of promoting buses is by looking at the younger generation, who we are reading about this morning.

[John Spellar]

Just before my hon. Friend moves on, I want to make a point that may lead on to the next part of his speech. Does he share my concern about the Resolution Foundation’s report today that calls for increased taxes and charges on pensioners? It once again raises the concern that many pensioners have that their use of or access to bus passes will be rationed or restricted. I hope he would say that that certainly should not happen, and perhaps give the Minister an opportunity to make it clear on behalf of the Government that they will definitely not be taking any action to change the availability of bus passes for pensioners.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend is an experienced and skilled operator, and I am sure the Minister will have heard his challenge, which echoed the challenge I laid down at Transport questions the other day. Older generations may have done better—as I indicated, only 20 years ago pensioner poverty was a very real and terrible thing, and because of policy changes it is only recently that people have been less likely to be poor when they are older—but we have to get the balance between generations right. We do not do that by punishing another generation; we do that by finding the resources from other places.

Turning to younger people, who now need to benefit, I want to reiterate something about the scheme in general. Claire Walters, the chief executive of Bus Users UK, recently said:

“Far more people rely on bus services than trains in this country. They are as vital to many people’s lives as gas, electricity and water”.

For many young people, particularly those in rural counties such as mine, getting to college or work is a real challenge. We are not talking about home-school transport today, but the Government would do well to consider that at some point, because there are rumblings in the shires, as they may have noticed last Thursday. Part of the challenge for young people is the cost of travel, including home-school transport.

As my right hon. Friend has just mentioned, the Resolution Foundation report showed the immense squeeze on the younger generation. They have experienced the tightest squeeze on household spending we have known since 2000, and they now consume 15% less than older working-age people on items other than housing. As we know all too well, home ownership is now out of sight for many people who are working, particularly in cities like mine. At the other end of the spectrum, those under 25 face significant restrictions on the amount of benefits they can claim.

I was absolutely delighted by the announcement by Front-Bench hon. Friends a few weeks ago that in future Labour would provide free bus travel in some parts of the country to those under 25. That would reduce the barriers to accessing work and education that so many young people face. The proposal could benefit up to 13 million young people, helping them save up to £1,000 a year. My hon. Friends have suggested that money ring-fenced from vehicle excise duty could be used. In addition to my earlier argument about franchising, with much greater control from local authorities there could well be extra headroom within local funds to help fund such an extension of the scheme.

I can anticipate the reaction from the bus operators. My local Stagecoach bus manager, with whom I have had many detailed conversations about bus franchising over the years, is not shy in coming forward to warn me of the perils of such an approach. I say gently to the operators that while their books remain closed and their finances opaque, it is not unreasonable for those of us interested in the wider public good to wonder whether more savings could not be made. We are told it is an unregulated market, but it is a funny kind of free market when public money accounts for more than 40% of bus operator revenues through local authority contracts, the bus service operators grant, reimbursement for trips made under the concessionary passholders scheme and grants. We therefore have a responsibility to ask whether we are making best use of that public money.

There is a lot of public money going into the bus system. Can we make it work better? I welcome the announcement that the concessionary fare scheme is no longer under review, but as I intimated earlier, I would like a slightly warmer endorsement of the underlying principles and a true enthusiasm for universally available mass public transport systems. Let’s hear it for the bus! Where older people have led the way, let us open the door for young people too. As we do not know when the next general election is coming—it could be a little while yet—will the Minister consider meeting me and the shadow Minister responsible for buses to discuss adopting yet another of Labour’s excellent bus policies? Young people would be as happy with their new bus pass as millions of older citizens have been with theirs over the last decade.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and John Spellar

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and the Backbench Business Committee for initiating this important debate.

TTIP may not be on the lips of everyone in every constituency, but there is great interest in it in my constituency, so much so that during the general election campaign, when I was pleased to be joined on the campaign trail by the wife of the then Leader of the Opposition, she was absolutely amazed to find that the inhabitants of the first three houses whose doors we knocked on all wanted to talk to her about TTIP. I think she went away appreciating that Cambridge is a very special city indeed.

Such is the interest in the city that we have had a series of public meetings, one of which I organised. I was very pleased to welcome my colleagues Richard Howitt and Lucy Anderson, who are both Members of the European Parliament, to help throw light on what for many people is still a deeply opaque process.

Of course, I agree with other hon. Members that trade agreements are important, but they are also intricate and complicated, perhaps inevitably so. For many of our citizens they seem very remote, and they are often negotiated under wraps. Even to those of us who are following the detail, TTIP can seem fiendishly complex, but it is so important that it cannot be ignored, which is why we must keep asking questions and make sure that they are answered to our satisfaction.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, of course we are in favour of trade agreements. They bring significant benefits and boost trade and growth, and they should secure and create jobs, bring down costs and extend choice for consumers. The Government tell us that an ambitious agreement could add as much as £10 billion annually to the UK economy in the long term, which would be good for jobs and good for consumers. That would, indeed, be welcome, but those economic benefits are contested, and I suspect that, in truth, the reality is that there is simply no way of knowing for sure at this stage what the potential gains may be. We should beware of hyperbole. We need to be able to weigh the possible benefits against the possible risks, which is why the Government should assess, in a transparent, comprehensive manner, what the real economic impact might be. I understand the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has recommended that this assessment should set out the potential benefits and risks on a sector-by-sector basis, which would probably provide much sought-after clarity.

There are many concerns about TTIP, and they have been well rehearsed in this debate. I share with many hon. Friends the concerns about the impact on public services, particularly the national health service. The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism might gift transnational corporations the power to sue countries for profits that have been lost as a result of that country’s policy decisions. There is a very real fear that the inclusion of the ISDS mechanism will prevent a future Labour Government from reversing the Health and Social Care Act 2012 in England owing to the fear of the cost of legal challenges they may face.

[Mr Spellar]

If companies have existing contracts as a result of privatisation, can they not, under contract law, take action in the domestic courts? Is that not the problem, rather than that there will be a new legal procedure?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that real problems are created by our own Government, and we do not just have to fear TTIP, but TTIP might make the situation worse. As someone who endured the horrors of a tortuous and expensive tendering process for our health services in Cambridgeshire during the past few years and has seen it collapse spectacularly and expensively in recent weeks, my advice to the House is: “Don’t go there.”

We have had reassurances from Ministers. Recently, the Minister for Skills said that

“the Government were entirely satisfied that the position regarding TTIP would not threaten the public status of our NHS or other public services. We were entirely satisfied that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the Commission in negotiating the agreement, or on the part of any other EU member state, to allow the status of either our public services or theirs to be threatened.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 568.]

I must say that I am not so sure, not just because of who told us that, but because, from what I have heard, my constituents are not satisfied and because we will not be satisfied until we have concrete proof that a TTIP deal would not irreversibly expose the NHS to competition and threaten its very basis as a public service.

Finally, TTIP is no ordinary trade agreement. Its prime objective is the removal of regulatory barriers to trade, but there is a significant gap between EU and US regulations in a host of areas—safety at work, food production, the use of pesticides and GM crops are just some of them. The danger is that instead of TTIP harmonising regulations upwards to remove regulatory barriers, it will seek the mutual recognition of regulations between the EU and the US. That will inevitably lead to pressure for deregulation in the EU, as EU businesses find that they can no longer compete against US companies that operate to inferior standards of environmental protection and health and safety legislation.