As I understand it, an investor who has access to this process would not be able to start arguing in favour of reducing standards in any regulation that has been passed by the legislature. Regulating will remain the responsibility of the authorities that already regulate. The only claim that can be made through the ISDS is that the state has gone back on its treaty obligation. Therefore, unless in the course of negotiations some agreement has been entered into to change regulatory standards on either side of the Atlantic, there is no way our existing rules on food standards or anything else could be challenged by some American company that suddenly decides that now that we have signed a TTIP it has the right to try to change the rules. What we are trying to get rid of is unnecessary regulation and the duplication by regulators on either side of the Atlantic of processes designed to reach the same public objective. That is the kind of thing that can be eliminated, to the huge advantage of companies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clarke of Nottingham
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 February 2014.
It occurred during Backbench debate on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
576 c220 
Session
2013-14
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-08-31 09:12:52 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-02-25/14022578000232
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-02-25/14022578000232
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-02-25/14022578000232