David Martin, Rapporteur. – Mr President, well, finally we are here. It’s been over a decade in the making, the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Singapore, but after many twists and turns, we are at last at the final stage.

I’d like to begin by thanking the Government of Singapore for its patience and support, and in particular their Ambassador for his good cooperation. I’d also like to thank the Commissioner and DG Trade for an agreement that I believe we can readily support in this House, and above all, I’d like to thank my shadow rapporteurs for what has been great cooperation.

My question to those who are still sceptical is: frankly, what is not to like about this free trade agreement? It builds on Canada and Japan and sends the message that the EU is committed to a rules-based trading system. While Donald Trump wants to build walls to separate nations, we are tearing them down, keeping fair and free trade alive.

Singapore is a safe harbour for EU trade and investment, and what a harbour! An important market in its own right, thanks to its unshakable commitment to the rule of law, it has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and now has more than 10 000 EU companies based there. Many of them are looking forward, as a result of this FTA, to expanding their activities and vying for public sector contracts in Singapore.

Singapore is important in its own right, but it’s also of key strategic importance for accessing the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) region, one of the fastest growing regions in the world. Singapore is a major hub, through which a large percentage of our exports pass, and, with the entry into force of the Trans-Pacific Partnership of 11 countries, if we do nothing we will lag behind those nations.

So in economic terms this clearly is a win—win trade deal. In addition to the trade benefits, however, I would also argue that the agreement clearly reflects EU values and positions espoused by this Parliament in very many of our resolutions. For example, nothing in this agreement will prevent the application of the precautionary principle or affect the right of governments to regulate in the interest of their citizens. Public services are protected: the agreement uses the positive list for services, always the preferred option of this Parliament. Imports will have to respect EU standards. It contains commitments on the environment, in respect of the management of forests and fisheries, for example, and a commitment to implement multilateral agreements, including the Paris Agreement.

I particularly welcome Singapore’s agreement to the early implementation of the Trade and Sustainable Development chapter and the commitment to take concrete steps to ratify the outstanding three core International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions. They are serious about this. Singapore has already held talks with the social partners, they are already in dialogue with the ILO and they’ve set up an interministerial working group to see how they can bring domestic legislation into line with the three ILO conventions.

Moving on to the Investment Protection Agreement, I believe this is the most progressive investment agreement we have so far negotiated, and it should be a model to build on for future agreements. I want to thank the Commissioner and her team for listening to Parliament’s concerns about the old and toxic investor-state dispute settlement system. This investment court system will have a permanent tribunal composed of judges or jurors of recognised competence, not arbiters. There will be a code of conduct for judges, proceedings will be transparent, the system will have an appeal mechanism, it contains a commitment to joint efforts towards a multilateral investment court, and it protects governments’ right to regulate. It is also worth mentioning that this replaces the existing 13 bilateral investment treaties that Member States already have.

The last point I want to make is that this agreement has one major weakness, which, I believe, should be addressed in future investment agreements. It gives investors rights but it gives them no obligations. We have to look forward to giving them obligations in the future. With that caveat, I’m pleased to commend both of these agreements to this Parliament.