An Overwhelming Case

One of the most influential members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, John Healey writes:

Today MPs hold a short Commons debate on the proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership – TTIP.

As a pan-EU trade deal with the US it is being negotiated by the European Commission, with a mandate and direction from member state governments including our own.

Despite the fierce extra-parliamentary debate the planned deal has provoked, this will be only the third time in the 18 months since negotiations started when there will be any debate at all in the House of Commons chamber.

In total, the three debates will amount to less than one day’s full business on a binding treaty that could have wide-ranging effects on our national economy from aerospace to agriculture, metals to motor vehicles and public services to pharmaceuticals.

Each debate has been instigated by backbench MPs, not ministers, and with no prospect of a binding vote.

The truth is that Westminster lacks any proper ways to hold ministers to account for what they do or decide in Europe.

Voters often worry decisions on Europe are taken by people beyond their reach or influence, and this fuels anti-European sentiment.

TTIP is the biggest-ever bilateral trade agreement. The public have an important stake in it, and so deserve a say through their own UK Parliament.

There is an overwhelming case for all Party leaders to guarantee a Commons vote on TTIP, whether or not the content of the EU-US agreement formally requires member state approval.

After all, if a government can’t win a debate and majority in the House of Commons for a binding trade treaty, then it has no business backing and ratifying it on behalf of the British people.

There’s also an overwhelming case for a better system for scrutinising EU matters more widely. Just look at our European neighbours.

In the Netherlands, the Dutch equivalent of select committees are each responsible for scrutiny in their own areas of expertise.

The committees decide what policy areas to prioritise in any given year based on the European Commission’s work.

Ministers are accountable directly to the relevant sectoral committee, and must appear in advance of Council meetings to explain the Dutch government’s position.

In Denmark, the Danish Folketing places scrutiny powers in the hands of a ‘European Affairs Committee’.

A central pillar of the Danish system is this committee’s ability to issue formal, binding mandates to ministers in advance of Council meetings and negotiations on any issues considered to be important.

In Germany, another central committee has important matters referred to it by other sector-specific MP committees, and the federal government is obliged to take account of the Bundestag’s opinion which in some cases is binding ahead of EU summits. 

Government is also obliged to notify the German Parliament comprehensively, and as early as possible, on matters concerning the EU.

In the UK by contrast, at the moment we have a European Scrutiny Committee that is on the margins.

Take this week’s row with the European Arrest Warrant. Despite approval in the Commons last November, it was only on Monday that the Committee able to seek any answers from the Home Secretary. 

In Parliament more generally, Ministers typically come to the Commons only once they have come back from Europe, not before they go out.

It’s out of date. It makes Parliament look out of touch and the European Union out of reach to British people.

If we want to tackle the chronically low level of information, debate and influence available on Europe to the British public – and make EU decisions work better for Britain – then alongside arguing for EU reform, we should get our own House in order. Starting with TTIP.

John Healey is Labour MP for Wentworth and Dearne.

See also here:

Dangerous EU-US trade deal TTIP would stop governments renationalising utilities and the railways — and even put Labour’s energy price freeze policy in danger, MPs will hear today.

The latest warning on the shadowy Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership currently being cooked up in Brussels comes as attention is focused mainly on its impact on health.

But Swansea West MP Geraint Davies said the scope of a clause allowing private companies to sue sovereign states did not stop at the NHS.

The investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) clause will threaten policies in dozens of other areas.

If a political party wants “to freeze energy prices or have a one-off tax on privatised utilities such as the Royal Mail or renationalise the railways or tax fizzy drinks to protect people’s health, it needs to realise that the big corporations are preparing to sue it through investor-state disputes,” he warned.

“In other words, these corporations threaten our very democracy as they intimidate and financially punish the will of the people.”

MPs will debate a motion today demanding parliamentary power of scrutiny of TTIP — including the provisions specifically related to corporate ability to sue governments.

Labour MP Mr Davies, who tabled the motion, said: “We cannot accept governments being sued in arbitration panels hidden from public view under ISDS rules to protect profits instead of people.”

The vote comes after shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint attacked profiteering power firms in an opposition day debate on Labour’s pledge to freeze energy prices until 2017, ensuring prices can fall but not rise.

“Wholesale costs have fallen, consumers have not seen the benefit and the reason is because competition is weak and the companies know this government will never do anything about it,” she told Parliament.

The Labour motion, which also called on the government to bring forward fast-track legislation immediately to impose a duty on regulator Ofgem to force energy suppliers to pass on wholesale price cuts to customers, was defeated 305 to 228 — a 77 majority.