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.
Comments