Mass EU call for transparency in US/EU trade talks

‘People have a right to know what is at stake’

As the 5^th round of negotiations on the US/EU free trade agreement kicks off in the US, 250 organisations, including from the UK, have today sent a joint letter to EU Trade Commissioner, Karel de Gucht, demanding transparency in this massive but secretive deal. 

The letter, signed by a broad range of consumer, union, environment and other organisations calls for negotiating texts for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to be released to the public, as well as information on ‘who is lobbying who’ in relation to the deal.

Although there is some talk of the Commission releasing its negotiating mandate (which was leaked a year ago), the actual offers being made on behalf of 850 million people are still secret, with the intention to keep the negotiating texts secret until TTIP negotiations are complete.

The main thrust of TTIP is ‘harmonising’ the regulations of the US and the EU – across all areas. There are big differences between the EU and US in health and safety regulatory protection. Thus civil society groups are concerned that standards e.g. on food and chemical safety, data protection and public service models, will be degraded -  with this happening behind closed doors.

‘It’s  absolutely unacceptable that key TTIP documents are not only being kept from the public,  but that MPs are not allowed to know what is going forward in this supposed ‘trade’ deal either. This joint statement shows the breadth of resistance to this secrecy’ according to Linda Kaucher of StopTTIP uk. 

This deal will allow corporations to sue governments for varying regulations after commitments are made and signed up. Yet the commitments being made are being kept secret.

The organisations are therefore calling for step-by-step release of the negotiating texts, in all chapters of the agreement, and also of records of the lobbying meetings that have taken place for this corporate-agenda deal.  Their letter references EU commitments to ‘right-to-know’ and to promoting public participation in the Aarhus Convention.

Joint letter to Trade Commissioner calling for transparency:

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/open-letter-civil-society-demand.html

Contact: Linda Kaucher  for StopTTIP uk  0207 265 9307, 0777 043 5321 Website stopTTIP.net

Open Letter: Civil society demand Transparency on Transatlantic Trade Agreement

Commissioner Karel de Gucht

European Commissioner for Trade

European Commission

BE-1049 Brussels

May 19, 2014

Civil society call for full transparency about the EU-US trade negotiations

Dear Commissioner De Gucht,

The undersigned organisations are writing to express deep concerns about the lack of transparency around the ongoing trade talks on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). We are calling on you to open the negotiation process to the public, by releasing the negotiating mandate, documents submitted by the EU, and negotiating texts.

The European Commission has repeatedly stated that trade and investment between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are already highly integrated, and that the main focus of TTIP will be to achieve regulatory convergence by removing so-called non-tariff barriers to trade. This means that the outcome has much less to do with traditional trade issues such as tariffs, than with the regulations and standards that apply in the EU and the US and that affect every single aspect of citizens’ daily lives – from the quality of the food we eat to the safety of chemicals we use, the energy we consume, or the impact of financial services on each of us.

Civil society groups in the EU and in the US have voiced concerns that this might lower standards and remove safeguards across the board. They have requested greater transparency about the negotiations to address these concerns. The setting up of a stakeholder advisory group for the negotiations by the EU – although an improvement compared to previous negotiations – is far from sufficient to make the process fully transparent. Members of the group will have limited access to the negotiating texts under strict confidentiality rules, and these will remain out of reach for the rest of interested civil society groups and citizens.

The European Commission has argued that secrecy in this process is inevitable because this is a matter of international relations. If these negotiations are intended to affect domestic regulations, standards and safeguards on each side, then citizens have the right to know what is being put on the table, and how this is being negotiated. The standard legislative process in the EU allows for public scrutiny of each step of policy-making as well as full involvement of the European Parliament.

We would urge that those negotiations should comply with the same level of openness. The process should also allow for public accountability of the European Commission for the negotiating positions that it takes. Given that many of the issues under negotiation relate to the environment, this would also reflect the EU’s obligations under Article 3(7) of the Aarhus Convention to promote access to information, public participation and access to justice in international environmental decision-making processes1.

1http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2005/pp/ece/ece.mp.pp.2005.2.add.5.e.pdf 

Furthermore there are several examples of international negotiation processes, which provide a greater degree of openness to civil society than the negotiations on TTIP do, and whereby negotiating documents are disclosed.

Examples include:

- The World Trade Organisation (WTO): Even the WTO, which is regularly the subject of criticisms by civil society and member states, makes submissions made by member states in the negotiations, as well as offers, and reports by committee chairs available on its website2.

- The United Nations Framework for Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): The negotiating texts and submissions from the parties are circulated before the negotiations start. Observers, including external stakeholders, attend the sessions, and can provide submissions on request by the parties3.

- The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO): Draft negotiating documents are being released all along the process. Meetings are open to the public, and webcasted4.

- The Aarhus Convention: Meetings of the governing body and its subsidiary bodies are as a rule public. Accredited observers can participate in meetings of parties and in drafting groups working in collaboration with parties to develop text during the negotiations. They have the same speaking rights as parties5.

With this letter, we would like to restate our call for openness and public accountability of the TTIP negotiations. Without full transparency, there can be no meaningful engagement of civil society representatives in the process.

Basic transparency requirements include making the following available for the public at the earliest possible stage and at regular intervals:

- The text of the EU’s negotiating mandate;

- The initial position papers tabled by the EU;

- Any further papers submitted by the EU in the course of the negotiations that detail or explain the position of the EU on the topic, and that are being used in the course of the negotiations with the other party;

- The draft versions and final versions of individual chapters as well as the whole agreement at all steps of preparation and evolution (and at least before closing the negotiations and initialling so that parliaments and the public can still assess the outcome and make comments and recommendations).

If the European Commission is serious about openness and engagement of the public, it should also proactively make the following available:

- All written communications between the European Commission and other European institutional bodies (European Parliament and Member States) on this issue;

2https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S001.aspx
3http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/ngo/items/3667.php
4http://www.wipo.int/policy/en/index.html - bodies

5 Aarhus Convention Task Force on Public Participation in International Forums, Innovations in Public Participation in International Forums – Advanced Draft, 23 February 2011, (“Innovations draft”), available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/ppif/6meeting/Innovations in public participation in international forums - draft for consideration by PPIF Task Force v.1 .do

All agendas and minutes of meetings between the European Commission and the European Parliament and Member States on this issue;

- All written communications between the European Commission and third parties –including industry and lobby organisations – on this issue;

- All agendas and minutes of meetings between the European Commission and third parties – including industry and lobby organisations – on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Magda Stoczkiewicz

Director, Friends of the Earth Europe

Contact: Paul de Clerck, Friends of the Earth Europe

paul@milieudfensie.nl ; +32-494-380-959

On behalf of:

Signatories: Co-initiators

11.11.11

AccessInfo Europe

ArbeiterKammer Europa (AK Europa)

Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU)

ATTAC European Network

Campagna Stop TTIP Italia

ClientEarth

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)

European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)

European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI)

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

European Public Health Alliance (EPHA)

Finance Watch

Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE)

Greenpeace

Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)

LobbyControl

Powershift

Re:Common

Seattle to Brussels

SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations)

Spinwatch

Transnational Institute (TNI)

Transparency International EU (TI-EU)

Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue

Transport and Environment (T&E)

Network (AEFJN)

Afrika Kontakt

Aitec-IPAM

Alternative Informatics Turkey

An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland

Article 19

Asamblea Las Rozas

Asociación Qué hacen

Attac Austria

Attac Germany

Attac Nuernberg

Attac Paderborn

ATTAC Portugal

ATTAC SPAIN

Berlin Water Council

Berlin Water Table

BI Fracking freies Hessen

BI lebenswertes Korbach e.V.

Both ENDS’

Breadboard

BUND Naturschutz in Bayern e.V.

Buy Responsibly Foundation

CADTM - Committee for Abolition of the Third World Debt

Campaign for Real Farming

Central America Women's Network

Central America Women's Network (CAWN)

Centre for Sustainable Development

Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska

Change Partnership

Chaos Computer Club

Climate Alliance

RED CIMAS

Civil Euro Perspective

CNCD-11.11.11

Collectif Roosevelt

Commons Network

Compass

Compassion in World Farming

Danish Ecological Council

Danish Society for a Living Sea

Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR) - German League for Nature and Environment

Diritto Di Sapere

Dutch Elasmobranch Society (NEV)

Earth Open Source

Earth Watch Media

Ecological Movement of Patras

Ecologistas en Acción

EcoNexus

Ecoropa

Ekumenicka akademie Praha

ELA – Basque Workers Solidarity

Engineering Without Borders Spain

Entrepueblos/Entrepobles/Entrepobos/Herriarte

Environmental Pillar

Esquerra Unida País Valencià

European Academy for Environmental Medicine EUROPAEM

European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ)

European Coordination Via Campesina

European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU)

European Transport Workers' Federation

Fair Trade Advocacy Office

FAIR TRADE HELLAS

FairFin

Fair–Fish International association

Fís Nua

Food & Water Europe

Forum Informationsfreiheit (FOI)

Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII)

Foundation for environment and agriculture

Foundation of the "Fair Trade Coalition" (Poland)

Fracking Free Ireland

Fresh Eyes - People to People Travel cic

Friends of the Earth Czech Republic

Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland

Friends of the Earth Ireland

Friends of the Earth Malta

Gaia Foundation

Generations Futures

German NGO Forum on Environment and Development

Gewerkschaftlicher Linksblock

GLOBAL 2000-Friends of the Earth Austria

Global Responsibility Platform

Global Vision Foundation

GM-free Ireland Network

GMWatch

GMWatch UK

Green Budget Europe

Green Zone Foundation (Fundacja Strefa Zieleni)

Greenpeace Saar

Grupo Portugal Parceria Transatlântica de Comércio e Investimento

Hallintovahdit ry, Finland (Administration Watch, NGO)

Hausfeld & Co LLP

Health Action International Europe

Heaven or sHell

Hegoa Instituto de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo y la Cooperación Internacional

HuertAula Comunitaria de Agroecología Cantarranas de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid

IG Übersetzerinnen Übersetzer

Iniciativa por la Soberanía Alimentaria de Madrid

Initiative bessere Zukunft

Initiative für Netzfreiheit

Institut Veblen

Institute for Ecology and Action Anthropology, infoe e.V.

Institute of Global Responsibility (IGO)

Irish Doctors Environmental Association

Iuridicum Remedium, Czech Republic

Jordens Vänner

Kalasantiner Kongregation

Katholische Jungschar Österreichs

KBW - Katholishches Bildungswerk Wien

KIFF – Keep Ireland Fracking Free

Kritische Oekologie / ifak e.V.

Latinamerikagrupperna

Les Amis de la Terre France

Lithuanian national consumer federation

Local Urban Development European Network(LUDEN)

Locale Globale

MIM Moral in Motion

Modern Poland Foundation

MyGR Technology Ltd

Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU)

NaZemi

Network Social Responsibility (NeSoVe)

NOAH - FOE Denmark

Nordic Financial Unions

Nuclear-Free Future Award

ÖBV-Via Campesina.Austria

ÖGB Europabüro

OroVerde - Tropical Forest Foundation

Panoptykon

Partido Humanista de Sevilla

Permaculture Association (Britain)

Pesticide Action Network Germany (PAN Germany)

Platform Aarde Boer Consument

Polish Fair Trade Association

Powershift Belgium

PresidioEuropa No TAV

Pro Ethical Trade Finland

Pro Natura

PROVIEHVgtM e.V.

Quaker Council for European Affairs

Red Huertos Urbanos Comunitarios de Madrid-ReHd Mad!

Request Initiative

Research & Degrowth

RESEAU ENVIRONNEMENT SANTE

RESULTS UK

RETS – (Spanish Collective, human rights)

Save Rosia Montana Madrid

Sciaena - Marine Sciences and Cooperation

Seas At Risk

Send a Cow

Slow Food

Slow Food Germany

Soil Association

SOL - People for Solidarity, Ecology and Lifestyle

Solidarity Sweden Latin America/ Solidaridad Suecia America Latina

Stichting Schaaliegasvrij Nederland

StopTTIP uk

SÜDWIND

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

The Open Knowledge Foundation

TheStory.ie

Trade Justice Movement

TransFair e.V./Fairtrade Deutschland

Treffpunkt mensch & arbeit Braunau

Tschecho-Slovakisch-Österreichisches Kontaktforum

Umweltdachverband

Umweltinstitut München e.V.

Unión Sindical Obrera (USO)

VIBE!AT – Austrian Association for Internet Users

VIDC Vienna Institute

VIER PFOTEN / FOUR PAWS

VOICE (Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment

Vrijschrift

VSF – Justicia Alimentaria Global

War on Want

Wasser in Bürgerhand

WEED - World Economy, Ecology & Development

West Country Brokers

WIDE – Network for Women´s Rights and Feminist Perspectives in Development

Working group Food Justice

World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO)

WWF European Policy Office

Za Zemiata, FoE Bulgaria

Signatories: US

Activate USA

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Bay Area Light Brigade

Center for Food Safety

Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)

Center for Rights

Citizens Trade Campaign

Consumer Federation of America

Earth in Brackets

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Fight for the Future

Food & Water Watch

Friends of the Earth-US

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

OpenTheGovernment.org

SumOfUs.org

Sunlight Foundation

Signatories: Other Regions

Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance

Centre for Law and Democracy

Common Frontiers

IFMSA - Canada / Canadian Federation of Medical Students

Iraqi Journalists Rights Defense Association (IJRDA)

Mauritius Trade Union Congress

Migration and Sustainable Development Alliance

PAPDA - Haitian Platform to Advocate Alternative Development

Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (PIDHDD)

Signatories: International

350.org

ActionAid International

Association for Progressive Communications

Global Marshall Plan Initiative

Humane Society International

OpenMedia.org

Oxfam International

The Case of Baroness Barker - Two bills -Two Opportunities

“Please supply your evidence that the individuals named below have furthered their own interests. Please supply as much detail as you have. Thank you, Liz Barker”

The Liberal Democrat peer, Baroness Barker wrote these words after she and all her fellow peers had received a list of parliamentarians and their financial links to companies and individuals involved in healthcare.

The list of over 200 parliamentarians had proved annoying to the Baroness, especially because at the time, they were all debating, amending and voting on the bill to help it become an Act.

One month after the legislation gained Royal Ascent, the Baroness incorporated a consultancy company, which she co-owns and that works with the third sector to assist in their quest for NHS contracts.

The company, Barker & Woodward Consultancy Limited offers advice to third sector organisations through a two-day course called the “the right prescription”. This service offers information on how ‘third sector organisations can constructively work for the NHS’ and advice about ‘competitors and development of strategic partnerships.’

The “right prescription” can cost up to £400, which fits into Ms Barker’s personal request that we supply ‘as much detail’ that we have that ‘individuals’ have ‘furthered their own interests’.

Baroness Barker was the Spokesperson on Health for the Liberal Democrats up until 2010 and has since remained a member of their Health and Social Care Team. She herself debated, made multiple key amendments and voted on the Health and Social Care bill, helping it become an Act.

One of the amendments drafted by Ms Barker during the Health bill progress, was in the area of conflicts of interests. It read "CCGs must make arrangements for managing conflicts and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the group's decision-making processes". She concluded “It is extremely important that these groups not only set out to uphold the highest standards but that they are seen to uphold them.”

The ability to see into the future is a skill all good entrepreneurs’ must have, but perhaps when you are producing the legislation, it is easier to know what lies ahead. One month after today’s Care bill hearing, Ms Barker’s company is offering a briefing on its content in exchange for money to the third sector.

The third sector is playing a key role in the dismantling of the NHS, acting as a Trojan horse to allow private healthcare companies to come in and take over the running of services. They lobbied alongside private health for Jeremy Hunt to not water down privatisation regulations, they lied when they said they were neutral over the outcome of the Health bill, and their Chief Executive acted as a handy inside man at a critical moment in the health bill’s progress. The reward for the third sector has been 70% of all NHS contracts awarded since the implementation of the Health Act, have gone to private firms.

The Code of conduct that all Members sign up to states that ‘Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.’

The loop-hole that allows Members of both Houses to vote on legislation when they have a financial interest is ridiculous. Now Ms Barker is about to vote on the Care bill, helping it to become an Act and then one month later gain revenue from imparting that information.

Local councillors must abide by a stricter regime, which is imposed on them by parliament. If they have a financial or non-financial interest, then they must neither ‘participate in any discussion of the matter at the meeting’ nor ‘participate in any vote, or further vote.’

Currently the government has no intention to reform the rules that govern their own working life. In response to a petition placed on the No10 website that demanded ‘No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest’, they replied that it would “not be practical” to introduce any curbs to such behaviour because a “significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations.”

Exactly!

See the latest list of parliamentary recent or present financial interests to healthcare here.

Welcome to the House of Circle

Nick Seddon formerly of Circle

The recent speech by the government plant in the Care Quality Commission, David Prior, has called for NHS Trusts who have fallen into financial difficulty to be taken over by European or American ‘Hospital Chains’. 

Such a move would present new opportunities to Circle Health, the first company to takeover the running of a NHS hospital and a company that is embedded into the highest areas of government influence. Not only is a former  Circle employee writing the health policy for No10, but another of their former staff is health adviser to Jeremy Hunt. If you add the donations ending up in the local office of the policy unit head, then you could say No10 is now the House of Circle.

A secret plan to hand over NHS hospitals to foreign companies was initially exposed by the transparency campaigners, Spinwatch in 2011. A Freedom of Information release unearthed communications between management consultancy firm McKinsey and the Department of Health, which revealed how over 20 NHS hospitals should be taken over by foreign firms. This process should be done with a “mindset of one at a time…because of various political constraints associated with privatisation.”

In David Prior’s speech made at a health seminar in London last week, the former Conservative Chief Executive cited the private hospital company, Circle, who took over the running of Hitchingbrooke hospital back in 2011, as being a model that could be followed for such a process.

This sentiment was one that was shared by fellow Conservative MP Mark Simmonds who landed his role as strategic adviser to Circle in December 2010. This new position was taken up just five months after he had finished his role as Shadow Health Secretary. The blog ‘NHS Vault’ revealed that within a report written by the Hitchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust Chief Executive's & Franchise Representatives, Simmonds visited the hospital in July 2012 and told those in attendance, “In this hospital you can change the way the NHS works, in my view for the better, you are at the frontier of the way healthcare is going to be provided in the future.”

The support of Circle within government is also supported by their presence in the heart of government policy. Nick Seddon, is a former Head of Communications for Circle, who moved to the free market think tank Reform as deputy director. Reform are heavily funded by private healthcare, which includes private hospital groups.

Whilst at Reform, Seddon was highly active lobbying alongside private healthcare to ensure competition remained int he Health and Social care bill. In addition, he called for an increase in private companies taking over NHS hospitals, which was part of a campaign by Reform backed by the Telegraph who helped promote Circle's model.  David Cameron, who had said lobbying would be the 'next big scandal' decided to hand a healthcare lobbyist a role in the health policy unit at No10.

This is not the only influence Circle have in the echelons of government health policy. Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt chose to hire Christina Robinson, another former Head of Communications at Circle as his special adviser.

The direction of where health policy is going couldn’t be clearer, but it isn’t just there where Circle has representation in government policy. Conservative MP for Orpington Jo Johnson, was made head of the No10 Policy unit leading up until the next general election. His constituency office received £6,000 just after the election, in July 2010, from Robin Crispin Odey a major investor in Circle.

Robin Odey, whose asset management company is based in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands has given the Conservative party £251,000 – some of which has ended up in local constituencies.

Incidentally, all the MPs listed below who have been in receipt of donations from Mr Odey, were able to vote on the recent amendment to the Care bill that allows Jeremy Hunt to close or downgrade hospitals.

As if this wasn’t enough, Conservative peer Baron Higgins of Worthing holds in excess of £50,000 worth of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, another investor in Circle.

The House of Commons or rather, Circle and their external plants in organisations like the CQC are now calling for more private hospitals to be handed out to foreign companies. Circle will be delighted to hear such news, who currently remain in the running for another takeover of a NHS hospital in Nuneaton alongside Care UK.

The government (House of Circle) treats the electorate with contempt and here is why.

They plan policy in secret with management consultancy companies who themselves have private healthcare clients and with whom they share information.

Corporate lobby groups such as Reform, who help write their policy, are masquerading as charitable think tanks to push policy that opens revenues for their corporate backers.

Cameron choose to hire a corporate lobbyist into his policy unit.


The rules are not fit for purpose
MPs who through their constituency offices are in receipt of money from an investor in Circle, and were allowed to vote on a clause that will allow the closure and downgrading of NHS hospitals.

The MPs who have received funds from Robin Crispin Odey and voted on Clause 119 - the hospital closure clause: Source - Electoral Commission

GRAHAM, Richard, Mr - Gloucester - His constituency office received £3,000 from Circle investor, Mr Robin Crispin Odey on 03/12/2007. Richard Graham was elected MP for Gloucester at the last general election and like Odey has previously worked for Barings bank, which went bust in 1995. Vote on Clause 119.

HARPER, Mark, Mr - Forest of dean: Electoral commission records show his constituency office received £5,000 on 09/02/2010 from Circle investor Mr Robin Crispin Odey just 3 months before the general election. Vote on Clause 119.

JOHNSON, Joseph - Orpington. According to the electoral Commission - the brother of Boris Johnson's constituency office received £6,000 on 19th July 2010, to his constituency office from Robin Crispin Odey an investor in circle who run Hitchingbrooke hospital. He now sits in the No10 policy adviser unit. Vote on Clause 119.

KWARTENG, Kwasi, Mr - Worked for Odey Asset Management hedge fund as an analyst who invest in Circle health who run the Hitchingbrooke hospital. The hedge fund is run by Robin Crispin William Odey who has donated to the Conservative party since 2007. Mr Kwateng's constituency office received £10,000 from Odey Asset Management on 12^th September 2011 for consultancy work for political advice to asset managers, which included ‘domestic affairs’. Vote on Clause 119.
 
NORMAN, Jesse, Mr - Hereford and South Herefordshire. According to the Electoral Commission, Mr Norman's office received £5,000 on 30th June 2009 from Circle healthcare investor Crispin Odey to his local Hereford constituency. Vote on Clause 119.

REES-MOGG, Jacob, Mr - MP for North-East Somerset - According to the electoral Commission, his office received £2,000 to his constituency office on the 14th April, 2010 from Mr Robin Crispin Odey, a hedge funder who has invested in Circle healthcare. Vote on Clause 119.

SOAMES, Nicholas, Hon - According to the electoral Commission, his office received £2,000 on 11th May 2010, from Crispin Odey who is an investor of Circle Health. Vote for Clause 119.

Please donate to Social Investigations if you can. All money will go into ongoing research.

Donate : &2.00 GBP - monthly Donate : &5.00 GBP - monthly Donate : &10.00 GBP - monthly