TTIP: the threat to local authorities and public services

As the perils of TTIP are still not widely known and only a few organisations. including the Barnet Alliance and the Green Party seem to be ringing the alarm bells, I am reposting this long piece first published on the Barnet Alliance website LINK.

The EU and the US have been negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement since July 2013. The consequences of this treaty could have a profound effect on EU member states at regional and local levels.TTIP would affect many sectors which are the responsibilities of local and regional authorities.

 The broad scope and myriad responsibilities of German Federal States, regional governments and local authorities across the EU would have justified involving them in the decision-making process as stakeholders. However, this has not happened. Representatives of regional and local governments as well as the public are puzzling over the content, the scope and the possible consequences of this treaty. It is therefore the aim of this short briefing to shine a light on possible consequences of this treaty for local and regional government. However, as negotiations are still ongoing, and owing to the restricted access to documentation, we can only present a rough estimation as to what TTIP will entail.

TTIP will have a profound effect on many areas under the remit of regional and local authorities and is examined in more detail here under in order to allow for a realistic assessment of risks. The source for this analysis are a series of leaked documents such as the text of the negotiating mandate of the EU Commission and drafts texts of various chapters and appendices.

As TTIP negotiations cover a very broad spectrum of topics, only those which are of relevance to local and regional authorities are considered for this briefing:

They include the planned Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) of arbitration, and issues relating to the status of public services, grants, subsidies and public tendering.

The Effects of TTIP on Local and Regional Governments.

by Thomas Fritz

Translation by Phil Fletcher

Arbitration tribunals: Local authorities and international courts.

When the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009, the European Commission was given the exclusive authority over direct foreign investments. This allows it to include into trade agreements far reaching provisions for investor protection, provisions which had already been included in a multitude of bilateral treaties. The mandate to negotiate on TTIP, which the European Council granted the European Commission, also provides for investor protection including ISDS, albeit on condition of an overall “satisfactory” result of the negotiations for the EU.

'Parking, Potholes & Poo' or politics?

At a hustings in Mapesbury earlier this week a Liberal Democrat candidate said that the local election was about efficient emptying of bins and clean streets and not about 'political grand themes'. This was a swipe at my fellow Green Shahrar Ali, whose speech had identified the democratic deficit on Brent Council and the iniquity of privatisation and the bedroom tax.

The Lib Dem candidate was right in a way:  no one is going to say they are FOR fly-tipping, overflowing bins, litter strewn streets or pavements smeared with dog excrement. However the allocation of resources to deal with those issues is a political issue - both within the Council and in terms of government resources allocated to local authorities. The extent to which services are out-sourced and the wages and working conditions of sub-contractors are a political issues. The Council's stand on the privatisation of schools and whether it makes a principled stand on the undemocratic process of forced academisation is a political issue.

It is also important to consider how these decisions are made by councillors and that brings into consideration whether decisions are arrived at through debate and rigorous scrutiny or are mere rubber stamping of officer reports. Opposition and Labour backbenchers find they are excluded from this decision making and instead have to focus on the 'parking, potholes and poo' casework. How good they are at that is not a matter of political affiliation but of personal efficiency. An added, but reduced concession, is their role in allocating ward working money.

Lastly the controversy over the Davani affair brings into sharp focus the relationship between the political administration and officers. If the administration sees itself as a management organisation - managing the cuts, managing the school places crisis, managing procurement - it puts political principle aside and the Executive and Corporate Management Team become a single management entity.

In my view this is not a matter for personal attacks, although the current issue has become highly personal because of the huge impact it has made on people's lives and livelihoods, but of questioning why some of the most senior officer positions in the council are in effect out-sourced to people who have set themselves up as self-employed consultants.

This means that at its very core the Council has acquiesced in the Coalition's privatisation agenda - handing public money over to private companies.

A further dimension is the issue, discussed on this blog many times, of the relationship between the Council and developers, or more specifically the relationshing between the Major Projects, Regeneration and Planning Department and developers. With the Council seeing its role as smoothing the way for developers, local residents find themselves locked out of the discussion and the decisions. They become mere irritants in the joint projects of the council and its favoured property developers. Behind this is the political issue of reduced funding for local government and therefore the need for the Council to find other sources of revenue through increasing its council tax base through high density, often unaffordable, housing developments; Community Infrastructure Levy and the New Homes Bonus LINK

Of course it suits the Lib Dems to focus on street level issues and to be photographed pointing at fly-tips, because it takes attention away from their role as Coalition partners in undermining the financial stability and the viability of local authorities.

Gardiner: Councils must be allowed to build new schools

I wrote to Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North, recently, asking him to support the campaign for local authorities to be restored the right to build new schools to deal with the school places shortage.

This is his response:

Thank you for contacting me recently regarding school places and the related campaign by the NUT.

I share your concern and that of many parents, teachers and headteachers about the growing crisis in school places. Indeed, the number of primary schools with more than 800 places (so-called 'titan; schools) has trebled since 2010 and the number of infants in classes of 30 or more has doubled in the past year.

Recent figures from the National Audit Office (NAO) has also found that 256,000 new school places need to be provided by 2014/15 to meet increased demand and the Local Government Association (LGA) has also warned that 1,000 of the 2,277 local school planning districts will be  over capacity by 2015/16. Here in Brent there are currently 3.2% more children than school places which could rise to a 10.3% shortfall in 2016/17.

Providing a proper, high quality place for every child is one of the foremost duties for any Government and it is clear that responsibility for this growing crisis in school places rests squarely with the current Government.

Firstly, the Government has prioritised its Free School programme, which has often delivered new places in areas where there is not shortages. I firmly believe that in the current economic climate funding for new school places should be prioritised for areas where there is a genuine need and it cannot be right that millions of pounds have been spent opening free schools with a surplus of places.

The Government have also failed to provide a fair deal for capital spending in education, with the cut to education capital being greater than that of all other Government departments.

The Government have also refused to give Local Authorities the power to set up schools to respond to shortages. I believe that allowing local authorities this power could be a practical solution to ease the pressure on places and I know that many parents and organisations, including the NUT, are calling for urgent action to address this. I also believe it is important to look at how local communities could be given a bigger say when new schools are being created and how a local accountability framework for schools could be strengthened.



The Government should also ensure that there is a qualified teacher in every classroom.

I can assure you that I will continue to press the Government to address this growing crisis in school places and ensure that new schools are created in areas where they are most needed.

Councils need powers to build new schools - new campaign needs your support

I was pleased to see Green Party leader Natalie Bennett tweet her support to the new School Places Crisis campaign to Kevin Courtney, Deputy General Secretary of the NUT. The campaign calls for local authorities to get back the power to plan for the increased demand for school places and build new community schools.

At present Coalition policy under Michael Gove restricts any new schools to academies or free schools outside the control of local authorities.  In a posting on this two weeks ago I said LINK

Local authorities have the local knowledge to plan new schools where they are most needed and the expertise and resources to ensure that such schools are fit for purpose, have access to school support services and are professionally staffed so that they hit the ground running.  Free schools, even if they happen to be provided in areas of shortage (and many are not), do not have these guarantees.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide education and parents have a legal duty to ensure that their children attend school. Gove's policy, despite all his protestations, is actually thwarting both, and in the process damaging children.

At present in Brent we lack -3.2% of school places which will become -10.3% by 2016-17.

The Campaign says:

The way school places are organised changed dramatically when the Academies Act gained Royal Assent in 2010. Up until this point local authorities played a pivotal role in planning for, commissioning and providing high quality places for pupils across the country. This is no longer the case.

Local authorities have lost the power to open new schools and their budgets have been slashed. A Free School can now be set up anywhere at the whim of the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove. The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account local need or demand, or even the potential surplus of school places in any given area.

And that's why the UK is now facing a shortfall in quality school places. In London, this could be up to 23% by 2016.

Sounds scary? It is. But the solution is beautifully simple:

GIVE   THE   POWER   TO   COMMISSION   AND   BUILD   SCHOOLS   BACK   TO   LOCAL   AUTHORITIES

The Government must ensure that any extra places provided are quality places. All children deserve to be taught by a qualified teacher. They also deserve to be taught in an appropriate environment – it would be wrong to cram more children into already crowded classrooms.
The local authority still has a responsibility for education for all local children, but they cannot guarantee high quality school places without the ability to plan for the future, build schools or reduce school size where needed. Can you contact your MP to let them know your concerns?

The site has a link for you to  write to your MP and  to sign a petition. If we want to secure quality, planned and democratically controlled education for our children we should support this campaign.

Twitter link @placescrisis  Website: http://www.theschoolplacescrisis.com/

48 hours to secure the right to know about local air pollution

From 38degees

The air we breathe has a direct impact on our health. But the government is trying to push through damaging changes which remove the responsibility for local authorities to assess air pollution and declare where it is a problem.

If the government's successful, you won’t be able to find out what the air is like in your local area. Or hold local authorities to account if it’s at unsafe levels. Which currently you’re able to do. And as usual it’s the poorest who will suffer the most - poorer areas have dirtier air and so are likely to feel the health impacts. These changes would leave poorer people, and particularly children, paying the price.

The government’s being sneaky. They’ve launched a consultation during the summer holidays, hoping that the public won’t cotton on and they can slip the changes through. Together we can do something about this: if enough of us respond to the consultation they’ll realise how important this is to people. Together we can stop the changes before they get too far.

The consultation closes in 48 hours on the 13th September. It only takes a few minutes to respond. Please click here:

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/air-quality

Air pollution causes 29,000 early deaths a year in the UK – more than obesity and alcohol combined. It causes heart attacks, strokes, respiratory disease and children living near busy roads have been shown to grow up with underdeveloped lungs. It doesn’t really make much sense, but the government is trying to pretend that taking away duties to measure pollution would lead to more action on air pollution, and an increased focus on EU requirements. In reality the changes would mean that we would know less about the air we breathe and so less will be done to improve it.

The government is trying to slip this through under the radar because they’re already feeling the pressure. They’ve been taken to court by environmental lawyers to push them to do the right thing.

Environmental lawyers, ClientEarth, think a big display of public opposition could make all the difference to how the government responds. Please click the link to write in to the consultation, it’s really simple and will only take 3 minutes:

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/air-quality

This is the message I posted on the website:

Please don't push through damaging changes which remove all responsibility for local authorities to measure air quality and declare where it is a problem (options 3 and 4 in your consultation).

As a former teacher and headteacher in the inner city I kept track of air quality in order to advise children and families, particularly those already suffering from asthma and allergies, of periods when they would be liable to have respiratory problems..

Where I live in Brent, with main roads including the North Circular, and areas of poor air quality around Park Royal, Wembley and Neasden, local people have a right to know the quality of the air they and their children breathe. This gives them the knowledge to take personal preventative action as well as to make representations through the political process, locally and nationally.

Be responsible - don't remove these responsibilities.