9th October 2015
Mr. David Jamieson,
West Midlands Police,
Colmore Circus Queensway,
Birmingham B4 6NQ.
I have received notification from Richard Moore, the Birmingham East LPU Commander, that three Police Stations have been identified for closure in my constituency of Hall Green because they are no longer considered economically viable. These are Kings Heath, Sparkhill and Billesley.
Although these three Police Stations are not open to the public they are, particularly in the case of Sparkhill and Kings Heath, very visible Police buildings and they provide a local reassurance that the Police, even if the stations are not open to the public, are part of the local community and are actively engaged with combatting crime and wrongdoing.
I fully appreciate the savings that the Force has to make in its overall budget which, I understand, is in the region of £130 million by 2020 but we are getting to the stage now where further closures of Police establishments are becoming self-defeating. As you well know the general public consistently say that they want to see a visible Police presence in their community and they want to see Police based locally and patrolling the streets. They are not, in my opinion, particularly concerned whether the officers are full-time Police Officers or PCSOs or Special Constables. The important thing is that a Police uniform is worn and is very visible on the streets. It goes without saying, therefore, that the general public also have great reassurance when they know that there is a Police building in the locality from which the Police operate even if the building itself is not open to the general public. The days when the Police travelled around in cars are, thankfully, long since gone.
I know that you will be receiving representations from MPs throughout the region who are opposed to Police Stations being put up for closure in their constituencies and I also appreciate that, in an ideal world, you would be looking to expand Police activities and not reduce them but continually cutting back on clearly identifiable (and many cases much loved) Police Stations in order to maximise revenue from disposal of these assets is, I believe, going to undermine your attempts to keep as many officers out on the streets as is possible and I know that there is going to be a strong public reaction to the proposals to close the three Police Stations in the Hall Green constituency.
Event: A Musical Evening Remembering Brian Smith – Friday 13th November, 7pm, Moseley All Services Club
by Claire Spencer
Brian Smith was a dedicated member and tireless fundraiser for Moseley & Kings Heath Branch Labour Party. He introduced me and many other members to the baffling, frenetic fun of a Race Night (basically, you pay money out of confusion), was a permanent fixture on our Kings Heath street stalls, and was generally a kind, charming and thoughtful man. We were devastated when he passed away this year.
However, Peter and Pat Bailey have come up with the perfect way to commemorate him. Brian often spoke of his neighbour Yvette Brown, whose voice, he said, was one of the most beautiful he’d ever heard. He really wanted us to do a musical night fundraiser where she would perform. So that is what we are doing – a musical night with Yvette Brown and our own Chair, Nick Drew – a choral singer and soloist with Ex Cathedra. They will be accompanied by Andrew Henderson, a member of Stratford CLP.
We would love people to come and enjoy the music that Brian loved so dearly, and I think he’d be really chuffed that we were acting on it, finally. Everyone is welcome, but places are limited, so do book now by emailing Pat Bailey on email@example.com or calling 0121 443 5633. Tickets are £10 for adults, £5 for children and include a hot meal.
So remember – Friday 13th November, 7pm, Moseley All Services Club. Let’s spend some time together, enjoying music and remembering a really decent man.
by Rosi Edwards
From being something that no-one knew about and could hardly pronounce, this Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has become notorious. Even the Telegraph has noticed it. Groups in the UK, Europe and the US have steadily exposed and publicised the way negotiations were being conducted in secret, with only advisers from big business aware of the terms, and this has changed the whole process and prevented this treaty being quietly signed without any of us knowing what it means. The campaign has led to a great deal more scrutiny and opportunities for citizens of this country and the rest of Europe and the US to make their views known. Moseley and Kings Heath Branch Labour Party discussed the latest goings on with TTIP at our meeting on 9 July.
So what is TTIP?
The idea is to have a free trade area in goods and services between the USA and Europe. It is being negotiated between the USA and the European Commission on behalf of the European Union. Within the Commission is the Directorate General for Trade which is conducting the negotiations.
Where do some of the main parties stand on TTIP?
- Conservatives and Lib Dems: wholly in favour of all of TTIP including ISDS;
- UKIP: were wholly in favour on the grounds that it would sweep away all that pesky protective legislation, but since their conference in September 2014 are against, as it would also sweep away UK sovereignty;
- Labour: in favour of TTIP in principle but not if it would put in jeopardy the NHS and other public services, and not unless ISDS or any other dispute resolution is removed or diluted to exclude all public policy issues; and negotiations should be much more transparent and geared to benefitting consumers and small firms;
Proponents of TTIP argue that it will bring wealth to Europe and the USA by making trade between the countries easier and removing tariff barriers. Anthea McIntyre, Conservative MEP for the West Midlands cites the European Commission estimate that: “a comprehensive deal with the US would benefit the EU to the tune of €120bn, which translates on average to an extra €545, (£433), in disposable income each year for a family of four in the EU. This is the best value stimulus that Europe can afford. For the UK in particular exports could increase by over £400million.”
Just for information: in April 2015, according to HMRC UK trade with the USA was: exports to US: £4.6bn; imports £2.8bn. UK trade with EU: exports £11bn; imports £17.6bn.
She goes on to say that “the aim of this agreement is to increase trade and investment between the EU and the US by unleashing the untapped potential of a truly transatlantic market place. The agreement is expected to create jobs and growth by delivering better access to the US market, achieving greater regulatory compatibility without lowering standards between the EU and the US, and paving the way for setting global standards. The European Council adopted a mandate for negotiations on 14 June 2013 which has since been made public.” (my italics)
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will consist of three pillars:
- Market access issues: attempt to reduce tariffs to 0% (current average around 4%) for all but the most sensitive lines;
- Technical Barriers: aim to achieve as much regulatory convergence and mutual recognition as possible while seeking to remove as many of the technical barriers blocking trade as possible without lowering any safety standards on either side of the Atlantic;
- Rules issues: EU and US to develop common approach to global trade issues following the failure of the Doha Round;
Now 4% isn’t much of a tariff, though McIntyre points out that anyone in the UK wanting to export sportswear faces a tariff of 32%. Though since scarcely any manufacture of sportswear (or any other clothing) now takes place in the UK, this doesn’t seem to warrant all this effort. And the European airlines can’t operate internal flights in the US, which keeps prices high, which is tough for US citizens but doesn’t seem a good enough reason for a trade and investment treaty.
Our MP Roger Godsiff in a letter to the Minister for Trade and Development questioned this view: “I understand that the only econometric modelling which has yet been done on TTIP estimates that the possible gains to GDP would be only 0.4% per year in the US by the time that its effects are fully reached in 2027, and 0.5% percent in the EU. This means that the average yearly boost to GDP is in the region of 0.03% to 0.05% or, under the less ambitious projection in the study, just 0.015% per year. Does the UK Government accept these figures, which as far as I know are the only ones which have been produced? I do not believe that this gain is significant enough to risk abandoning important regulations which protect consumer health or the environment, and nor is it sufficient to create meaningful numbers of jobs.”
A paper (The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European Disintegration, Unemployment and Instability; GDAE Working Paper 14-03, October 2014) by Jeronim Capaldo of Tufts University in Massachusetts, predicts that over 10 years the average working Briton would be over £3,300 worse off as a result of the lower wages which TTIP will fuel. It also predicts that Europe will lose nearly 600,000 jobs as a result of the deal – that’s more than job losses in the crisis years of 2010 and 2011 – and that it will mean lower growth and would even mean lower net exports for Europe.
The enthusiasts who tell us TTIP will bring us all wealth (well, £433 a year for a family of four) ignore the evidence of previous similar partnerships, notably the North Atlantic Free Trade Area, agreed 20 years ago. It was supposed to bring vastly greater prosperity to Mexico, America and the USA, and thus stop immigrants from Mexico to the US (they’d be so well off in Mexico). Instead, the neoliberal economic policies this brought in created not prosperity in the US but the loss of an estimated million jobs as companies relocated in low-wage Mexico. What little protection there had been in Mexico for workers’ rights went, and prosperity did not dawn there either – there are still countless Mexicans trying to enter the US. And Canada has suffered attacks on new environmental legislation through the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision.
What is ISDS?
ISDS gives companies the power to challenge democratic decisions made by a state and claim compensation if those decisions could be argued as harming their profits, using special tribunals which are not part of the state’s legal structures – they are separate tribunals of three commercial lawyers, one of whom is appointed by the company making the claim. Under similar treaties, costly claims have been successfully made or are underway. Examples are the legal challenge by the Hong Kong subsidiary of Philip Morris to the Australian government’s plan in cigarette packaging. The prospect of this will inhibit democratic processes and if disputes arise they will be both expensive and risky.
When the negotiations were about to begin, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills sensibly sought a view from eminent economists. They reported in April 2013. They stated:
“Ultimately, we conclude that an EU-US investment treaty that does contain ISDS is likely to have few or no benefits to the UK, while having meaningful economic and political costs. Removing ISDS from the treaty would be unlikely to have an appreciable impact on the (already negligible) benefits of a treaty with ISDS, while largely removing the costs of the treaty to the UK.” (“Costs and Benefits of an EU-USA Investment Protection Treaty” Lange N Skovgaard Poulson, Oxford University; Jonathan Bonnitcha, LSE; Jason Webb Yackee, University of Wisconsin, on behalf of LSE Enterprise, April 2013)
So three eminent economists think the benefits of the treaty including ISDS will be negligible, and ISDS would be risky. Their concerns are already being borne out: already in negotiations with the US, EU officials are under pressure to water down or pull legislative proposals. The Guardian reported on 23 May 2015 that EU moves to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer were shelved following pressure from US trade officials over TTIP free trade deal.
Serious proponents of free markets are also coming out against TTIP. In an article on 11 October 2014, the Economist decried the ISDS mechanism which allows foreign corporations to sue national governments for damaging their profits. Listing the very large number of ISDS disputes (56 last year) it highlights the Swedish Utility company who are suing the German Government for 3.7bn Euros when it decided to shut down its nuclear power industry, and the award of $2.3bn to Occidental against the government of Ecuador over its termination (apparently legal) of an oil concession contract. The Economist adds: “At the same time, academics have begun to question whether ISDS delivers the benefits it is supposed to, in the form of increased foreign investment. Foreign investors can protect themselves against egregious governmental abuse by purchasing political-risk insurance, points out Terra Lawson-Remer, an economist at the Brookings Institution. Brazil continues to receive lots of foreign investment, despite its long-standing refusal to sign any treaty with an ISDS mechanism.”
So we don’t actually need ISDS in TTIP at all.
Secrecy v transparency
Organisations like War on Want and 38 Degrees, trades unions (particularly Unite) have been exposing the secret negotiations underway since 2013. And the light they have shone on these activities have led to changes: here is Anthea McIntyre, Conservative MEP for the West Midlands:
In order to be as transparent as possible and due to pressure from the INTA committee [Committee of International Trade of the European Parliament], the Commission has laid out new guidelines to its administration. All meetings held by senior civil servants in the European Commission from the 1st December 2014 onwards must be published on its websites. This information must include the names, dates and locations of said meetings. Commissioner Malmstrom went even further in stating that more negotiating texts, the documents guiding negotiations, were to be published. In addition, the reading room of all the negotiation papers is to be opened up to more than just the current set of MEPs on the International Trade Committee. Furthermore, less TTIP documents will be classified with ‘EU Restricted’ status, making external access even easier. All these measures highlight the desire to be as upfront and as transparent as possible.
None of this was happening until the pressure groups starred exposing the secret meetings and lobbying that had been going on.
What’s happening now?
In America, on 12 June 2015, President Obama went in person to the House of Representatives in an attempt to fast-track TTIP. The proposal was voted down because Democrats, strongly influenced by trades unions, voted with Republicans against it.
In Europe, according to Sion Simon, Labour MEP for the West Midlands:
The European Parliament is in the process of adopting a resolution on the ongoing negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The European Parliament has no formal power while trade negotiations are ongoing, but it has the power to veto any trade deal once negotiations are concluded. Labour MEPs have been pushing the European Parliament to adopt a text setting out clearly what we want to see in the final agreement and what we reject. This is one of the most significant means at our disposal to ensure that TTIP negotiators take the public’s concerns into account. The vote on this resolution will take place on Wednesday 8 July.
An amendment was tabled by Conservative MEPs to weaken a Labour amendment which was intended to protect the NHS and public services. “We had managed to introduce a strong paragraph calling for a full exclusion of all public services from TTIP, and now conservative MEPs are trying to remove a crucial element of this paragraph. I want to make it clear that I am not prepared to accept this. Labour MEPs will not accept TTIP if it endangers in any way our public services, and we have made it clear that we will vote against the final deal if this is case. We have therefore decided that we will vote against the European Parliament resolution if this conservative amendment is adopted,” continues Sion.
So what did happen on 8 July? According to the Blog Global Justice Now, “Pro-TTIP report passes European parliament after ‘dirty tricks’ from President Schulz.”
The European Parliament expressed a positive opinion on TTIP (the US-EU trade deal). “After angry scenes in Strasburg in which MEPs accused Parliamentary president Martin Schulz of “shredding the rules of procedure”, several much fought amendments were not voted on. The vote, formally on a report by the INTA (trade) Committee, had originally been scheduled to take place in June but had controversially been delayed at the last minute on the behest of President Schulz who had cited the high number of amendments to the report as the reason for the delay.
MEPs including Green MP Yannick Jadot accused President Schulz of continuing to use underhand political machinations to ensure that an amendment that was entirely opposed to ISDS wasn’t voted on in the plenary.
One of the proposals that MEPs were voting on was a modified version of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism that would grant corporations more opportunities to sue the governments that were party to the trade deal in supranational secret courts. The proposal had been introduced by members of the Socialist and Democratic group in parliament as a means of allaying some of the public outcry against ISDS, but the ‘ISDS lite’ proposal was still opposed by the network of 480 civil society groups across Europe fighting against TTIP, who had argued that the proposal didn’t address the fundamental problems of ISDS.”
Nick Dearden of Global Justice Now said:
This corporate court system known as ISDS has proven to be one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that the European Parliament has ever debated. In the Commission’s own public consultation on the issue, 97% of the respondents were opposed to it. In the UK, the parliament Business (BIS) committee said that it was not convinced by the need for this mechanism. The only reason that MEPs are still trying so desperately to push this through is because of the enormously powerful corporate lobby machine in Brussels. TTIP is fundamentally an issue of people and democracy versus encroaching corporate power. Of course we praise those MEPs who voted against this toxic mechanism today, including members of the Labour Party. But we clearly have much more work to do to reclaim this parliament from the clutches of big business.
The European Parliament vote today is no way binding towards the final outcome of TTIP. Public opposition to TTIP is continuing to mushroom at an astonishing rate and will prove decisive in stopping this toxic trade deal from going through. The fact that pro-TTIP politicians like Martin Schulz are prepared to use such dirty political tricks to railroad this toxic trade deal through means that the enormous coalition that has formed across Europe in opposition to TTIP is going to have to up its game, and that’s what’s going to happen.
EU parliamentary leaders will try to spin this report as real departure on ISDS – but it’s nothing of the sort. If enacted, this would still hand massive powers to tens of thousands of US corporations to sue our government.
What we can do
If you don’t like TTIP, make your views known to your MP and MEPs. Ask them what they know about TTIP and if they think it’s so good, why. While free trade may be a good thing and no-one wants to argue with prosperity (though see the reports above which suggest it’s unlikely), let’s argue for a levelling up of standards of protection for workers, the environment, food safety, and honest banking, not levelling down. Let’s argue that a treaty which would in any way inhibit our ability to make policy is anti-democratic and not worth having; and that ISDS is definitely not wanted.
M&KH Branch Labour Party has been campaigning on TTIP since 2013, alongside 38 Degrees and Unite the Union, and with church groups and world development charities, on street stalls and demonstrations, writing letter and collecting signatures on petitions. We’ll be carrying on until we get the treaty we want – something that benefits the citizens of the UK, our fellow citizens in rope and the USA – or the process runs into the sand.
Event: a discussion with Roger Godsiff MP & David Jamieson, West Midlands Police & Crime Commissioner
Would you like to quiz West Midlands Police & Crime Commissioner David Jamieson and local MP Roger Godsiff on local policing matters? If so, you might be interested in our open meeting on Thursday August 6th, 7:30-9:30pm at Highfield Hall in Hall Green.
It is being co-ordinated by Hall Green Constituency Labour Party, but all are welcome to join in the discussion! With cuts and changes to policing, the decision-makers need to hear your insights.
Please get in touch with Steve Gove-Humphries if you would like to attend.
by Claire Spencer
In the Full Council held on July 7th, 2015, Full Council considered a Scrutiny report on Homeless Health, which you can read here. As a cause close to many people’s hearts, we ran out of time for me to speak, but I thought I would share the speech I wrote here:
A few months ago, a group of councillors set up – as per Recommendation 8 of this report – a surgery for street sleepers and other homeless people at SIFA Fireside’s drop-in centre. We did this for many reasons, but I think it’s safe to say that understanding the health challenges that many homeless citizens face in our city has shown me a very different side of the society we live in.
I only like to speak when I can add something new, and here I would like to talk about the power of community. Community matters everywhere, it matters to people, and it matters to people who sleep on the streets. But the power of community cuts both ways. Let me give you an example from another area of health. The Framingham Heart Study commenced in 1948, and is arguably the US’ most ambitious attempt to truly understand the causes of heart disease. Centred on the small town of Framingham, Massachusetts, each resident was subject to a health assessment every four years, “every aspect of their health quantified and collected”. It is because of this study that – for example – we now understand the positive role of ‘good cholesterol’.
But it also taught us something else. In 2002, this goldmine of data was picked up by two social scientists – Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler. They used that data to demonstrate conclusively – perhaps for the first time – that ‘behaviours’, good or bad, pass between people with social connections as though they were contagious viruses. Their simulation on obesity is fascinating – far from being randomly dispersed – people who gained or lost weight were part of the same social clusters. Furthermore, behaviours could even skip a social link. So – to play on the title of the article that introduced me to the study – your mother’s best friend could be making you fatter.
They showed that spending time with healthy, happy people makes you healthier and happier – and conversely, spending time with unhealthy, unhappy people will make you less healthy, less happy.
All this is to say that when services fail one, two, three street sleepers, we need to understand that that failure spreads, that more people’s health will get worse. But it also gives us a shining hope, that clusters of improvement will lead to more improvement. The closeness of the community of homeless citizens in our city will be at the heart of getting it right, and our challenge is – as highlighted by Recommendation 5 – to form a community of services that is equal to meeting that challenge. We already know something of the plans to strengthen our street sleepers partnership, and I hope that all Members will provide grease to their elbows.
To conclude, I would like to reflect that in previous years, partnership has been desirable, but in a time of a well-funded public sector, perhaps not seen as vital. We could not be in a more different position now. With less money to go round, in a time of cuts to Public Health, local government, where even the Homelessness Prevention Grant itself could yet be under threat, partnership between agencies and services is the only way to ensure the accessibility and availability of services that enable our most vulnerable citizens to live healthy lives.
To quote John Hardy, who Chairs the Street Sleepers Partnership: “look at that person sleeping on the street. How different would our service response be if we thought ‘that person is likely to be dead in five years’?”
Let’s make sure that that isn’t the reality, and support the conclusions of this excellent report today.