Dear Councillor,

My name's Steven Kelk and I live in Leamington Spa. 

I wish to bring to your attention an issue that is of potentially profound
importance to the functioning of district and county councils across the UK.
I refer to the General Agreement on Trade In Services (GATS), a trade
agreement that is being negotiated internationally but is so expansive in
its scope that Warwickshire County Council could find its ability to regulate
in the best interests of its citizens severely compromised. Further on in
this email I provide local, Warwickshire-relevant examples of how GATS might
impinge upon WCC's regulatory authority, but first I'll say a little bit
more about what GATS actually is.

The rationale underpinning GATS is that limiting the role of government in
the provision and regulation of services is desirable, since it opens up
space in the service sector for commercial service providers to operate.
"Services" are defined informally as "anything you can't drop on your foot",
so pretty much any sector you can think of falls under the remit of GATS,
e.g. education, transport, water delivery, health, refuse collection, energy,
construction, tourism and so on.

The main point of contention surrounding GATS is its fundamental bias
toward deregulation, and (more worryingly) the fact that it has
unprecedented coercive power to ensure compliance with its disciplines.
The concern from Warwickshire County Council's point of view should be that
GATS compliance is expected not just at the national governmental level, but
also at the *local* government level. Since local government has
traditionally used extensive regulation to ensure good quality service
provision to its citizens, the strong-arm deregulatory effect of GATS could
be a major constraint on WCC's ability to govern effectively in these areas.
This concern is echoed by the attached briefing from the Local Government
Information Unit (www.lgiu.org.uk), which I urge you to study. Here I
repeat its conclusion:- "While this issue may seem very abstract it could 
have real implications for local government public services and for the
economic, social and environmental well-being of communities. It is
important that, as a minimum, these implications are understood and that
independent research is carried out for local government on the potential 
impact of GATS." 
 
As mentioned in the LGIU briefing, it is entirely understandable if this
initially appears a complex, "other-worldly" issue. Indeed, it may be
tempting to reason that this is not something that WCC need concern itself
with. Yet I want to show you some facts and examples that will hopefully 
convince you of the relevance of this issue. Firstly, in the short space of
time that this issue has been on the political map, three UK county councils
have already passed legislation on GATS: - Flintshire, Oxford,
Brighton & Hove. Legislation in other county councils is hopefully
forthcoming. Secondly, this is not an obscure appeal, as demonstrated by the
increasing number of organisations across the UK (and beyond) adopting a
GATS-critical stance. Indeed, some of the most vocal GATS critics are now
household names such as Friends of the Earth.

Thirdly, the anti-GATS campaign in Canada (which, for reasons relating to
their proximity to the USA, is more well advanced than over here) has won
the support of a large number of municipal and state governments, many of
whom are now demanding that their federal government exempt them from
coverage under GATS. Indeed, the Government of British Columbia authored one
of the seminal and most widely cited GATS-critical research papers now in
circulation. 

Fourthly, there are a growing number of cases where the theoretical risks to
local government have become cold reality; already, towns in Japan, India
and Canada have had local regulations threatened and in several cases
*overturned* because they were not GATS compliant. No doubt the first they
knew of this was when the USA government threatened to level crippling trade 
sanctions at their respective national governments.
 
But perhaps the best way to emphasise the concern over GATS is by putting it
in the context of events and situations relevant to the local Warwickshire
community. Please note that, since GATS covers virtually all service sectors
and applies to every level of government, it is blind to the distinction
between County and District councils. Hence, though the relevant authorities
in the following examples may be District councils, WCC should consider its
own portfolio of services and regulations to be equally exposed.

Example 1 - tour buses in Stratford
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I recall a few months back that various residents of Stratford were upset
owing to an excessive number of tour buses on the roads. I didn't find out
how this was resolved, but it is reasonable to suppose that one solution
might have been for WCC (or Stratford-upon-Avon District Council) to put a
limit on the number of tour bus operators in the area, or the frequency of 
their tours. Unfortunately, such a measure would almost certainly be in
violation of GATS, since it would be considered an illegitimate "barrier
to market access".

Example 2 - supporting local initiatives
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To take another example, suppose Warwick District Council tried to further
stimulate growth in the Old Town area of Leamington by subsidising a locally
staffed, not-for-profit refuse collection and recycling scheme. And, of
course, it also goes without saying that WDC would also want just one
refuse company operating in any given area. Yet any attempts to prevent
other refuse collection companies from operating would probably be in
violation of GATS, and - more shockingly - should one of these other firms
be a non-EU firm (e.g. an American corporation targeting refuse markets in
the UK) WDC would be obliged to also subsidise the American firm to 
the same tune as the Old Town group, in the name of "non-discrimination". 

These are just two examples of how local, common sense policymaking could
become subordinate to the long arm of GATS disciplines.

Given the potential of GATS to significantly curtail the ability of WCC to
regulate effectively, I believe it would be in the interests of WCC (and its
citizens) to pass some sort of legislation that at the least formalises the
council's concern, and preferably puts measures in place to preserve WCC's
ability to regulate. I would be more than willing to work with any person or
group within WCC who would be interested in drafting and taking forward a
motion on this topic. Indeed, I am also keen to provide more information,
present seminars, attend meetings, answer questions and so on, such is the
importance of this issue.

I can be contacted at the address at the foot of this email, and do not
hesitate to email or telephone at any time.
 
I look forward to hearing your (hopefully positive) response to all of this.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Steven Kelk

72 Brunswick Street
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV31 2EQ
Phone (Home): 01926 773808, (Work): 02476 522350
Email: skelk@dcs.warwick.ac.uk