Ladies and Gentlemen,
This morning, I want to talk about the public services and Liberal Democrat proposals for how they can be improved in this country.
We all want first class schools, hospitals and healthcare: and I welcome the debate that has now begun between the three main parties over how to achieve this.
A responsible Government must balance various needs. That is why – when we published our strategy for public policy in Autumn 2002 - we called it ‘Quality, Innovation and Choice’.
Each have their place in public policy, but our approach recognises that choice is only relevant when quality and capacity are enhanced so that choices become meaningful.
Without quality and capacity, choice is empty rhetoric.
But, just before I get on to what we are proposing, let me deal with last week’s artificial debate between my Labour and Conservative opponents.
‘Choice’ is a difficult word in politics and we should never underestimate people’s capacity or appetite to make intelligent decisions about their lives: which is what I mean by choice.
Certainly, informed choice can be an important tool for driving up quality not only in ordinary markets but also in the public services.
But the public services are not ‘ordinary markets’ and they do not and cannot operate wholly at the whim of such forces.
The founding principles of the public services - universal access to high quality, first class provision, regardless of wealth or where in the country you live - are as relevant today as they were 60 years ago.
It is vital that, as we politicians try to find the right mechanisms for pushing up standards, those principles are kept firmly in mind.
‘Choice’ has a particular significance for some still rooted in old-fashioned and out-of-date left/right divisions. But for the public, choice can mean a bewildering array of possibilities.
It can, for example, mean that while the better off and articulate seize their choices, those who might not grasp what is on offer – the elderly, the sick, the vulnerable - are left to make do with second best.
When it comes to the public services, choice is just one element in the debate.
We Liberal Democrats would say that there should be ‘choice for all’.
But what I believe people really want is quality public services available locally, not false ‘choice’.
Of course, choice has its place in building a better system.
But quality is the building block of real choice. Without real quality services you can’t make choices on other criteria.
For example, real choice in education is between good universities offering the courses you want, while the level of grade you require reflects demand.
Without quality, we can’t efficiently bring in private sector involvement – what do they benchmark against? It just becomes price – which means replacing a low quality service with a cheaper low quality service.
False choice is an acceptance of failure, failure of Labour’s spending plans and targets and tick boxes culture. False choice is trying to use market forces to hide failure.
And ‘choice’ - as used last week by Labour and the Tories – is a spin word, a top line designed to distract from the real question.
For Labour, it’s a smokescreen. When this Government was first elected, it wasn’t afraid to talk of ‘quality’.
We said then that the way to achieve it was through extra investment after years of Conservative cuts. We won that argument and the investment is now going in.
But Labour started too late, went about it the wrong way and wasted billions on centralised management and political targets. The improvements are slow in coming.
So now the Prime Minister is afraid to mention quality because he needs a distraction from his record of delivery. Instead he talks of false choice.
For the Conservatives, the ‘choice’ mantra is a mask.
It’s a way of disguising their real agenda. Michael Howard is proposing to spend billions on subsidising people to opt out of the NHS at the tax-payer’s expense.
The Conservatives have admitted that before a single extra operation is performed their plans would take £1.2 billion out of the NHS. T
his is choice for the few maybe, but not choice for all.
Choice as the panacea for reform is misleading.
In the NHS, if you or your child or your elderly parent suffers from a heart attack, you don’t want a choice of treatment.
You want a quality ambulance service, to take you to a quality hospital, with quality doctors and nurses ready to treat you immediately.
You don’t want to know that there is a three star hospital available fifty miles away.
Choice, in such circumstances, is meaningless.
Of course, if you have a life-threatening condition and the fastest way to get an operation is to travel hundreds of miles, you are likely to make that choice and the NHS should be able to give you that information.
But it’s a choice you should not have to make. Politicians should be focussing on quality provision closer to home.
There are other ways in which I agree that choice CAN be important: if you offer real choice for all.
A person who suffers from a long term medical condition such as diabetes may be well informed about their illness.
They should not be seen as passive recipients of care and treatment.
They should be supported so they can be full participants in their own care and the management of their disease.
Choice in such circumstances gives people greater control over their lives and Liberal Democrats champion the power of the individual and opportunity for all; but we equally have an unshakable commitment to providing quality public services available for all.
So, I say again, what people want is quality public services delivered locally – not false choice.
How would the Liberal Democrats bring that about?
Over the course of this Parliament, our party has been doing a lot of thinking about the future direction of the public services.
Chris Huhne, the distinguished economist and MEP chaired a commission and we have published a substantial body of work.
If the last two General Elections were about how much extra investment was needed to rebuild our public services, then the next General Election will be about how wisely we spend tax payers’ money.
Labour is avoiding this topic – it wants to remind us how much is being spent but not how much is being wasted.
The Conservatives are confused and don’t want to admit that in order to fund tax cuts they would eventually have to cut services as they did while in office.
We Liberal Democrats agree with the extra investment and have sensible and costed ideas for making more efficient use of the money to improve quality.
The last Government spending review showing an injection of £200bn a year by 2005 - compared with 1997 - allowed us to set out robust fiscal plans.
These not only maintain the extra investment, but, by opposing Labour’s proposals for unnecessary Government schemes, like the Child Trust Fund, and by scrapping unnecessary central Government departments and functions, we have shown how an extra £5bn a year can be freed up for priority investment – without the need for tax rises.
Instead of the Child Trust fund, for example, which will cost more than a billion pounds over a parliament, we would be investing that money in early years’ education to give our children the best start in life.
It is no longer a question of taxing more to deliver investment, but of taxing differently and more fairly, delivering real power and accountability to local communities to address the specific problems in their area.
For the public services as a whole, the boom and bust that the Government claims has been eradicated from our economy, has not been matched by a commitment to sustained long-term investment that is vital for planning.
The NHS in particular has suffered badly under successive Governments.
What is required is a clear commitment to a secure funding stream.
The Liberal Democrats would tackle this with an earmarked ‘National Health Contribution’ - replacing National Insurance - dedicated to health spending.
Of course, funding in itself will not guarantee delivery.
Labour pays lip service to localism but remains wedded to the straightjacket of central government control and targets. For them, the man in Whitehall still knows best.
The addiction to political target-setting sends a powerful signal that Ministers distrust frontline NHS or teaching staff.
The culture of targets and tick boxes, which has become the hallmark of Labour, stifles innovation and undermines the ability of professionals to use their own judgement.
By driving reform from Whitehall, with the Health Secretary, for example, micromanaging how local hospitals and GP surgeries are run, money is wasted on unnecessary services in one area, while they are desperately needed in another. Health trusts in Eastbourne may need to spend more on services for older people.
In London, more funds might be needed for infectious disease.
Two things are required.
First, liberating public service staff to get on with their jobs. And second, to make local services responsive to local priorities.
Local people are best place to make that assessment.
Our Shadow Health Secretary, Paul Burstow, has already outlined in greater detail how we think this can happen when he spoke last week to the NHS Confederation.
Over the coming weeks we will be giving further details of our plans.
But before I turn to education, I have one final observation to make about the health debate.
In his attack on Michael Howard’s rhetoric of ‘the right to choose’, the Prime Minister dubbed it ‘the right to charge.’
His Health Secretary said last Thursday that Labour would not waver from the founding principle of the NHS that care is provided according to your need not your means.
Yet when it comes to care of the elderly, Labour too support a right to charge.
For the frail elderly in need of basic care: feeding, dressing, washing – for them dignity comes at a price.
Dignity in old age should not be determined by the size of your bank balance. That is why Liberal Democrats would scrap the charges for personal care, wherever it is provided.
But this week both Labour and the Conservatives will announce their ‘new’ idea to improve education for our 11-18 year olds – so I want to spend a little time on this.
For Labour, it’s hardly a secret (since the papers have been full of it for days) that the new idea is ‘Foundation Schools’.
Now – where have you heard that ‘foundation’ word before?
Their argument is that by giving our most successful schools the chance of foundation status - with increased powers of autonomy – this will create choice and tackle underperformance in other areas.
Wrong! While this may lead to more choice for some parents, (who, in many cases, will be wealthy enough to exercise choice anyway), what it also does is create the opportunity for schools to choose children.
Is that really what we want?
Greater institutional control over admissions?
It’s a false choice.
And tell me – who will be left out?
The very children from the very schools the Government claims to be aiming to help.
As for the Conservatives, they are keen to return to Grammar schools and the introduction of many more state-funded private schools.
How on earth does that create choice for all?
Aspiring footballers may apply to a choice of clubs, but that choice is illusory. Manchester United will ruthlessly select the best on its own criteria. Is that really the way forward?
For over a decade both the other parties have offered the illusion of choice through autonomy and increased powers to schools.
Yet fewer than 1000 schools opted out of local government control under the Tories; and under Labour only 4 schools have sought powers to innovate and change the school day.
The reality is our most successful schools don’t want more powers – they want less interference.
They want the freedom to tailor curriculum to children’s real needs;
freedom from the endless grind of meeting meaningless targets;
freedom from jumping through hoops for additional cash;
freedom from the distraction of too many targets, too much testing and league tables.
Such schools don’t want or need foundation status.
They want freedom to teach young people - to light fires in their minds and a thirst for learning which will live a lifetime.
Our Liberal Democrat vision of the future in our schools is rather different.
It’s a realistic alternative to the mantra of false choice.
Our commitment is to quality for all, with choice based on individual need. Few parents ask for choice for their five year olds – they just want schooling to be high quality and local.
Local Authorities should have a statutory duty to provide exactly that for all 5-14 year olds.
From the age of 14, we shift the emphasis.
We favour diversity of provision that focuses on the need of the individual child.
We aim to provide every young person with independent guidance and a curriculum based on their needs, rather than narrow institutional availability.
Ours is not the false god of schools choosing the individual but empowering the individual to seek a curriculum that is dynamic and tailored to his or her needs.
What this does is to give real power to the consumer of public services: not the false power Labour and the Conservatives say they are offering.
I would argue that where public services are not good enough, it is actually deceptive to suggest that you are offering real choice when all the alternative provision depends on capacity or acceptance by others.
Liberal Democrats have never shied away from saying we need increased spending if that’s what’s required.
Today, we are prepared to make equally hard calls over the use of existing resources. The challenge for all parties is to say that every individual has a right to world-class schools and hospitals, not to false choices.
Over the months to come, that is what we will set out and what we will deliver.
So, to sum up, the Liberal Democrats will be at the forefront of the argument about public services as we move towards the next election; and where the other two parties will be offering two sides of the same coin; we shall have a distinctive message.
Our mantra won’t be choice.
Our watchword is quality.
And our brand - fairer taxation for investment; a commitment to the integrity of our public services; and a true commitment to localism – sets us apart.
That’s what we believe that people really want.
Quality public services locally available – not false choices.
Return to June Articles & Speeches.
Return to Articles & Speeches.