'Quality Innovation Choice' Debate

Speech by Chris Huhne MEP delivered to the Liberal Democrat Conference on Mon 30th Sep 2002

I first want to thank my colleagues on the public services policy commission. We are 31 people from across the party with widely differing views, experience and expertise. Sometimes we were a little surprised to read of the rows apparently going on about our deliberations. In fact, we had many debates, but no rows. It is testament to the seriousness and purpose with which we all approached this issue that we are able to put before conference today a motion backed up by a carefully argued 62 page paper. This stakes out new ground. Not splitting the difference. Not finding the lowest common denominator. Not fudging the issues. I don't want to single out any member of the commission, because so many contributed so much, but I do want to say a particular word of thanks to our staff led by Richard Grayson and Christian Moon. Their tireless work on supporting research and successive drafts is overwhelmingly responsible for the quality of this paper.

For three elections, we have championed the cause of high quality public services, arguing for more funding to match the transport, health and schooling on the continent. We alone were willing to argue for tax increases before the election, not just after it. We have now won the argument. True, we need to hold Labour to its promises. We need guaranteed, stable funding for the NHS, which is why I urge you to reject amendment 1. All around the world health spending rises rapidly. Elsewhere, social insurance premiums go up to pay for medical advances, higher quality, better care. As we get richer, health is as much a priority for our spending as more foreign holidays or evenings out. That is why health is special. That is why it has suffered so much from public spending squeezes. That is why the NHS has been so hard hit by a Treasury that often prefers a cut today at the cost of a crisis tomorrow.

Chris Huhne MEP sums up for the 'Quality Innovation Choice' debate at Liberal Democrat Conference

We need a system that ensures doctors and nurses no longer suffer the bust and boom in public spending that is as pernicious as the boom and bust in the economy. Earmarking the National Insurance contributions for the health service will mean steady reliable funding for a worldclass NHS. Back it. Reject amendment 1. Earmarking is right, and it's a winner.

If the first key proposal is earmarking the NHS contribution, the second is a radical decentralisation of power. At present, we suffer an imperial model. The Emperor Milburn decides who shall do what throughout the English NHS. He sends out missives, sets targets, appoints monitors. But the Emperor has no clothes. The lines of command, control and complaint are too long. Britain's public services are in the grip of imperial over-reach. For example, the NHS employs the same number of people as Britain's seven biggest companies put together. The post-code lottery shows that however hard we try, the sheer scale of the system means it cannot deliver a common standard of service.

Power must come back to a level at which decision-makers have personal experience of the effects of their decisions. Where they can trust the discretion and judgement of professionals. Where we no longer set target upon target because each time the centralised system fails, the kneejerk reaction is to wheel out another diktat. Another ukase. Another soundbite for the TV news. There are now 8,500 targets set by Whitehall for everything from world poverty to hospital carpet cleanliness.

Part of the problem with centralisation is the inflexibility of pay. Providing democratically elected authorities with the ability to top up national pay if they choose is crucial. The vacancy rates among teachers, and the use of agency nurses, in parts of the country is now extreme. It threatens basic standards of service. So I welcome amendment 2 from the ALDTU calling for an increased role for Whitley councils, and protecting the current pension rights of public service workers. This is party policy that bears repeating. In fact, the commitment to Whitley councils is very old party policy. The father of Whitley councils was the former Liberal MP for Halifax, Mr J.H. Whitley, whose fair-mindedness as speaker of the House of Commons from 1921 to 1928 led on to a career in resolving industrial disputes. Let no-one accuse us of lack of respect for our roots.

Now I come to amendment 3. When I first read it, I thought there was nothing here that I disagreed with. But then I thought, hang on. Who has proposed a 'wholesale transfer of services out of the public sector'? Not us. The authors of this amendment are tilting at windmills. True, the commission does argue the case for Public Benefit Organisations as a particularly appropriate way of providing public services. They do not distribute profits. Their assets are safeguarded for public use. But they can engage the commitment of employees and users alike more than a private enterprise run for profit, and more than a public service leviathan at the beck and call of Whitehall. But there is a crucial condition. Those PBOs must come from the willingness of those who work in the public sector. We want willing volunteers, not pressed hands.

But if this amendment 3 is passed, we will be sending out the wrong signal: that we want as little change and as little choice as possible. The whole thrust of this policy document is to hand power back to democratically elected authorities at regional and local level to determine public services. The idea is to encourage diversity and experimentation, because that is how we learn and improve. But this amendment says no to local choice and local freedom. As a result, it also says no to innovation.

As to the second part of the amendment, the reason why there is nothing in the motion about the principles behind the Liberal Democrat approach is simple. It is too hard to summarise the discussion in chapter 1 without seeming merely banal and trite. Need is an essential criterion for the distribution of funding, for the determination of health and education requirements. But it is not and it cannot be the sole determinant of services as varied as transport, policing, leisure centres, parking, libraries or theatres. Quality, Choice, Fairness, Accountability, Decentralisation, Openness, Value for money, professional responsibility and information are all Liberal Democrat principles lying behind our approach to public services.

Fellow Liberal Democrats, nearly a third of the national electorate vote for us in local elections because we deliver good services effectively. The political prize will come when the electorate recognise that the quality of public services also depends on Liberal Democrats at Westminster, because we are the only party that understands the importance of giving away power from the centre. We know that Labour are the great centralisers and believers in the big state. But so remember were the Tories. It was the Tories who reduced budget discretion and capped rates.

This debate pits the Liberal Democrats squarely against the eighteen year record of Tory centralisation and a Labour government that has burnished their controls. W.E.Gladstone said that the principle of Liberalism was trust in the people only qualified by prudence. The illiberal principle - to which both Tories and Labour are wedded - was mistrust of the people only qualified by fear. The grand old man was right. Reform of the British state must start with decision-making on a human scale. Trust the people, and the people will trust us.