Nick Clegg came to St Albans this morning to give the keynote address at The Guardian Public Services Summit. So I went along to the Sopwell House Hotel to hear what he had to say.
He has “previous” in terms of saying interesting things at this event. Three years ago he gave the keynote address in this same venue. He was newly elected as leader of Britain’s third party at a difficult time following the resignation of Menzies Campbell. I had to meet him at the station and give him a lift to the hotel in my battered Peugeot.
When he spoke then, he concentrated on his frustration at inadequate emphasis on mental health provision, and that it had to stop being a cinderella service. The audience were struck by his passion on this issue and that he should have chosen such a relatively unsexy subject. Their reception was warm, but doubtless they thought that this was yet another set of noble aspiration from a third party leader who would never have the opportunity to deliver on them.
Today I went straight to the venue in the same battered Peugeot. As Deputy Prime Minister Nick was driven here in his ministerial car. And just a week ago, he stood beside LibDem health minister Paul Burstow when they launched their “No Health Without Mental Health” strategy which is targeting an additional £400 million to ensure better access to psychological therapies.
So invitations to speak at the Guardian summit do get results. And as Sarah Teather said when she came to St Albans las month, more Liberal Democrat aspirations have been achieved in seven months of government than in seventy years of opposition.
Nick’s speech today was on a much bigger scale, drawing on threads from William Beveridge and Gladstonian Liberalism to paint a vision of diverse, decentralised and flexible public services.
He addressed the challenges of lack of equity in delivery and the imperative of incentivising public services to do more for the neediest.
He raised the concern that Britain too often lags the rest of the world in public service outcomes, whether in benchmarking learning progress or in healthcare mortality.
He asked how public services could be more responsive and human in their interaction with users.
And finally he addressed the issue of affordability in a time of financial stress – simply throwing more money at public services without reform is no longer an option.
He put a huge emphasis on the central state backing off from running things and allowing diversity and experimentation. Whitehall does not always know best, we have to learn from best practice elsewhere.
He denied this is an assault on the size of the state. At the end of this government’s term, there will be 200,000 more public sector workers than when Labour came into office in 1997. The government will be spending the same proportion of national income as it did in 2006 “and rightly so”.
But what there should be is more diversity – a word repeated often – and higher standards through greater accountability.
In the Q&A session which followed, the chairman asked about today’s letter from LibDem council leaders challenging the speed of cuts in local government. Nick acknowledged that it was tough but did point out the contrasts between LibDem controlled Sheffield announcing 270 job cuts and Labour controlled Manchester across the Pennines announcing 2,000 job losses. These are differences which need to be understood.
He admitted that the next few years will be very tough but that he believed that people will look back and see it as a key turning point when local government regains more freedom from the centre and far greater freedom as to how it spends its money.
Talking afterwards with his team, it is clear that one of my own passions – re-localising the business rate – is being seriously examined. Get this right and local government can be almost totally freed from dependence on central government. It would be great if he can announce that thgat aspiration has been achieved when accepts the chairman’s invitation to come back to the 2014 Guardian summit.
Sandy,
I am interested in your thoughts on re-localising the business rate but wonder how this can be acheived in an equitable way. Many businesses may have owners and workers that do not reside in the same Authority area as the business so how to you get the localisim you want without falling foul of the adage ‘No Taxation without representation’. I agree with the objective but worry about Authorities seeing those who do not have a vote as an easy target for taxation.
Dear Dave
This was Mrs Thatcher’s reasoning which is why she centralised the business rate in the first place. But what she did disconnected local businesses from local government and local councils and made local authorities hugely dependent on the whim or maligtn intent of central government. I think that modern councillors would easily see the common sense in promoting rather than stifling local business while local business people would have even more incentive to engage with local councils. Win win.