Labour has committed itself to a major re-shaping of the public sector. Its intention to drastically re-define the relationships between professionals, the public and Whitehall could amount
to a revolution in the way the left applies socialist values in government. For those who have always been sceptical of the view that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, this is an opportunity to help implement a new settlement that gives people more control over their own lives.
The government is coupling record levels of investment in public services with reforms that will, in many cases, give local communities a major role in shaping the development of those services. The most obvious example of this is the imminent creation of foundation hospitals, but I expect education, social housing and primary healthcare, for example, to
benefit from similar initiatives.
There are also numerous opportunities for local authorities to move towards mutuality in service delivery, and to provide support for all kinds of small social enterprises. This freeing up of public service enterprise is wholly welcome to those of us who believe that a strong welfare state should not necessarily entail the stifling of local initiative and creativity.
Gordon Brown said recently: ‘One of the challenges we face is to find new ways of giving power away, so that local people can take decisions about their communities. Mutuality provides a practical way of ensuring that citizens have rights to go with their responsibilities and are enabled to play an active role in the decisions that affect their lives.’
Brown’s involvement indicates the importance that the government attaches to mutuality. It builds on the creation of the Social Enterprise Unit within the DTI, the imminent establishment of decentralised foundation hospitals within the NHS, and the publication of the Strategy Unit report calling for, among other things, the creation of public interest companies and a clearer legal
and constitutional framework for mutual organisations of all kinds. Under Brown’s watch the Treasury in particular has come to see mutual ownership as an effective way of improving the accountability of services to the public, while also fostering flexibility and enterprise, and has built these principles into recent initiatives including Sure Start and the Children’s Fund.
The aim of mutualism in public services is to blend the entrepreneurialism and responsiveness of the private sector with the social purpose of the public sector. This is achieved partly by giving a number of stakeholder groups an ownership stake, thus bypassing the tendency – manifested in both private and public sector organisations – to serve only one entrenched interest group, and partly through the granting of extra freedoms from day-to-day interference from Whitehall. Funding would still be delivered primarily from central government, through taxation, and services would remain free at the point of use, but staff, users, and local specialists would have more of an input in deciding how standards could be improved and the particular needs of local communities met. This is done by making management accountable to an elected board, comprising employee, customer and government representatives.
Contrary to what some might think, there is plenty of evidence that people are ready to get involved. In 2000, a survey found that 170,000 volunteers already worked in the NHS, befriending and counselling patients, driving people to hospital, fundraising, running shops and cafés and so on. Volunteers prepared twelve million meals a year for people in care and 750,000 people volunteered in schools. And internationally, there is plenty of good practice to learn from. At present there are over 750 co-operative schools in Spain, most of which are run as worker co-operatives, with the rest being either parent-owned or mixed, involving parents, teachers and additional stakeholders as members.
Naturally, there has been some suspicion within the Labour party that a move away from centralisation might imply an abandonment of true Labour values, an abandonment of our commitment to social justice and a return to Tory-style privatisation. For a long time the prevailing mood on the left favoured the nationalisation of just about everything as the best way of delivering public services. But there has always been another strand of opinion in the Labour movement. Co-operative, rather than state, socialists – many are active members of the Co-operative party – share a commitment to a strong welfare state and the pursuit of greater equality in society, but also believe that government should be done for, and not to people.
Wherever possible local knowledge, personal commitment, and the freedom to innovate should be used and encouraged, through the creation of mutual ownership structures that give ordinary people real power. Privatisation does not form part
of this agenda – which is why the Co-operative movement has worked with the present government to ensure that mutually owned public services, such as foundation hospitals, must prioritise NHS patients, and would be even harder for the Tories to sell off than those controlled by Whitehall.
Even some people who happily subscribe to this ideal are concerned that Blair and Brown’s new reforms will offer only a half-baked element of local control and accountability. I believe that there is a genuine commitment on the part of ministers to deliver well-funded services that are far more accountable locally than they are at present – and would urge professionals, politicians and activists to maintain pressure on the government
to ensure that this remains the case.
Mutuality is not a panacea for our public services. It must go hand in hand with the extra investment promised by the Chancellor. Much hard work needs to be done to ensure that employees and local communities are properly enabled, through ongoing training and support, consultation with the existing mutual sector, and the development of clear lines of accountability, to play a full role. But only through engaging positively with Labour’s new direction will we ensure that the government succeeds in building public services that are fit for the 21st century.