Labour would reform the state, not just rebuild it

Tight budgets will demand imagination and innovation in the way public services are run.

Against a background of austerity and pessimism, it is Labour’s duty to set out a vision for Britain’s future which is both optimistic and hard headed. As Ed Miliband has said it is our One Nation mission is to tilt the balance from despair to hope.

Optimism is needed to counter the Tories’ divided, inward-looking version of Britain. But Labour must also be hard headed because the country will take time to change. Tight financial constraints will require tough choices. As some budgets are increased to reflect our priorities others will have to be scaled back. These “switch spends” will not be an option but a necessity.

The road will not be easy. One Nation Labour is a decade’s commitment to national renewal. It offers a new contract for Britain’s future, committing a Labour Government to support ambition, fairness and strong communities. We are under no illusion that to win two successive elections we will have to demonstrate our progressive passion can deliver real change for families in an era where there is less money around. 

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, Ed Miliband has led the debate on the need for big changes to the economy. He and the shadow cabinet also know that One Nation Britain will require big changes to the state, which, by 2015, will have been battered by cuts and subjected to an ideological onslaught on its value and integrity. Our vision for a new state is not about simply repairing the damage, recreating the post war state or replicating the state we built between 1997 and 2010. It will reflect both financial limits and the challenges of a changing world. Labour knows both that an active, effective state is an essential force for good   but that it should never be suffocating, overcentralised, undermine autonomy or diminish the importance of non-state factors in building the good society. That is why we will reduce the role of the state where appropriate and strengthen it where necessary.

This article is primarily about the states place in our one nation story about national renewal, a new social contract, public service improvement and a new democratic engagement between Government and citizen. I recognise a major priority for the state is always to protect the security of its citizens. I have no doubt this will rightly be the focus of other peoples contributions to the debate about a new state.

A One Nation approach recognises that both unconstrained markets and an over-bureaucratic state can frustrate people, holding them back from the lives they want to lead. All MPs surgeries include often vulnerable individuals who receive poor treatment at the hands of one public institution or another. So tackling inequality is about improving life chances and living standards but also requires us also to ensure people irrespective of status are treated with respect in their interactions with the state.

Labour’s vision of a new state must signal our commitment to a new engagement between government and citizen. The story we tell about the One Nation Britain we want to nurture recognises both the virtues and the limits of the state. As Jon Cruddas has said, people’s lives are shaped by relationships with family, colleagues, friends and community networks focused around leisure pursuits, the voluntary sector, faith and community identity.

The NHS, schools, policing, council services will always be vital, but our quality of life is heavily dependent on these non-state relationships. So the state needs to achieve the right balance between supporting these positive relationships and networks without seeking to replace or undermine them. Cameron’s Big Society did not fail because the public didn’t want a greater voice in shaping their own neighbourhoods and services. It failed because of deep rooted cynicism about Tories who claimed to champion active communities while cutting the voluntary sector, failed to appreciate the enabling role the state can play and were enacting policies that corrode the foundations of strong communities.

By the end of our period in government, Labour’s failure to talk about family and community left the impression that we saw Britain’s future only through the prism of state and market. One Nation Labour believes our future success depends on our capacity to harness the best of an active state, aspirational individuals, strong families and community networks supported by a vibrant private sector. A healthy life usually achieves the right balance between independence and interdependence.

A new "Rights and Duties" social contract will define the relationship between state and citizen. Rules and expectations that are explicit about both government’s responsibilities and the duty of citizens to make a positive contribution related to their ability and means. What does that mean? A tough and fair welfare system with a greater correlation between what people contribute and what they should expect in return while recognising that vulnerable people must always be treated with dignity and compassion. This includes a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long term and young unemployed and a clear requirement to take work except in cases of sickness or serious disability; rewards and incentives for wealth creators who innovate and invest for the long term with a clear expectation that businesses will contribute their fair share in taxes and decent pay; a living wage that will reduce the numbers dependent on the state for their income; a cap on non-EU immigration with immigrants supported to integrate, including a requirement to learn English; neighbourhood policing with the powers to enforce a zero tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour. The vast majority of British people are fair-minded, tolerant and generous but they want to be sure their government  will be tough in ensuring that the system is fair and not abused by their fellow citizens.  

Labour will need to undo the damage this government is doing to public services but we will also set out our own radical programme for change. When we left office, NHS waiting times and crime were at record low levels. Schools were improving with disproportionate progress being made in deprived communities. This didn’t happen by chance but through a combination of investment and reform. Many of the reforms were necessary and effective but it is also important to acknowledge that some top-down targets led to unintended consequences and sapped the morale of staff, crowding out innovation and creativity.

One Nation public services means a commitment to minimising the post code lottery with core entitlements and standards. It means striving to bring up the levels of the worse to those of the best in every community. Service improvement is essential to meet public expectations, reduce inequality, enable us to do more with less and cope with the demographic challenge of an ageing society.

This should not be about perpetual organisational upheaval but improving the quality and efficiency of the frontline. National standards, expressed in terms of entitlements, would be coupled with support for local delivery and innovation, transparent measures of performance, tough new value-for-money duties and audits, more empowered and more accountable staff at all levels, and a relentless focus on world class leadership. The remuneration of public service managers and executives should be subject to much greater transparency and scrutiny. Public service changes should not be imposed top down but co-designed with staff and citizens.

New private sector provision would be supported where state provision has repeatedly failed or is unable to meet needs and where partnerships between public and private can improve outcomes. But this has to be within a framework of public accountability and high ethical standards. It is one tool in the locker, not the answer in all times and places.

In the NHS and education, the Tories have focused on giving power to the providers of services. One Nation Labour will give more influence and control to patients and parents. In my view choice is neither a panacea nor a realistic option in many circumstances. But it is crucial to give people a personalised - not a “conveyor belt” - service, with greater control for individuals and families over decisions about their lives together with a greater stake in collective community provision.

It was a Labour Government that promoted personal care budgets, neighbourhood based budgets and a membership model for NHS foundation trusts. An increasing number of Labour councils are introducing new cooperative models of public service organisation. We will continue to be the public service pioneers and innovators. Whitehall must be reformed to remove the policy and financial silos which lead to poor procurement and undermine integrated frontline service delivery and place-based budgeting. More power and resources should be devolved to local councils and city regions in return for greater voluntary sector, community and business participation.

If we are to make inroads with those families who continue to present the most challenges to their communities we must change an approach which involves numerous agencies that fail collectively to achieve any real change. Instead, each family  should have one named lead professional who has control of a pooled budget and an agreed contract focused on opportunities and responsibilities. This would be both more efficient and more likely to reduce social exclusion on a long term basis.

Within a framework of clear national standards, our approach to service delivery will be to redistribute power from Westminster and Whitehall to local statutory and voluntary organisation, communities and citizens. Our aim must be to ensure that the vast majority who rely on the state for education, health and social care have access to the same quality and also the same level of control   as those who can afford to buy the best private provision.

As the failure of the coalition’s economic policies has demonstrated there will be no prospect of a fairer, more united country without dynamic businesses generating jobs and growth. That is why Chuka Umunna is working with business to identify how the state can develop an active industrial strategy, supporting UK plc to compete in the global market. This is something we came late to in government. It should have been an integral part of our policy from the beginning. Government must play a leading role in supporting viable businesses of all sizes to start, grow and scale up by ensuring Britain has the infrastructure, skills and capacity to innovate. We should not apologise for providing targeted support to sectors which give UK plc competitive advantage – new manufacturing and the green economy, for example. Nor should we be timid about the radical changes in skillset and mindset which will be required to create a new entrepeneurial Whitehall with the capacity to drive an active industrial strategy in partnership with business.

Most of all, as Ed Miliband has said, the economic model which is predicated on wealth and opportunity trickling down from a few at the top has been discredited. An active industrial strategy must ensure the economy delivers for the working people who help to create the wealth. Britain’s recovery will be built by the many not by relying on a few at the top.

A new state must also adopt a radically different way of interacting with citizens. “Real Time Democracy” requires new kinds of engagement, accountability and participation. The same level of effort made by parties to connect with the electorate during election campaigns should be devoted to engaging with citizens by a government throughout its term in office. Labour wants to consider a number of new ways of making this happen, harnessing the power of social media. In opposition, Labour’s Peoples’ Policy Forum and Your Britain website have already gone a long way in opening up the party’s policymaking process. Some potential ideas for an incoming Labour Government could include: opening up decision-making in a way that does not simply share the outcome with the electorate but includes the range of options under consideration; senior officials being expected to create advisory boards of frontline experts, including service providers and users; fewer Whitehall “consultations” and more citizen juries; public services having a duty to publish accounts and create systems of external scrutiny. The new state must have the explicit goal of improving public confidence and trust in the political process.

If we are to build an ambitious, fair and proud Britain we must reject those who want to pose a bogus choice between big and small state. The Tories are hell bent on undermining public confidence in the capability of government. By the time we left office it sometimes appeared that we believed the state alone could resolve our economic and social challenges. The truth is that building One Nation in the context of a shrinking interdependent world and where we are truly all in it together will require the best of an active state, strong families, ambitious individuals, dynamic wealth creators, a vibrant civil society and empowered communities. It is getting the support and incentives right to give people a real stake in our national renewal which will determine our nation’s future destiny. That is how Labour will rebuild Britain.

Ivan Lewis is the MP for Bury South

Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's offer to EU citizens leaves the 3 million with unanswered questions

So many EU citizens, so little time.

Ahead of the Brexit negotiations with the 27 remaining EU countries, the UK government has just published its pledges to EU citizens living in the UK, listing the rights it will guarantee them after Brexit and how it will guarantee them. The headline: all 3 million of the country’s EU citizens will have to apply to a special “settled status” ID card to remain in the UK after it exist the European Union.

After having spent a year in limbo, and in various occasions having been treated by the same UK government as bargaining chips, this offer will leave many EU citizens living in the UK (this journalist included) with more questions than answers.

Indisputably, this is a step forward. But in June 2017 – more than a year since the EU referendum – it is all too little, too late. 

“EU citizens are valued members of their communities here, and we know that UK nationals abroad are viewed in the same way by their host countries.”

These are words the UK’s EU citizens needed to hear a year ago, when they woke up in a country that had just voted Leave, after a referendum campaign that every week felt more focused on immigration.

“EU citizens who came to the UK before the EU Referendum, and before the formal Article 50 process for exiting the EU was triggered, came on the basis that they would be able to settle permanently, if they were able to build a life here. We recognise the need to honour that expectation.”

A year later, after the UK’s Europeans have experienced rising abuse and hate crime, many have left as a result and the ones who chose to stay and apply for permanent residency have seen their applications returned with a letter asking them to “prepare to leave the country”, these words seem dubious at best.

To any EU citizen whose life has been suspended for the past year, this is the very least the British government could offer. It would have sounded a much more sincere offer a year ago.

And it almost happened then: an editorial in the Evening Standard reported last week that Theresa May, then David Cameron’s home secretary, was the reason it didn’t. “Last June, in the days immediately after the referendum, David Cameron wanted to reassure EU citizens they would be allowed to stay,” the editorial reads. “All his Cabinet agreed with that unilateral offer, except his Home Secretary, Mrs May, who insisted on blocking it.” 

"They will need to apply to the Home Office for permission to stay, which will be evidenced through a residence document. This will be a legal requirement but there is also an important practical reason for this. The residence document will enable EU citizens (and their families) living in the UK to demonstrate to third parties (such as employers or providers of public services) that they have permission to continue to live and work legally in the UK."

The government’s offer lacks details in the measures it introduces – namely, how it will implement the registration and allocation of a special ID card for 3 million individuals. This “residence document” will be “a legal requirement” and will “demonstrate to third parties” that EU citizens have “permission to continue to live and work legally in the UK.” It will grant individuals ““settled status” in UK law (indefinite leave to remain pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971)”.

The government has no reliable figure for the EU citizens living in the UK (3 million is an estimation). Even “modernised and kept as smooth as possible”, the administrative procedure may take a while. The Migration Observatory puts the figure at 140 years assuming current procedures are followed; let’s be optimistic and divide by 10, thanks to modernisation. That’s still 14 years, which is an awful lot.

To qualify to receive the settled status, an individual must have been resident in the UK for five years before a specified (although unspecified by the government at this time) date. Those who have not been a continuous UK resident for that long will have to apply for temporary status until they have reached the five years figure, to become eligible to apply for settled status.

That’s an application to be temporarily eligible to apply to be allowed to stay in the UK. Both applications for which the lengths of procedure remain unknown.

Will EU citizens awaiting for their temporary status be able to leave the country before they are registered? Before they have been here five years? How individuals will prove their continuous employment or housing is undisclosed – what about people working freelance? Lodgers? Will proof of housing or employment be enough, or will both be needed?

Among the many other practicalities the government’s offer does not detail is the cost of such a scheme, although it promises to “set fees at a reasonable level” – which means it will definitely not be free to be an EU citizen in the UK (before Brexit, it definitely was.)

And the new ID will replace any previous status held by EU citizens, which means even holders of permanent citizenship will have to reapply.

Remember that 140 years figure? Doesn’t sound so crazy now, does it?

0800 7318496