SOC IE,.Y 

..........................................................


.

.

.

.

.

. FABIAN PAMPHLET 549

.

. ....................................................


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Quality, Equality,

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Dem.ocracy:

.

.

.

.

.

.

. im.proving public

.

.

.

. •

.

.

. services

.

.

.

.

. 

.

.

.

.

. by Margaret Hodge

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 

.

.

. 

.

.

. 


FABIAN PAMPHLET 549 

QJality, equality, democracy: 
improving public services 

1. A new politics of public services 1 
2. Central and local relations 7 
3. Quality, equality, democracy 11 

4. Labour councils and their workforce 18 
5. The way forward 21 
Margaret Hodge is leader of Islington Council and chair of the 
Association of London Authorities. She is a member of the 
Labour Party NEC's Local Government Committee and of the 
Fabian Executive Committee. 

This pamphlet, like 
all publications of the 
Fabian Society, 
represents not the 
collective views of the 
Society but only the 
views of the authors. 
The responsibility of 
the Society is limited 
to approving its 
publications as 
worthy of 
consideration within 
the Labour movement. 

Design: Tony Garrett 

September 1991 

ISJ!N 0 7163 0549 6 

ISSN 0307 7523 

Printed by The College 
Hill Pre s Limited <TU>. 
London and Worthing 

Published by the F'abian 
Society, 11 Dartmouth 
St, London SW1H 9BN 


Anew politics of p··~~~~37742 a 
services Ill 

. . BLPES

Quahty pubhc services are on the agenda for 
both political parties. In fact, commentators 
claim there is little to choose between the two 
parties on policy and purpose in this area. 

J
J
ohn Major's promotion of a Citizen's Charter and Labour's launch of 
its Quality Programme are described as evidence of this new consensus. 
However, no such consensus exists. The vocabulary may be the 
same; both parties talk about quality, consumerism, citizenship and 
empowerment. But the framework is radically different and hence the actual 
policies and outcomes remain essentially opposed. 

Labour's emphasis on quality has evolved steadily over the last decade. The 
Policy Review process acted as a focus for ideas which those of us responsible 
for running public services were putting into practice in our own communities. 
Our ideas on quality are not a theoretical programme cobbled together by a 
couple of think tanks responding to opinion polls. Labour local councils are 
implementing the policies now, not just talking about them; our political 
programme is based on that practical experience. 

The promotion ofquality programmes by the left is based on three important 
ideological concepts. First, we want to reinforce the value of public 
services; second, our concern for equality is dependent on quality; and third, 
we want to empower people, not as consumers but as citizens with equal rights. 

The current political interest in quality from the left is not intended to 
undervalue the successes ofwelfare services in the past. Neither is it intended 
to ignore the devastating impact that expenditure cuts and resource constraints 
have had. Quality and resources are inextricably linked. You cannot 
provide high quality education in a situation where there is no teacher in front 
ofthe class-because teachers are not paid enough-where there are no books 
and pencils, and where there is a bucket in the middle of the classroom 
catching the rainwater dripping through the hole in the roof. 

Itis also true to say that we must not sell the past on public services. Many 
ofthe post-war welfare policies have created opportunities, promoted equality 
and proved popular. So much so that despite her best endeavours, Mrs 

1 

11 

TELEPEN 

I 



Thatcher was unable to destroy theNational Health Service. Equally, the 1944 
Education Act provided a successful framework for greater equality ofopportunity 
for many. In the field ofpublic housing, our infrastructure is far better 
than that of the United States. We still accept that people have a right to a 
decent home, whereas in America access to housing is entirely dependent on 
the individual's ability to pay. 

But the left cannot be complacent. We cannot take for granted the continuing 
support for public services and we must not deceive ourselves that 
increased resources alone will lead to improved services. One of the salutary 
lessons to emerge from the rate-capping campaign ofthe mid-eighties was that 
the services we sought to defend were not valued by the people for whom they 
were provided. So for me the interest in quality results from a determination 
to restore faith in the worth of public services. It is no good socialists arguing 
that public spending is important, that we want to achieve redistribution and 
promote the interests of the community, if voters do not value the outcomes 
of those policies for themselves. 

Restoring faith in the worth of public services does require some radical 
changes in the way we deliver those services. Traditional paternalistic and 
bureaucratic a!Tangements have resulted in people experiencing the services 
as inappropriate, unresponsive and inefficient. Telling council tenants that 
they cannot hang their washing out on Sundays, refusing to give a name on 
the telephone to a customer, or rigidly sticking to inflexible rules when they 
do not work in particular circumstances are all practices which have made 
people question the worth of public services. 

Outcomes not inputs 

Much of this stems from the fact that in the past our prime concern has been 
with inputs rather than outcomes; we have thought and talked in terms of 
resources expended and jobs created. We have measured our success in terms 
ofhow much we spend, not on the effect ofthat expenditure.The Conservatives 
have also judged public services in these terms, although their obsession has 
been with cutting costs and reducing expenditure. 

By switching to an emphasis on outcomes we are not denying the importance 
of resources; we are simply recognising that money itself is not enough. 
So, for instance, in Islington in the mid-eighties, we promoted ourselves as 
being at the leading edge because we were among the highest spenders on 
under fives. Closer investigation showed that because of poor management 
and restrictive trade union agreements, only two-thirds ofour available places 
for young children were occupied. Also, not enough concern was shown at that 
time for the quality of care that was offered to those young children. Radio 
One often blared through some of our children's day centres all day, pictures 
were hung out of children's reach and sight so that the children could not 
destroy them, tea was served at 3.30pm so that staffcould leave the moment 

2 


children were collected by their parents. Changing these practices requires a 
radical change in the management culture and priorities. Change is essential 
to restoring faith in the value of the service. 

There are other reasons why the left agenda on quality has emerged as 
important. With our commitment to equality we have to recognise that quality 
and equality are inextricably linked and one cannot be attained without the 
other. Inappropriate or poor quality public services impact most adversely on 
those who are most dependent on them;yet these are the very people for whom 
the services are primarily designed to provide equality ofopportunity. 

Weaknesses in the health service impact most on those who, because of 
poverty, are most dependent on the service. The same is true ofeducation and 
housing. So a concern for equality, which is essentially socialist, demands a 
concern for quality. 

There are other important implications, when one links the two concepts, 
which distinguishe Labour's approach from that of the Conservatives. A 
concern for equality involves a recognition of people's differing needs and 
aspirations which demand a range of different services. People are different 
and what is a good service for one person may be inappropriate for another. 

Race·and gender are structurally important differences which have to be 
recognised inthe provision ofservices. Providing one uniform service, however 
good, will often be discriminatory. Even at its most simple, providing one free 
dustbin per household ignores the needs of extended families who live 
together. 

Finally, for people on the left, a new agenda ofempowerment in relation to 
public services has emerged. Itis about the practical day-to-day experience of 
democracy. In the past, public services were things we provided for people or 
did for them. People, we thought, were happy to receive our services passively. 
Politicians decided and people received. 

Socialism is about empowering people to control their lives, not just as 
selfish consumers but as consumers and citizens. So we have to seek new ways 
which enable people to shape the services we provide, enable them to have a 
voice in those services, and enable them to find new ways whereby they 
collectively meet the expressed needs of all the groups in our society. 

Improving participation in elections is part of this process, but we must 
also devise ways of decentralising power from politicians and bureaucrats to 
people as consumers and citizens. We have to establish participative democratic 
structures in the delivery of public services. This process of decentralisation 
is new for some strands of the Labour Party which have been 
traditionally centralist and paternalistic in their approach. 

Yet by opening up our services to public account through democratic 
policies, we will achieve better quality public services. We will restore faith in 
their value and move towards equality. This vision for the left, linking quality, 
equality and democracy, is radical. It has little in common with Majorism. 

3 


Conservatives and Quality 

Right-wing think tanks like the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam 
Smith Institute have been busy formulating policies for the '90s. These have 
provided the basis for John Major's Citizens Charter. They proclaim success 
for the privatisation policies ofthe '80s and say they are now looking for other 
mechanisms to deal with those. services they have, so far, failed to privatise. 
They therefore seek new ways ofintroducing the market into public services. 
Their solution lies in further enforced competitive tendering for a wider range 
ofpublic services and greater encouragement for public institutions to opt out. 
In their view the public sector's role in providing services directly should 
continue to wither away and the state at both central and local government 
level should become responsible for allocating contracts rather than running 
services. Cash limits on public spending would be maintained. 

The new 'Big Idea', however, is in the words of Graham Mather, General 
Director ofthe Institute ofEconomic Affairs, 'to squeeze at the bottom', as well 
as the top, so that, it is claimed, competition can be introduced into public 
services and efficiency improved. The squeeze at the bottom comes partly from 
the introductio!l ofmechanisms committing public services to deliver specified 
service standards, with financial redress to the individual ifthe provider fails 
to meet the pre-determined standards. 

This ideology and the policies which flow from it are not the same as the 
value system for democratic socialists. They are only similar in so far as the 
notion of making public services work for the consumer is a popular notion. 
But popularity is no longer the preserve of the New Right, especially in the 
field of public services. Indeed, there is already evidence that the populist 
ideas of Thatcherism are not really succeeding in winning support. For 
instance, the dogma of privatisation faces growing criticism, as people increasingly 
question its effectiveness. 

Creating large private monopolies, as has occurred with the utilities, has 
done little to improve efficiency or quality. Prices for consumers have increased. 
There is nothing clever about increasing profits if a company enjoys 
a monopoly position and controls prices. To then use profitability as a measure 
ofimproved quality in these circumstances is either naive or plain dishonest. 
Yet to reward their 'success', the salaries ofsenior executives have been hiked 
up in such a way as to cause unparalleled offence to even the most ardent free 
marketeers. Had the public utilities remained accountable to the public, the 
senior executives Would never have dared to award themselves such huge 
salary increases. Removing the services from public account has enabled this 
abuse to occur. 

The idea of introducing internal markets and privatisation in the health 
service has met with enormous consumer hostility as people believe that 
giving doctors budgets and creating hospital trusts mitigates against the 

4 


needs ofpatients. Indeed, it would appear that hospital opt-outs have simply 
allowed further cuts in services to occur with no accountability to the public 
either through ministers or directly to consumers. The Secretary ofState for 
Health actually said he accepted no responsibility for the cuts in services at 
Guy's Hospital. 

Schools which have opted out of local authority control have often done 
more harm than good in terms of the efficient use of public resources. Many 
ofthe schools which have opted out have been those which LEAs have sought 
to close as part of reorganisation proposals to ensure better value for money. 

The public have rejected the privatisation ofmany public services, despite 
the carrots and sticks which the Government have offered. In the field ofpublic 
housing, proposals for HousingActionTrusts have been thrown out by tenants 
and attempts to transfer public housing to private landlords have met with 
little success. In fact, the hostility to the original concept ofa Housing Action 
Trust has been so great that the private Housing Action Trusts have been 
converted into publicly-sponsored partnership projects involving residents, 
local councils and central government, as in Waltham Forest. This underlines 
the point that privatisation is not wanted and is irrelevant in the context of 
homes targeted for low income families. 

Itcan be argued that the process ofpreparing for competitive tendering has 
led to greater clarity about what consumers can expect from services. But the 
actual privatisation does little to improve outcomes for individuals. Indeed, 
in some areas such as building maintenance, private cowboy contractors often 
rip off the public and provide a poor quality and expensive alternative to the 
direct labour organisations. 

Collective need 

~eft and right therefore start from a clear disagreement as to whether 
privatisation has been successful and should be pursued. That disagreement 
flows inevitably from a stark difference ofview on two issues:the role ofpublic 
and private sector, and the role ofthe consumer in public services. 

The Conservatives continually fail to recognise the distinctive role of the 
public sector in society. Their prescription for improving the quality of public 
services is therefore inevitably misguided. The public sector's role is primarily 
to meet collective need, not individual need. Obviously there are circumstances 
when the distinction need not matter, but an effective understanding of 
what makes for good management and quality in the public sector must be 
predicated on a clear understanding ofits distinctive role and purpose. 

So, for instance, it may be in the individual's interest to drop a fast-food 
carton on the street but this is not in society's interest. The collective interest 
is undermined by the individual interest. At the same time there are areas 
where the individual interest can only be promoted by collective action. We 
can only drive our cars if roads are built and maintained. There are. many 

5 


sports where the individuals' enjoyment can only be attained by activities 
organised collectively. 

Unlike the private sector, the public sector cannot opt-out of providing 
services ifmarket conditions are not favourable. In fact, often the public sector 
has to optin when the private sector fails to provide. So there are some services 
which can only be obtained collectively, not individually and which therefore 
fall outside traditional market relationships. 

Again, unlike the private sector, the public sector often provides statutory 
universal services which individuals cannot choose to buy or not to buy; 
therefore market mechanisms are not relevant. Policing, street lighting or 
open spaces are clear examples ofservices which are provided for all, with no 
choice for the individual to opt in or opt out. 

Most important ofall, public services are not provided to people as isolated 
individuals. People are both customers and citizens in the public realm. 
Citizens have a legitimate interest in services even if they do not personally 
consume them; citizens have obligations in relation to public services even if 
they do not use them. At the moment people cannot opt out of paying for 
education because they do not have children. Our society accepts that its 
children are a collective as ·.vell as private responsibility and its hope for the 
future. The public sector is about achieving a balance between differing needs 
and aspirations in the interests ofthe community as a whole. 

So the democratic processes in making choices, in determining the balance 
between resources and needs, are essential to the public sector. Trying to 
create quality in the public sector simply by introducing market techniques is 
therefore not enough and will not work. The Conservatives see the democratic 
process as creating additional costs and unnecessary hindrances to efficient 
and effective public services. Quite the reverse should be the case. Democracy 
is an essential ingredient in the public arena which makes it distinctive, which 
recognises people as both consumers and citizens. It is the only mechanism 
for reconciling different interests and competing needs, the only method for 
constructing the common interests we need to exist as a society. Democracy 
has to be reflected in the way in which mechanisms to achieve quality in public 
services are developed. 

So while the Conservatives seek to privatise public services, Labour seeks 
to democratise them. These are essentially different frameworks which lead 
to practical policie:> which are quite different and lead to very different 
outcomes for people. I shall explore in detail the policies which flow from our 
values in the following chapters. 

6 


Central and local relations 

Improving the quality of public services 
democratically has to involve decentralisation of 
power from central government to local 
government and local communities. This has 
been recognised in Europe where devolution of 
power is an issue in the current politics of all 
the nation states. 

I 
I
f one is serious about empowering citizens, one cannot concentrate 
power in the hands ofcentral government politicians and bureaucrats. 
In Britain, the ideas of decentralisation and democratisation stand in 
stark contrast to the centralisation which has characterised the UK 
Government's policies for the past 12 years. In fact, we have witnessed an 
unprecedented degree of centralisation of power under Mrs Thatcher. There 
have been about 130 separate pieces oflegislation affecting local government 
introduced since 1979, wrenching political control away from elected councillors 
and thus undermining local democracy. 

One of the ironies of the poll tax debacle is that after several unsuccessful 
attempts to control local authorities' spending, the Governmentfinally created 
a system which was forcing Councils to come into line. Yet the poll tax was 
so unpopular that it became a contributory factor in Mrs Thatcher's enforced 
resignation. The 'council tax' reflects a combination of the factors which 
characterise a centralist regime. Councils will be responsible for collecting 
only 15% of their income from local taxation. So ifthe Govemment cut their 
contribution to local govemment by one per cent, and a local council wishes to 
maintain its spending, the effect will be to raise the council tax by 7%. This 
gearing'effect severely constrains local discretion. Coupled with this lies the 
Conservatives' determination to maintain universal capping, effectively setting 
the upper limit on the tax councils can levy locally. This means that 
councils have lost the right to set their own budgets. 

At the same time, the Government is making increased use of financial 
systems to grant specific projects they wish to support, at the expense oflocal 
discretion on spending~ Thus 40% of the much-reduced housing investment 
programme allocated to London is top-sliced by the Department of the Envi


2 


ronment and .is spent on individually approved schemes favoured by 
7 


Govemment which meet central Govemment policies and guidelines. A range 
of specific grants have been introduced as part of the so-called inner-city 
initiative. Specific grants are established for education and the Home Office 
has created a new specific grant with their Safer Cities Programme intended 
to fund crime prevention initiatives in specific local areas. 

Funding spending in this way is not just highly centralised. It is grossly 
inefficient and ineffective. Ironically, it often reflects an old-fashioned desire 
by the Govemment to be seen to be doing something about a problem by 
throwing money at it;but it does not work well. Thus, for instance, in Islington 
we have employed six workers on Aids who are fully-funded by a specific grant 
from central Govemment, while we only employ one worker on the rest ofthe 
health education programme. The central grant regime has resulted in a 
distortion of priorities that makes no local sense. 

Another example comes with the much publicised City Challenge initiative 
recently launched by Michael Heseltine. Councils had to bid against each other 
for monies to fund schemes in their areas. According to the rhetoric, this was 
supposed to release entrepreneurial energies and enable communities to 
respond to t.heir own problems. But quite the opposite happened. Ministers 
selected the individual projects, and communities were subject to ministerial 
diktat. Central control offunding is bureaucratic, slow and wasteful. Councils 
bid for money, negotiate the details of a project, put up with delays in grant 
approvals and comply with an audit system which has more to do with meeting 
Treasury requirements than measuring the effectiveness ofthe spending. The 
process itselfadds greatly to the cost ofthe project. Most important, however, 
direct control by Govemment is based on the assumption that Govemment 
can best define a prescribed way of responding to a need. In practice, there 
may be a variety ofways ofmeeting policy aims, particularly when it involves 
meeting needs for personal social services. 

Local initiative 

Enabling local authorities and local communities to find their own solutions 
will not only result in more effective spending, but will also enable different 
initiatives to be explored at the local level, some of which will be better than 
others. Where they succeed they can be emulated by others; where they fail 
the cost of failure will not be too great. Yet where Govemment, of whatever 
political complexion, prescribes and fails, the cost in financial, social and 
political terms can be immense. One needs only to gaze at the system built 
tower blocks that litter the urban skyline to see the impact of such mistakes. 
Tower blocks were a nationally, not locally, initiated policy. 

The Govemment policy thrust towards centralisation stands in vivid contrast 
to whatis taking place in the private sector inthe UK, and the movement 
towards decentralisation in Europe. In the private sector, through a process 
ofmergers, large transnational companies, often enjoying a monopoly status, 

8 


are growing; but they are increasingly devolving their operations to a local 
level with strong decentralised cost centres, which are given independence 
provided they make a rate of return prescribed by the centre. We thus see 
strong centres of power with strong local centres. 

The Government, for its part, only allows limited decentralisation in public 
services where it wants to create a market framework. Itis in this context that 
we see the development ofhospital trusts and GP budgets; it is in this context 
that local management of schools has been introduced. It is in this context 
that the Next Steps Agencies are working. So the Government does not see 
decentralisation as a mechanism to empower communities orimprove quality. 
Itsees it as being linked to the privatisation ofpublic services. Where services 
are not to be privatised, control is centralised. 

In the rest of Europe, the trend is in the opposite direction, towards 
decentralisation.The primary thrust ofpublic policy has been to devolve power 
to local government. Countries have moved from varied starting points. 
France, for instance, despite the existence of nearly half a million elected 
representatives in various tiers ofgovernment, had a very centralised system 
of public administration until Mitterand became President. Since 1982 there 
has been a consistent policy of reform to decentralise power to local government 
structures. In Oslo, on the other hand, power was already devolved to 
local government. So the '80s have seen the innovative attempts to devolve 
power to neighbourhood area committees which control budgets allocated to 
them by the City Council. 

Europe ofthe regions 

Can Britain resist the world trend? In my view, it cannot. As power slowly 
shifts from the nation state to the European state, with the inevitable political 
developments which flow from the Single European Market, Europe will 
require a structure to deliver its policies and programmes. Strong regional 
government will emerge as that structure, and Government attempts to 
destroy local democracy will be thwarted. This process has already started. 
The structural funds which Brussels administers, specifically the Social Fund 
and the Regional Fund, are already allocated to regions. Clumsy ad hoc 
arrangements have been established by local authorities to administer these 
funds on a regional basis. More permanent regional structures will inevitably 
have to be developed. 

In the longer term, national government may shout and scream but they 
will not prevent the renewal of local democracy. While many feel depressed 
by the current fragile state of local democracy in the UK, the atteclpts to 
undermine local government will be seen, like the many other policies associated 
with the Thatcherera, as a temporary blip in the historybooks. The regret 
is that without strong local government at this point in time, Britain lacks a 
voice in the European arena to influence the development of policy and the 

9 


formulation ofdirectives from Brussels. While the Germans, with their strong 
regional structure ofLander, influence the direction ofpolicy, the British have 
no regional structure to argue our corner. 

Passing power to local government structures is a necessary condition for 
empowering local communities. Developments in Europe may help this. The 
Conservatives will resist it, but will Labour embrace it? The Labour Party is 
a traditionally centralist party. Traditional thinking is that equity and 
equality can only be obtained by centralist planning. There has been a shift 
towards decentralisation, but the Policy Review remains filled with new 
quangos which Labour intends to create to police and in some cases control 
and manage public services from the centre. 

In the same way that the Conservatives have sought to control policies in 
Labour strongholds, the Labour party seeks to implement its policies in 
Conservative areas, proclaiming that it seeks to defend the interests of the 
disadvantaged in these areas. So even the Labour Party appears reluctant to 
want to trust the people. I would argue that a socialist government should set 
the framework for equity and equality, but within that framework should 
empower people and communities to determine their own choices. 

So it may be necessary to legislate for minimum standards, but Government 
hands should keep offafter that. There will always be tensions between 
what should be a minimum standard and what should be left to local discretion. 
The current Policy Review leans towards over-emphasising minimum 
standards at the expense of democracy and empowerment. 

For instance, we clearly need legislation to ensure the right to housing for 
the homeless, but Government should not decree whether the homes are built 
in brick or prefabricated. Do we really need to legislate on the nutritional 
content of school meals? Is it not sufficient to ensure that the right to a free 
school meal is enshrined in legislation? Is an Educational Standards Commission 
with the power to intervene in an individual school the right way to 
improve quality in our schools? Would standards not be monitored more 
effectively at the local level? 

There are alternative mechanisms which will improve quality but which 
are based in democracy which I will describe in the next chapter. In this 
context, suffice it to say that c;entralist prescription will not necessarily result 
in greater equity and equality. Itwill create the bureaucracy and paternalism 
which people resent and reject. Government can seek to influence the direction 
of public policy within the minimum standards laid down in law. It could, for 
instance, give more grant to local authorities who provide more nursery places 
rather than allocate resources simply on need. Rewarding performance is a 
legitimate and effective mechanism for influencing the development of specific 
programmes. Directing and controlling those programmes from the centre i~ 
inefficient and ineffective. Itdoes not sit well with a democratic socialist value 
system, which is about empowering people to control their own destiny. 

10 



Quality, equality,democracy 


Everybody is in favour of quality, just as 
everybody is in favour of goodness.That is why 
it is so easy for all political parties to adopt the 
same language. 

B 
B
ut the values and aims behind the words are very different, so the 
solutions and outcomes for individuals and communities will also 
be different. And as John Major is quickly discovering, the political 
reality of delivering quality is difficult and often not as consensual 
as the rhetoric suggests. 

During the last few years a number of Labour-controlled authorities have 
developed a range of initiatives reflecting a quality approach to the delivery 
of services at a local level. This innovation in itself shows the great strength 
of local democracy. Policies tested at the local level, if successful, can be 
emulated elsewhere. Equally, solutions which work for one community may 
be totally inappropriate in another context. 

Developing responsive and valued services has meant putting into practice 
policies which bring together three important elements. First, a cultural 
change is required in the management ofpublic services. Moving to a culture 
which prioritises outcomes for customers and citizens from one which traditionally 
concerned itself with bureaucratic and professional interests, and 
looked primarily at inputs, is critical and takes time. Our concern for quality 
has meant a radical change in the management and organisation of our 
services. I look at some ofthese changes in detail in the next chapter. Second, 
defin!ng and delivering quality cannot be achieved in isolation from local 
communities. So policies which open up our services to public account, involve 
people actively in shapingthe services and democratise ourservices, have been 
key. Third, a concern for equality has underpinned our practice. That has 
involved recognising that people's opportunity and experience is not the same, 
so their needs are different. Therefore the services we provide have to be 
diverse to bring an equitable outcome. 

By contrast, the Audit Commission and the Conservatives have prioritised 
cost in assessing performance. Most Audit Commission value for money 
studies, carried out by accountants, emphasise the financial savings councils 
should be making. The Conservatives' obsession with cutting costs is reflected 
in their election campaign slogan: 'A Conservative Council costs you less'. 

3 


11 


There is nothing socialist about inefficiency. Indeed allowing public money 
to be wasted undermines the socialist purpose ofredistribution. But value is 
not just about money and there are different ways of measuring efficiency. 
Mechanisms to assess quality and value require a different approach. That 
approach is more complex and difficult and so many of our policies are at a 
developmental stage. For example, Labour authorities have been developing 
performance indicators which assess quality as well as efficiency. In the past 
in schools, we may have looked at the number of teachers employed or the 
number ofchildren sitting GCSE exams. Now we examine how many children 
achieved grade C or above in their GCSE exams as a measure ofoutcomes. We 
can measure graffiti, we can look at ways in which parents participate in 
partnership with schools, we can look at out-of-school activities provided for 
children and we can monitor teacher absenteeism. All ofthis helps inform an 
assessment ofquality. 

Quality audits 

Quality audits are another tool which have been designed by a number of 
Labour councils. These differ from traditional performance review approaches 
in that they bring customers into the performance review process, thus 
ensuring that the service meets the real needs and aspirations of the community 
and not the needs as perceived by professional providers. Again this 
reflects a divergence ofapproach between the two main political parties. The 
Tories, determined to privatise, are not concerned with establishingstructures 
which involve the consumer in shaping the service. So a hospital trust, staffed 
by professional managers, becomes immune to the direct influence ofpatients. 
GPs with their budgets may have some say, but it is the patient who is the 
client, not the doctor. 

By contrast, in Islington, when we undertook a quality audit ofour meals-
on-wheels service, we involved users of the service. We established that our 
nutritional .meals were not being eaten by a significant number of elderly 
people whose cultural and religious preferences had been ignored. So we now 
intend to offer a range of menus which reflects the ethnic mix among the 
elderly. 

The development of customer contracts in Labour Councils is proving 
popular, so much so that Mr Major wants to copy them as part ofhis Citizen's 
Charter. But because he is coming from such a different angle, he is getting it 
wrong. For Mr Major the contract is about redress, not about quality, accountability 
or equity. For Labour Councils, customercontracts are a way ofopening 
up local services to public account. They make it clear to all -consumers, 
workers and policy-makers -what is expected from a service. They are an 
effective management tool which enables people to understand services and 
see where things are going wrong. 

The process of establishing and monitoring a contract is as important as 

12 


the contract itself. So, for instance, in York where they are developing a 
contracton housingbenefits, they startedby undertaking a quality audit. They 
involved their own managers as well as outside experts from Shelter, the 
Chamber of Commerce and children's charities. They undertook extensive 
market research among users of the benefits service. 

Customer contracts 

The final report recommending changes in management practices and laying 
out terms for the customer contract is being tested again with service users 
before implementation, so that it really does meet their requirements. Customer 
contracts are now being piloted in a number ofauthorities across a wide 
range of services. In my own authority, we have one on refuse collection and 
another for our swimming pools. We are extending into meals-on-wheels, 
housing benefits, street-sweeping, housing repairs and sports centres. We are 
also developing contracts in both education and community care. For each 
service we develop a clear and specified set of rights and responsibilities for 
the public and the Council. These come out ofthe quality audit process where 
management practices are reviewed and users consulted. 

So on refuse collection, while residents undertake to use safety standard 
refuse bins, the Council agrees when it will collect the rubbish, promises that 
the dustbins will be returned upright with the lids on, that gates will be 
properly closed and that spillage will be cleaned up immediately. Residents 
have access to a hot-line to complain ifwe fail to deliver and we promise action 
within 48 hours. There is no financial redress because we think it is inappropriate. 
Residents want their bins efficiently emptied. They do not want a fiver 
in their pockets. The sanction which underpins this contract and is appropriate 
to it, is that the refuse gang have a financial incentive which is dependent 
on their meeting their obligations. 

The blanket u·se of financial redress is wrong. Ifyour train is late, money 
in your pocket may make you feel better, but it will not assuage your boss nor 
will it help you to get to work on time. You want the train to be punctual. 
Equally, fining British Rail will not necessarily help. The more they give out 
in redress, the less money they have to invest in better trains, and therefore 
the more likely it becomes that the service will deteriorate even further. 
Similarly, giving you your money back ifyou are suffering from Alzheimer's 
disease is not going to help to get treatment and making you travel 50 miles 
for your varicose veins operation is not the empowerment most patients want. 
There are services in which financial redress as a sanction is appropriate, but 
to gear the system around redress is to miss the point: contracts exist to 
improve quality. 

Customer contracts are easier to devise for some services than others. In 
Islington, we are now working in two more complex areas education and 
community care. In community care, we are piloting a scheme whereby after 

13 



we have assessed the needs ofthe individual person, we will offer a 'guarantee' 
ofthe help we can provide to enable that person to live in the community. The 
guarantee will be constructed around the individual's needs and will have 
regard to financial constraints. It could cover anything from access to adult 
education and leisure services, to home help hours, facilities in a day centre 
or adaptations to the home. 

Quality education 

In education, the development of a home-school contract will be piloted soon. 
Here the contract is a constructive mechanism to encourage a partnership 
between the school and the home which is widely recognised as important in 
raising standards. Also, because it is an individual contract, it is related to the 
individual child's ability and potential rather than the norm. Through a 
personal interview, parents will agree to accept responsibility for things like 
regular attendance, while the school will undertake to have a teacher in front 
ofthe class, to provide equipment, to cover certain curriculum areas, and will 
aim to raise the child's level in basic subjects to agreed targets. 

Again, paying teachers by results will not work. In fact it could have the 
opposite effect of lowering standards as teachers aim low to make sure they 
get their money. Equally giving parents cash will not compensate for their 
children missing out on quality education. So we are looking fit other ways of 
underpinning the contract in this complex area. We shall use the teacher 
assessment process to monitor and improve teachers' performance and to 
judge the teacher's competence in making sure the home-school contract is 
met .We are considering an intemal tribunal mechanism to use as a sanction 
with parents and pupils, with pupils being suspended or excluded as ultimate 
sanctions if they fail to meet their side of the contract. No doubt we shall 
modify the mechanisms as we leam from experience. 

In my view the existence of the contract in itself is important. Openly 
agreeing a set of objectives acts as a mechanism to improve standards. That 
has certainly been our experience with the customer contract in swimming 
pools. Here, because each customer has to pay fur a swim, if we fail to meet 
the terms of our contract they are compensated with a free entry to our 
swimming pools at another time. The manager ofone ofthe ~ools, when asked 
how many times he had compensated customers, retorted 'never' and that it 
was his management aim to ensure that he never would have to compensate 
anyone. 

Customer contracts are only part ofLabour Councils' quality programmes. 
Other policies are being developed. Much more extensive use is made of 
consumer research, something which was considered profligate by the Conservatives 
and the media a few years ago. Only ifyou know what people think 
oftheir services by asking them, can you take the appropriate steps to improve 
quality. Managers are being encouraged to sample services; social services 

14 


managers sleeping in old people's homes, planning officers negotiating their 
area in wheelchairs, chief executives sitting on reception desks. This gives 
managers a taste ofwhatitis like to be a consumerofservices and helps ensure 
that management decisions are more user-orientated as a result. 

Labour councils are also encouraging complaints mechanisms and promoting 
advocacy organisations. People are naturally defensive when their work 
is criticised. Changing this so that people see complaints as a way ofopening 
services to public account and as a learning process is an important way of 
promoting quality. Equally, supporting organisations which fight on behalf 
ofindividuals or groups is essential ifone wants to achieve empowerment for 
everyone. So in Islington, not only do we fund a number of voluntary organisations 
which act as advocates on behalfoflocal people, we also have simplified 
and publicised our complaints procedures, making sure it is easy to complain, 
and we have established a Central Complaints Unit, which monitors complaints 
throughout the Council, spreads best practice, and provides an internal 
ombudsman capacity. 

The Conservatives appear unable to understand this. Their flagship authority, 
Wandsworth, has cut the funding oflaw centres, thus undermining the 
advocacy capacity. The Government, stung by criticism of education by the 
Inspectorate, has grasped the opportunity of the retirement of the Chief 
Inspector of Schools to see if they can neutralise the Inspectorate in the 
Department ofEducation and Science. 

Decentralising Islington 

Some of the most exciting developments in local government have come from 
our decentralisation policies and from attempts to create new forms of active 
participation by local people in the running oflocal services. In Islington, we 
have devolved many ofour services into 24 neighbourhood offices. All our social 
services, housing services, and environmental health services are located in 
these offices within a quarter of a mile ofevery resident in the borough. Rent 
and poll tax can be paid in the neighbourhood office, welfare rights workers 
are located there and planning applications are fed through the office. So any 
citizen can walk through one door and pay their poll tax, deal with a housing 
repair, complain about a noisy neighbour, discuss their child's admission to 
an under fives' facility and arrange their elderly mother's adaptations to her 
bath. The eo-location of professionals in one office has undoubtedly improved 
quality for the customers. Co-ordination and accessibility is better and people 
now deal with named and known individuals rather than anonymous bureaucrats. 


We are demonstrating improvements in many traditional ways. We have 
doubled output of day-to-day repairs;there has been a reduction in the number 
of empty properties in the borough, and we are one of the very few London 
authorities reducing·our rent arrears despite increased rents, reduced benefits 

15 



and growing poverty. Being closer to local communities has also meant we 
have discovered many hidden needs. For example, in one neighbourhood office 
which had a relatively normal social work caseload before decentralisation, 
we experienced an explosion in the number ofchildren on the 'at risk' register 
when the neighbourhood office opened. 

There was and remains professional resistance to decentralisation. Professional 
workers are used to being protected by their professional structures. 
Social workers, who feel particularly vulnerable at the moment with constant 
media attacks, feel more comfortable if they are working in the traditional 
set-up of a Social Services department with traditional professional support 
mechanisms. In our neighbourhood offices, while a social worker can obtain 
professional support from a central team, they are managed by a neighbourhood 
officer who may well not be a qualified social worker. 

Equity in standards is maintained by extensive monitoring by the centre. 
That monitoring has, of itself, assisted in framing policy developments for 
improved quality. Decentralisation has not been cheap. Running 24 small 
offices rather than three departments does cost, but value interms ofimproved 
outcomes for individuals and for communities has made it worthwhile. Of 
course we still have a long way to go, but the early measurements are positive. 
For instance in one of our recent exit polls we found that over a third of the 
people using the neighbourhood office had some form of disability. So, by 
making ourselves more accessible to people, we had improved equality of 
access to a traditionally disadvantaged group. 

Neighbourhood forums 

We are also evolving new ways ofenabling consumers to take part in framing 
services and determining priorities. We have encouraged the formation of 
neighbourhood forums for each office. Local people are elected to these forums 
in a framework which protects our equal opportunities policy, ensuring representation 
of traditionally under-represented groups. The forums meet regularly 
and as many as 100 people attend their forum to discus~ local issues. 
People, including many who have never done so before, participate in a very 
real way in public affairs. The forums have become such an important focus 
that the local beat policeman or policewoman feels obliged to attend, although 
the London police are only accountable to the Home Secretary. 

Budgets are gradually being devolved to neighbourhood forums so thatthey 
determine spending choices. At present environmental budgets are decided at 
local level and the funding of local voluntary organisations are also agreed 
there. Next year the £20 million housing repairs budget will be devolved. This 
experiment in decentralisation is facilitating a genuine empowerment oflocal 
communities. Itis notjust about power being transferred from central government 
politicians to local politicians; it is about power being transferred to 
ordinary people so that they take the decisions which affect their day-to-day 

16 


lives. 

The practice of Labour Councils reflects differences in the approach to 
public services between the main political parties. The Conservatives seek to 
privatise while Labour seeks to democratise. The Conservatives believe that 
bringing the market and competition into public services is the key to improving 
them. Labour's approach is to open up services to public account in a way 
which empowers ordinary people. And perhaps most important, Labour is 
actually doing it, while the Tories are simply talking about it. 

17 



4 


Labour councils and their 
workforce 

There is a tendency among politicians from all 
sides· to dress up their new agenda for public 
services with a series of identifiable and visible 
gimmicks. 

I 
I
n reality, the objectives we setourselves can only be achieved by a radical 
change in the culture of managing public sector organisations. That is 
why ideas like public service contracts should not be seen as ends in 
themselves but as tools to further the aim of improving quality and 
changing the culture. The key change has to come by breaking with the 
traditional approach of a producer-led ethos to one which prioritises the 
consumer. It is the traditional producer-dominated culture which has led to 
services being perceived as bureaucratic and unresponsive. 

At its most extreme, the obsession with producer interests has resulted in 
appalling abuses. The 'pindown' practices in Staffordshire children's homes 
reflect this ethos. The regime which developed was one which suited the needs 
of the staff, not the children. So, for example, while the staff did not actually 
lock children in their rooms, they slept outside the rooms on mattresses laid 
against the door to stop the children getting out. The result is that today, one 
young woman, who was subjected to the pindown regime, dares not close her 
own bathroom door because the room is the same size as the pindown room. 
A young man who also experienced pindown continued to wet himself when 
he came home because he was used to doing so while he waited for staff to 
allow him to go to the toilet. These are extreme abuses which can arise when 
the interests of stafftake precedence. 

There are endless otherless dramatic examples in the public sector ofwhere 
a producer-led culture inhibits quality. In my own authority, a quality audit 
ofour old people's homes revealed that bread was buttered in the evening for 
the following morning because that fitted in with staffrotas, so it arrived stale 
with the residents' breakfast the next day. Similarly, in the past, refuse was 
collected in the early momings to fit in with the dustmen's routine. No matter 
that shops, restaurants and businesses put their refuse out in the early 
evening, giving 12 hours when dogs and vandals could destroy the bags and 

18 


litter was spread through the streets. 

Challenging the producer approach is particularly difficult for Labour 
politicians with their traditional trade union relationships, for putting the 
consumer first involves radical changes in working practices.Yet there is an 
essential convergence ofinterest between the trade unions and the politicians 
on which we need to build. If, between us, we do not maintain confidence in 
the worth ofpublic services by improving their quality, we shall not be able to 
resist the continuing privatisation ofthose services. Then more ofthe jobs the 
trade unions seek to defend will go. Both sides need to recognise this common 
interest as they deal with the changes. 

Further, while Labour politicians leam to prioritise consumers, trade 
unionists should also recognise that working in the public sector is not the 
same as working for General Motors. Managers in the public sector are not in 
the business of maximising profits, but providing services; the industrial 
relations approach should reflect this very different context. There have been 
a series of very difficult industrial relations situations as the ethos has 
changed. It is both ironic and depressing to observe that the greatest resistance 
to change with consequential bitter strikes has often occurred in Labourcontrolled 
authorities. Yet the changes which the politicians seek are vital for 
the long term. 

The housing dispute in Lewisham in 1987 provides a classic example. 
Members of staff in the Housing Advisory Centre had met with abuse and 
some violence from members of the public who wanted a home from the 
borough because they were homeless. The trade unions responded to this 
difficult situation by demanding unbreakable screens which are commonplace 
in Social Security offices. This would have meant reversing Lewisham's policy 
of providing an accessible, responsive and consumer-friendly service. So the 
Council offered extra training, they were prepared to increase the number of 
people on duty at any one time and offered counselling and advice to staff. But 
they were not prepared to provide the screens. Sadly the entire council went 
on strike for four weeks until the matter died down. In the end there were no 
permanent screens in Lewisham. 

Accepting change 

Such conflicts are counter-productive to the interests of both workers and 
politicians. Yet we have to recognise thateverybody finds change difficult. This 
is especially so for professional white collar workers. Manual workers seem 
far more ready to respond to changes in the way they work; perhaps that is 
because they more often wear both hats as workers and consumers of public 
services. For the professional, changing practices, opening their work to public 
account and seeking to democratise the services is often strongly resisted. This 
is partly because we are seeking these changes at a time when there are 
financial cuts. It is also because we are seeking the changes at a time when 

19 


public sector workers are under attack and under-valued. However, while it 
may be a difficult time to achieve change, if we resist change we shall 
unwittingly be colluding with others who wish to undermine the services in 
which we believe. Teachers should therefore not jump up and down when 
councils publish outcomes for children in schools. Social workers should not 
claim professional superiority when their child care practices are questioned. 
Professionals should recognise that listening to customers and empowering 
them to help shape the services the professionals administer will improve the 
quality and popularity of these same services. 

At the same time, politicians have to recognise that quality services need 
quality employees. So valuing public sector workers is vital. If people feel 
valued, they will not feel so defensive about the status quo. Prioritising 
training to achieve the cultural change is imperative, however difficult it may 
be to sustain that in a period ofcuts. Far too little attention has been given to 
training in the public sector. Training which has occurred has often been for 
professionals to add to their qualifications. Few manual workers have received 
training, despite the fact that they are often the front line staffwho could be 
the best ambassadors for public services. 

Involving staff at all levels in the process of change also helps. A growing 
number of Labour authorities are employing quality circles as a means to 
facilitate staffinvolvement. Service providers discuss how they see the service, 
what is good about it, what could be improved and what needs to be done to 
achieve those improvements. Ifboth sides recognise their common purpose, if 
both sides approach change in a positive way, then both sides will adjust to 
the new relationships which are necessary if we are to provide relevant 
services for the twenty-first century. 

20 



The way forward 

5 

The 1980s provided lessons for both the left and 
the right in the field of public services. The right 
learned that people were not prepared to accept 
that individual self-interest should always take 
precedence over the collective needs of a 
community. People want services which work 
for them and which are properly funded by the 
State. 

T
T
he left learned that for public services to be popular they had to 

change from being bureaucratic and paternalistic. People want 

collective services to be delivered in a way which meets the needs 

and aspirations ofthe individual consumer. Achieving these desired 
changes is an agenda with which the left is more comfortable than the right, 
because the importance ofpublic services is a natural part ofour value system. 
Perhaps that is why Labour Councils have been doing things while the 
Conservatives are still only expounding the rhetoric. 

Labour's way forward should be to build on the best practices of Labour 
Councils. Doing so would constitute one way of providing hope of a real 
improvement in the quality of life for ordinary people -a hope which could 
inspire the positive support ofvoters. Labour Councils have learned about how 
to improve public services. The shiftfrom an obsession with inputs to a concern 
for outcomes, the change from prioritising the producer to prioritising the 
consumer, the work on transforming the management culture in public services, 
the experiments in democratising services as an alternative to privatising 
them -all this is well advanced in local government. 

The forthcoming Labour Government should build on this experience in 
formulating its programme. What we have actually been doing in our loc&l 
communities can provide important signposts for a modern Labour party.This 
is not only true for informing Labour's approach to local government, it is also 
true for the many services which currently come under the direct control of 
government, from social security to prisons. 

21 


If we are to progress however, we need a genuine commitment to decentralisation, 
flexibility and diversity. Elements in the Labour Party still hold 
to the view that quality and equality can only be attained by uniformity of 
standards determined and controlled centrally. What I have tried to demonstrate 
is that equality and quality are more likely to be achieved ifthe people 
who use services are enabled to construct rather than simply receive those 
services. 

The traditional socialist politician who paternalistically provides must 
become a thing of the past. The professionals who believe that their status 
means that they know best must start listening and responding to legitimate 
individual aspirations. The accountants' obsession with how much we spend 
and how much things cost must be modified to include an assessment of how 
effectively services are meeting needs. 

Flexibility 

In practical terms this means that the legislative framework has to allow 
flexibility at the local level. For instance, central government should not 
demand a certain number of meals on wheels per thousand of elderly, in the 
hope that this will ensure good and equitable care in the community for people 
wherever they live. There may well be elderly people who prefer a microwave 
and a deep freeze to the daily meals on wheels service. Policies have to be 
constructed in a framework which allows this'flexibility and individual choice. 

Alternatives to a programme of endless minimum standards have to be 
developed to promote equity. These alternatives should include features like 
regular inspections, rigorous monitoring and evaluation of the services and 
the open publication of data which measures the effectiveness of services in 
meeting individual and collective need. Opening up services to public account 
is in itself a way by which recalcitrant councils will be persuaded, shamed or 
forced by their voters into providing and improving services. 

We have all been vitriolic in our criticism of the centralisation associated 
with Mrs Thatcher; we should be. wary of falling into the same trap when in 
Government. So how, people often ask, do we ensure that our policies are 
implemented in Conservative-controlled areas? 

The stick oflegislation will remain relevant but we should be wary oftrying 
to control too much from the centre. It does not work effectively and it 
undermines the democratic processes which should underpin all we do. Socialists 
should achieve change by persuading people and winning support for their 
policies, not by imposing their will. 

Certainly Government can exert influence and spread ideas. They can also 
provide carrots by, for instance, rewarding Councils who perform effectively. 
One can give authorities more grant if they provide more facilities for the 
under fives, not simply if they need more facilities. Most important, Government 
can insist that authorities submit their services to external validation. 

22 


They can insist on publishing outcomes and they can compare performance 
between authorities. 

Labour's proposed Quality Commission should essentially assist performance 
rather than prescribe solutions. It should encourage and support 
authorities by spreading ideas on good practice, by helping with inspections, 
by monitoring authorities to ensure they carry out things like quality audits 
and by publicising information on quality. Doing much more than this will 
distort the proper balance of power between central government and local 
communities. 

In fact we should encourage and celebrate diversity as an effective way of 
responding to different aspirations. What works for one person or one community 
may not work for another. To achieve equality ofoutcome, we have to 
recognise that people start from different positions with different needs, so 
services have to be different to achieve equity. 

A power of general competence would be welcome; this would free local 
communities to take whatever action they believe lies in the interests oftheir 
citizens, unless it was specifically prohibited by the law. At present, councils 
can only act ifthere is a specific power permitting such action. 

Transforming the culture of public services is a huge task.Itis enormously 
challenging and has preoccupied many of us for a number of years. Previous 
attempts to excite interest in the issue ofquality have until recently fallen on 
deaf ears. Now suddenly it seems as ifthe quality of public services will form 
part ofthe battleground for the next general election. But simply highlighting 
the issue will not produce instant solutions, and publicity gimmicks will 
quickly be exposed for what they are. Producing quality public services needs 
hard graft. Even the most progressive councils feel they are still on the first 
rung of the ladder to success in this area. 

Most important, as democratic socialists we have to be explicit about the 
framework in which we are operating. The words all politicians use may be 
the same, but it is the framework which makes the left distinctive. Promoting 
quality and equality through democracy should be our agenda for the 1990s. 
By linking the three notions we can build a programme which will capture the 
imagination of voters. 

23 


Recent Fabian Publications 

The USSR and the West: a medium-term strategy Adrian Hyde-Price. 
Pamphlet No 548. July 1991. £3.50 The West needs a medium-term strategy 
to bridge the gap between short term considerations of whether to aid the 
Soviet Union and long term visions of a common European home. The Soviet 
Union should be included in pan-European institutions such as an energy 
community or an environmental agency. 

Economic Short Termism: a cure for the British disease David 
Pitt-Watson. Pamphlet No 54 7. July 1991.£3.50 Ifthe problem ofShort-termism 
in British industry is to be solved, we must first tackle the failings ofboth 
the City and industrial management. This pamphlet puts forward 16 specific 
recommendations of the Labour Finance and Industry Group. 

Labour's Environment ProtectionExecutive Ann Taylor. Discussion 
Paper No 6. July 1991. £5.00 Gives details of the structure, powers and 
responsibilities ofLabour's proposed Environment Protection Executive, and 
explains how it will interact with local authorities and other existing institutions, 
and how it will raise revenue. 

Regulation and Ownership ofthe ~orUtilities Michael Waterson. 
Discussion Paper No 5. May 1991. £10.00 Regulation is necessary to prevent 
abuse of national monopolies but the type of regulation appropriate depends 
on the specific industry. For telecommunications, light touch regulation is 
sufficient, but for other privitised utilities US-style regulatory commissions 
should be tried. 

South Africa: Out of the Laager? Martin Plaut. Pamphlet 546. May 
1991. £3.50. A lucid and informed account ofrecent changes and prospects for 
peace, which argues that despite recent problems, the underlying pressures 
on both the government and the ANC make a negotiated settlement likely. 

Making a minimum wage work Fred Bayliss. Pamphlet 545. May 1991. 
£3.50 A minimum wage could have major benefits for the low paid, without 
sparking off adverse economic consequences, but only if it is introduced 
gradually and the correct steps are taken to mitigate its effects. 

Facts for socialists ed Giles Wright. April 1991. £3.00 Page-by-page 
summaries of the Conservative Government's record on issues such as the 
economy, education, housing, the environment, and Labour's policy proposals 
on each. Illustrated. 


Targeting competitive industries Paul Geroski and G K Knight. 
Pamphlet 544. April 1991. £3.50 To develop competitive advantage, clusters 
ofgeographically-concentrated industrial activity should be encouraged. The 
unevenness of economic development must be accepted. Policy needs to be 
sector-specific and locally-implemented. 

The democratic deficit and the European Parliament Juliet Lodge. 
Discussion Paper No 4. March 1991. £5.00 Governments operating within the 
EC framework are not subject to adequate democratic scrutiny. Attempts to 
plug this deficit by increasing the involvement of national parliaments are 
misplaced. It can only be done by increasing the powers of the European 
Parliament. 

East meets West: policies for a common European home Keuin 
Featherstone and John Hiden. Discussion Paper 3. February 1991. £5.00 The 
EC needs to define its Ostpolitik, which must include a timetable for East 
European states to join the Community. The EC would be better able to help, 
and to absorb new members, ifit speeded up the process ofits own economic 
and monetary integration. 

A Europeanenvironmentcharter Nick Robins. Pamphlet 543. January 
1991. £3.50 Outlines the case for an Environment Charter, on the lines of the 
Social Charter, to specify rights and obligations of the Community, member 
states and individuals. Also calls for an accompanying action programme of 
measures to be completed by the end of the century. 

The hidden wiring: power, politics and the constitution Peter Hennessy. 
Discussion Paper No 2. December 1990. £5.00 If Parliament is to 
function effectively, a vigorous Opposition, well-resourced select committees 
and 'awkward' backbenchers are all essential. This underlines the need to get 
the right calibre of individual into the Commons. 

A public services pay policy William Brown and Bob Row thorn. Pamphlet 
542. November 1990. £3.00 Calls for a Pay Advisory Commission, on the 
model ofACAS, to provide the data on which comparability exercises and pay 
negotiations can be carried out. 

Telecommunications in the UK: a policy for the 1990s N icholas 
Garnham. Discussion Paper No 1. October 1990.£5.00 British Telecom should 
be broken up into ten regional companies, to improve services and management 
efficiency. Further, Labour should abandon its commitment to introduce 
a national broad-band fibre optic network, which would be expensive and of 
uncertain value. 


Quality, Equality, Democracy: improving public services 

The two main parties may now be using the same language 
about public services -quality, consumerism, empowerment but 
there is no consensus in the values which lie behind the 
rhetoric. 

Margaret Hodge, leader of Islington Council and chair of the 
Association of London Authorities, looks at the experience of 
local Labour authorities and argues that an increase in 
participation by those who use the services is the only way to 
improve the quality. This can be achieved by devolving council 
activities to neighbourhood offices, encouraging complaints 
mechanisms and promoting advocacy organisations. Where 
Conservatives seek to privatise, Labour should seek to 
democratise. 

If one is serious about empowering citizens, one cannot 
concentrate power in the hands of central government 
politicians and bureaucrats. Govemment should legislate for 
minimum standards, but beyond that local discretion should be 
allowed, even if this conflicts with the priorities of central 
government. 

The Fabian Society 
brings together those 

who wish to relate 
democratic socialism 
to practical plans for 
building a better society 
in a changing 
world. It is affiliated 
to the Labour Party, 
and anyone who is 
eligible for membership 
of the Labour 
Party can join; others 
may become associate 
members. For details 
of Fabian membership, 
publications and activities, 
write to: 
Simon Crine, General 
Secretary, Fabian Society, 
11 Dartmouth 
St, London SWlH 9BN. 

£3.50