CONTEMPORARY RESOLUTIONS AND CONFERENCE EDITION CAMPAIGN No 66 September 2003 for labour party democracy Widening inequalities Foundation Hospitals Trusts [like Top-Up fees] rep- ● resent a “Government Initiative” that is both un- Foundation hospitals popular and uncalled for. The idea was not in our General Election manifesto and hasn’t even been ap- Conference notes the strong opposition to Foundation proved by “Partnership in Power”. Hospital Trusts voiced in debates in the summer in the More seriously, like other attempts to “marketise” House of Commons, in the House of Lords. ( and our Welfare State, it seeks to re-introduce competition probably at the TUC) between service-providers in a way which will widen Conference welcomes the massive increase in spending still further the existing inequalities in our society. The on the National Health Service announced by the “freedom” to “shop” around between increasingly un- Government, and looks forward to UK health investment equal providers may benefit the rich and mobile. What rising to the European average. This long-term most of us want, however, (and what fewer of us would investment will help to deliver the high-quality health get under FHTs), is a consistently good standard of service demanded by the electorate at the 2001 service wherever we happen to live. General Election. Even if one were to accept Alan Milburn’s insistence Conference fears, however, that the introduction of that that the creation of FHTs would not in itself be Priva- Foundation Hospital Trusts would undermine this tisation, it is undeniable that the move would open that progress. The idea of Foundation Hospital Trusts is part door invitingly to any future administration, The Arkinses of a new competitive market being introduced into the and Jarvises must already be rubbing their hands. National Health Service in England, with hospitals Apologists for FHTs insist that they are really a “so- competing for patients. Foundation Hospitals would cialist” concept with affinities to mutualism and the co- fragment the system, widen inequalities and undermine operative movement. But giving a local patient or staff- the collaborative principles now being re-established. member a seat on an FHT board cannot conceal the essen- Conference believes that the Government should work tial anti-cooperative nature of the project as a whole. for the improvement of all NHS hospitals, not for the There is indeed a debate to be had about the need to improvement of hospitals in some areas at the expense democratise the NHS, but that debate is impeded rather of those in others. Foundation Hospitals would be than advanced by the concept of FHTs. Our local accountable only to an unelected regulator, not the health services certainly need to offer more of a voice Secretary of State. The idea of Foundation Hospitals has to Local Government, patients’ forums and joint staff not been approved by the Labour Party’s policy-making committees – but pleas for democracy come strangely process and was not included in Labour’s General from those who previously campaigned for our Com- Election Manifesto. munity Health Councils to be not so much strength- Conference believes that Foundation Hospital Trusts ened as abolished. would undermine Labour’s attempt to build a successful Under the Government’s proposals, moreover, the over- modern National Health Service, and calls on the all control of FHTs would lie not with a properly account- Government to withdraw the sections of the Health and able Secretary of State but with an all-powerful unelected Social Care Bill that establish Foundation Hospital regulator. That is the opposite of a democratic advance. Trusts. Scores of Labour MPs have already voted against FHTs in the House of Commons, but scores of others have so far lead in unequivocally rejecting the whole divisive con- only abstained. Others have actually voted in favour. cept. A good number of “contemporary” motions will This year’s Party Conference must therefore take a greatly help to achieve this. This Newsletter contains our suggestions for contemporary resolutions to the 2003 Conference. CLPs can submit one contemporary resolution. provided they haven’t already submitted a constitutional amendment this year. Contemporary resolutions must be on subjects not “substantively addressed in the NPF or NEC Reports”, or refer to events occurring between the beginning of August and the closing date for contemporary resolutions which would make the motion more “contemporary” z See pages 4 and 5 for other suggested contemporary resolutions 1 False Assumptions: 2003 National Policy Forum Consultation This year’s National Policy Forum income spent on public expenditure in The question begs other questions. (NPF) consultative documents cir- 1997 requires increased taxation. This Any debt means paying interest. Hence culated to CLPs include papers on unpalatable truth is studiously evaded. borrowing is generally more expensive “The Best Education for All”, “Jus- The Tories successfully peddled the than paying out of funds raised by taxa- tice, Security and Community” and fiction that it was possible to improve tion. Given the long period of under- “Britain in the Global Economy”. the infrastructure and existing social investment in essential industries and They will be discussed, but not voted services while reducing public ex- public services, (something which pre- on, at this year’s Conference. The fi- penditure and the level of direct taxa- dates Tory rule), it wouldn’t be realis- nal policy decisions will be taken at tion. Over 18 years of Tory rule the tic to attempt to raise the necessary 2004 Conference after comments from standard rate of income tax was cut funds by taxation alone. In the circum- CLPs, affiliated organizations, local by approximately one third (from 34% stances, if the long term decline is to be forums as well as those made at this to 23 %) and the top rate halved (from reversed, there is nothing wrong with year’s Conference have been consid- 83% to 40%). borrowing to invest in public services. ered. There will be two sessions of The most significant effect of these Borrowing, however, should be under- the NPF before the 2004 Conference changes, however, was not an overall taken by the conventional route (gov- where the recommended text can be reduction in tax, it was the redistribu- ernments can borrow cheaply on the amended, provided any amendment tion of taxation from higher to lower open market). gains the support of about 35 del- income groups, with regressive indi- The “New Labour” government is un- egates. rect taxes replacing progressive direct dertaking huge borrowing to improve Like last year the documents have ones. Nevertheless the reductions in public services but does so through the a number of drawbacks. One is that direct taxation together with the pri- PFI. Experience shows that unless work- the consultation does not include vatization of national assets and the ers’ pay and conditions are reduced, pri- some contentious policy issues like opening up of public services to pri- vate finance initiatives turn out to be more Foundation Hospitals, University Top vate enterprise meant neglect of in- costly and less effective than public in- Up Fees or Britain’s support for the frastructure and essential public serv- vestment. A fully funded public sector is United States National Missile De- ices. better able to provide quality universal fence System. The documents urge Unfortunately just as the electorate services at a reasonable cost. PFIs and members to respond to set questions woke up to the damage the Tories PPPs add unnecessary cost, remove ac- which assume agreement both with were causing, the new Labour leader- countability, deplete public resources and the text and the way the questions are ship became convinced that unless the mortgage the future of public services. phrased. Delegates to the NPF should Party’s traditional goals were jetti- They have often resulted in industrial ac- therefore be encouraged to submit soned, Labour would be condemned tion by pressurised workforces. The cur- amendments whenever they disagree. to permanent opposition. Hence the rent emphasis in the NHS on consumer This means that responses may have ”New Labour” leadership continued choice and local financial autonomy (e.g. to start by questioning the questions. with Tory policies under a new flag. Foundation Hospitals and patient shop- Many of the objectives in the It decided to stick to Tory spending ping ) is not compatible with maintain- documents are desirable. But when we limits and to oppose progressive ing universal standards, since resources consider education, pensions, trans- taxation.Instead of capitalising on the will flow to facilities in wealthier areas port, system of justice or environment growing Tory unpopularity and expos- and be sought after by middle class pa- the discussion will inevitably impinge ing the Tory talk on tax for the fraud tients to the detriment of the less privi- on our ability and willingness to pay. that it was, “New Labour” adopted it. leged. The comparison of Britain with other Labour thus missed the opportunity The extent, of borrowing however, advanced industrial countries shows provided by its victories in 1997 and should be determined by the ability to re- that the proportion of national income 2001 to reverse the trend towards in- pay. Any borrowing however needs to be we spend on public expenditure is less equality. The consultative documents balanced by progressive taxation includ- than in theirs. In 2001 the EU aver- make the same erroneous assump- ing the reintroduction of much higher rates age level of public expenditure was tions. This at a time when it is becom- of tax for those living on well above av- 44.5% of GDP, the United Kingdom ing obvious that “New Labour’s” erage incomes. The problem here is not lagged behind at only 38.3% (Source policies are failing, and when labour economic but political.