npf

National Policy Forum, Newport, 28/29 November 2003

The first day saw Tony Blair launch the long-awaited Big

Conversation, an honest and serious debate between a modern

empowering government and active, responsible citizens. The 80

pages and dozens of questions gave plenty of food for thought.

Crime had fallen, but people did not feel safe. How could we

replace anti-social behaviour with respect? How far should we

trade civil liberties against the need to break up organised crime?

How did we balance liberating people from dictatorships against

traditional respect for territorial integrity? Should pension

contributions be compulsory? Even if all countries implemented the

Kyoto agreement, greenhouse gases would only fall by 1%, and a

60% cut was needed by 2050. How could we achieve this? And so

on. Ian McCartney promised a user-friendly toolkit to help local

parties take the conversation to the community, and regular

feedback. By Saturday afternoon 4,000 people had sent

contributions by e-mail, and the next day 30 of these were displayed

on the website www.bigconversation.org.uk

Members asked whether the agenda was truly open. The exercise

was imaginative but risky, and people must feel that they have been

genuinely heard. What about taxing incomes above £100,000, and

were top-up fees set in stone? Tony Blair stressed that this was not

policy-making by opinion poll. As always the party would make

decisions according to its values, and the people would decide in

the general election. Labour had shown it could listen over the 75p

pension rise. (Not the best example, as the leadership over-rode

90% of members’ views in the 1999 National Policy Forum, and only

a pensioners’ revolt and the loss of several hundred council seats

changed the policy.)

Gordon Brown said that Labour had won the argument for raising

National Insurance to invest in the NHS. Any case for tax had to be

argued openly with voters, and council tax in particular had to prove

its value. He emphasised the longest period of economic stability

for 100 years, with more people in work than ever, and youth

unemployment down from 250,000 to nearly nothing. The Tories

had opposed every anti-recessionary measure, and would abolish

the New Deals. Integrating taxes and benefits into a single system,

through the various tax credits, removed stigmatising distinctions

between claimants and contributors. Instead people paid in or drew

out at different stages of their lives. Children and pensioners were

steadily being lifted out of poverty.

Guest Speakers

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, expressed

disappointment over the two-tier workforce persisting in health, and

government opposition to European directives on agency workers

and long hours. He recognised that the unions were seen as

ungrateful, but stressed that when Labour and the unions fall out,

only the Tories gain. A shared positive agenda on productivity, skills

and safety would benefit both partners. Carey Oppenheim, special

adviser on family policy to Tony Blair, considered how best to help

disadvantaged children. Most money goes into schools and higher

education, but the key need is for investment in early years and

childcare. By 22 months the social gap between classes is already

evident, and never remedied. And Gareth Thomas MP spoke of the

need to devolve further powers to individuals. Several football clubs

were owned by supporters’ trusts, and foundation hospitals should

ensure that the professionals answer to local people.

Friend or Foe?

David Blunkett held a session on his plans for ID cards.

Unforgeable proof of identity would help to tackle organised fraud,

health tourism and clandestine working – currently there are 10

million more national insurance numbers than British residents - and

the United States would soon require biometric identification for

visitors. From around 2007 passports and driving licences would

function as ID cards by including fingerprints, iris patterns and facial

recognition as they are renewed, with plain cards mandatory for

foreign nationals staying more than three months, and available for

everyone else. Compulsion would be considered only after most of

the population were already covered. The charge would be about

£35, with cards free to under-16s and £10 for those on low incomes.

There were some concerns about who could access the

information, but more about practicalities. Large information

technology projects had a poor record, as illustrated by the Passport

Agency fiasco. Anyone checking identity, in social security offices,

doctors’ surgeries or universities, would need the technology for

taking fingerprints and other measurements to check people against

their cards. Iris recognition is only 99% accurate, according to New

Scientist, which would limit its use because each card would have

600,000 matches on the UK database. Politically, the costs are paid

upfront by the individual but the benefits are long-term and general,

with no immediate or obvious personal gain. Selling the idea would

need positive messages, not just the language of restraint and

control. Debate will continue, around the Home Office publication

Identity Cards: The Next Steps, and within the justice, security and

community policy document.

Are You Now, or Have You Ever Been . . . ?

The day ended with election of Forum officers. Ian McCartney was

unanimously acclaimed as Chair. Each Forum member had two

votes for the two Vice-Chair places, of which Margaret Wall gained

81, Anne Snelgrove 64, and Tony Robinson 48. Tony allegedly lost

out because he was seen talking in a friendly manner to people

associated with the centre-left grassroots alliance, a sinister cult

which sticks pins into wax effigies of Tony Blair and asks awkward

questions about foundation hospitals and top-up fees. Sadly

paranoia still gnaws at the heart of the Millbank machine, and

unless it is dealt with, we shall all lose.

Tomorrow is Another Day

However food, wine and a rousing after-dinner speech from Rhodri

Morgan papered over the cracks, and the next day it was Forum

members’ turn to talk. We worked through revised documents on

justice and security, local government and transport, education and

skills, quality of life, and the economy. These will be published for

party consultation between February and May 2004, returning to the

Forum in July. Throughout discussion I was reminded again of the

wide range of experience that Forum members bring, from the

sharp end of public services, from personal experiences with drug

addiction, from council and voluntary work, from school governance

and from business.

As usual the papers are stuffed with detail, but some general

themes emerged. Differences arising from devolution should be

acknowledged, with Wales abolishing tests at Key Stage 1 and,

along with Scotland, rejecting foundation hospitals. Regional

disparities affect economic policy, employment and housing, with

too few affordable homes in the SouthEast and unsaleable

surpluses in some northern towns. Cities have traffic congestion,

rural areas have empty roads but poor public transport. Choice can

be a metropolitan concept, only meaningful if many schools or

surgeries are within reach. It also makes the “school run” problems

worse as parents transport children over greater distances.

Measuring success in education solely through GCSEs devalues

vocational achievement and perpetuates skills shortages. In some

counties the 11-plus still blights the life-chances of most children,

and Labour should finally grasp the selection nettle. Children in

care are too often forgotten, and fall through the gaps between

services. Young people should not be feared as an alien and

threatening species, but recognised as people with their own needs

for security and respect, and generations need bringing together

within communities. The case for managed legal immigration is

well-argued, but does not begin to nail the tabloid myths about

asylum-seekers.

The range within policy areas is best illustrated by the quality of life

document, which moves from safeguarding the planet against

resource depletion and irreversible climate change straight to

cleaning up the litter at the end of the road. The latter may win or

lose the next election, but the former will determine the fate of

voters whose grandparents are not yet born. Over to you.

Full reports from the National Policy Forum and the NEC are

available at http://www.annblack.com or from

Ann Black, ann.black@unisonfree.net