Having been in government for a little under two years, the time has come to take stock and consider what has been achieved thus far and what more there is to be done.

At Federal Conference in Birmingham, Norman Lamb MP ran a consultation session on what has become known as the Mid-Term Review. The aim of that process is to focus on which of these goals in the Coalition Agreement have been met by plans already announced and where there are gaps. It will consider how to fill in those gaps with distinctive Liberal Democrat policies. The result of the process will be published in September 2012 with a debate and a vote at conference in Brighton.

There are a couple of things that the Mid-Tern Review is not. It is not a re-drafting of the Coalition Agreement from scratch; rather, it is an opportunity to review and to look forward. It presents a chance for the Liberal Democrat Party to set out its distinctive position publicly and to demonstrate what it can achieve in Government. Secondly, the Mid-Term Review is entirely independent of the development of the General Election manifesto for 2015.

The consultation session at conference was lively, as one would expect! Nevertheless, it was attended only by those who were able to come to Federal Conference. It is important that a range of views from across the Party is fed in. For that reason, the English Party asked me as the English Representative on the Federal Policy Committee to encourage Local Parties to get involved, hold discussion sessions and submit their ideas.

The best ideas are popular, distinctive and fit in with our key themes. Those key themes are to promote fairness; especially in the area of tax; to promote opportunity and social mobility; to be the greenest government ever; to protect civil liberties; push for political reform, create a rehabilitation revolution in crime and justice; become the most family friendly government ever; and to decentralise power to people and communities.  Contributions on those themes are welcome, but so are other ideas.

Last Autumn, I sent out to all Local Party Chairs a set of documents including some information about the Mid-Term Review, a copy of the Coalition Agreement and a list of our achievements in government thus far. Importantly, there was also an invitation to hold a discussion event with local members.

Across the country, I know that such events are taking place. I have received a large number of replies containing ideas and opinions, all of which I have submitted to those involved in the Mid-Term Review. They are being considered carefully.

I would urge all Local Parties to consider organising a meeting to discuss the Mid-Term Review. Most of our members joined the Liberal Democrats because of our policies and yet there is often precious little opportunity to talk about them!

A useful starting point at any meeting would be the promises that the Government has made. They are to fix the economy (deficit reduction, growth, ensuring that work always pays and promoting stability and supply in the housing market), put power in people’s hands, and to stay focussed on the long term when it comes to issues of social mobility, being a family-friendly Government, protecting the NHS, ensuring immigration is sustainable, securing our energy supply, putting university funding on a sustainable level, tackling educational underachievement, and causing a rehabilitation revolution.

With those in mind,

• Which are most important from a Liberal Democrat point of view?
• Are there any policy suggestions that contribute to these areas?
• Are there areas where government policy implementation needs to be improved. If so, how?
• How can we deliver jobs and growth whilst holding firm to our green commitments?
• How can we deliver success and opportunities to small business as well as large ones?
• How do we resolve the tension between our commitment to localism and the need for overarching policy goals?

Although the Mid-Term Review reports in September, the deadline for contributions is the beginning of March. If you are planning on organising a meeting, the time has come to get cracking! You can submit your responses to .

* Geoff Payne represents the English Party on the Federal Policy Committee. He is also one of the Vice-Chairs of Federal Conference Committee.

Completing the changes, Jenny Willott becomes an Assisstant Government Whip, and Jo Swinson replaces Norman Lamb as Nick Clegg’s PPS.

Congratulations to those Lib Dem MPs taking up new positions in government.

We see power and wealth concentrated in the hands of the few – the benefits of success going to those at the top rather than being fairly shared between all those who generated that wealth. Even worse, company bosses too often get far more than their performance could ever justify. Last year, total earnings of directors of FTSE 100 companies increased by 49% whilst their companies saw only a 3% rise in value.

As the world struggles to adjust to the shock that the economic system has faced over the last three years, we are searching for a more sustainable, more responsible and fairer form of capitalism.
Yesterday, Nick Clegg came up with some answers. In particular, he argued that this should be the decade of employee share ownership. I hope that his speech comes to be seen as a seminal moment.

John Stuart Mill identified the ‘standing feud between capital and labour’. He argued that employee owned firms could be the answer. Ever since then Liberals and Liberal Democrats have advocated this cause.

In opposition, as Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I argued for Royal Mail workers to benefit from a John Lewis style Trust. Now in Government we have legislated for this. But the agenda is far wider.

Some traditionalists dismiss employee ownership as a woolly Liberal ideal which will always be peripheral. They are wrong. The economic evidence is clear.

Research by the Cass Business School shows that employee owned businesses are just as profitable as traditional companies. During the recession they proved to be more resilient. Their performance is more stable over the business cycle. When times were really tough employee owned businesses grew sales much faster than their traditional counterparts. Crucially, employee owned businesses consistently recruited more staff and rewarded them with higher wages. Other evidence shows that, invariably, the pay gap between the top and the average worker is much smaller – meaning that the fruits of their labours are shared more fairly.

Productivity also outshines the traditional company. Performance is best when a share in ownership is matched by empowering staff to play a part in decision making. And when you think about it, this isn’t rocket science. In my time as an employment lawyer, I heard countless stories of frustration from staff who knew their workplace better than anyone, who had ideas about how you could work more efficiently, yet they were never listened to. This experience is commonplace in both public and private sectors. Give those people some autonomy in decision-making and they are likely to rise to the challenge. Give them a stake in the business and they will feel a sense of ownership. Motivation grows. Importantly, happiness at work can grow.

So, Liberals understand why this makes sense. But how do we spread the message? How can we make this more than peripheral to the economy?

Action is needed in three areas.

First, we have to increase the awareness of employee ownership in all its forms and break down the barriers which prevent growth. For those setting up a company, there must be an off the shelf option they can consider. And as Nick announced yesterday, the Government will appoint an independent adviser – an expert in the field -who will shortly report on how we can simplify employee ownership.

For existing employees, we must look at introducing a right to request that their company establish an employee share scheme. This is a good nudge in the right direction. Company owners may then be encouraged to consider, perhaps for the first time, the potential financial benefits of giving employees a stake.

Second, we have to look at tax incentives. If we have evidence of the value of employee share ownership to the economy, doesn’t it make sense to improve the incentives for companies to set up share schemes?

Third, we have to examine the critical issue of access to finance. Companies need finance to grow but for businesses owned by employee benefit trusts – such as John Lewis – they face real difficulties, particularly in the early stages, in getting access to finance. What role can the banks and other institutions play? Should we consider a dedicated venture capital fund for mutuals and employee owned businesses?

This is an exciting moment. Liberal Democrats in Government are leading this debate. And the first steps set in motion by Nick Clegg this week could have a decisive, Liberal impact on our economy and in our workplaces that will be felt for years to come.

Although the Health and Social Care Bill only came to the Lords this week I have been working on it for several months along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, including Nick Clegg, Norman Lamb and John Pugh, Shirley Williams and Dr Evan Harris. We have already achieved significant changes to the original legislation and will continue to press for more.

Having looked at the original legislation, the report of the Future Forum and the revised Bill which came from the Commons, I came to the view that the Bill contains a number of proposals, such as Health and Well Being Boards and transfer of Public Health to Local Authorities, which will reduce health inequalities. However, there are aspects of the Bill which require much more scrutiny. In my view, it will take a lot of hard work by members of the House of Lords, who have a wide range of experience and skills, to turn this into a secure legal foundation for the development of the NHS.

I managed to read the first 100 e-mails which I received on the subject of the Health and Social Care Bill (and I regret that as I do not have staff I cannot reply individually to them and the many others). Having done so, I am convinced that it is the duty of the House of Lords to be mindful of the real concerns expressed by many people as we proceed to think about this legislation in detail. That is why I voted to let the Bill go to Committee on the floor of the House and it is why I, along with colleagues, will continue to raise questions and issues with the Government.

Rumour has it that, having failed to command significant support from the Crossbenches, Labour are preparing to filibuster this Bill like they did on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. The NHS is too important to be used like a political football and failure to give this Bill thorough and fair scrutiny would be condemned by the public, who have already shown an unprecedented level of interest in this legislation. I hope they will continue to follow the proceedings of the House closely and be alert to any signs of gamesmanship.

You can read my contribution to the second reading of the Health and Social Care Bill here, and you can access the Wanless Report, which I refer to in my speech, here.

Tim Farron’s Tory-bashing

(Available on the BBC website here.)

Norman Lamb on NHS changes

(Available on the BBC website here.)

Sir Menzies Campbell on euro currency

(Available on the BBC website here.)

For some on the left, the mere act of working with the Conservatives is a sin. We’ll never convince those people driven by hatred of the other tribe. But for progressives willing to examine the facts rationally, it is time to reassess the case. After all, 13 years of Labour government ultimately disappointed.

Norman then identifies two specific policy areas where he argues the Lib Desm are creating impact:

First on tax. Remember Gordon Brown’s decision to scrap the 10p rate of income tax? And compare that with lifting the threshold of income tax to £10,000. Already, nearly a million workers on the lowest pay have been taken out of tax. For Lib Dems, the priority will remain easing the burden on low-paid families, not cutting tax for the wealthy.

His second is tackling ‘entrenched privilege’:

There is nothing progressive about a welfare system that traps people in dependency or an education system that lets down so many. The missed potential of so many teenagers leaving school at 16 with no qualifications worth their name makes me impatient for change. We can see what is possible. Visit schools like St Paul’s Way Trust School in Bow or the Globe Academy at Elephant and Castle and you see amazing achievement, but this is still the exception not the rule. The consequences of this failure impact on us all.

Norman’s conclusion? ‘Coalition isn’t comfortable. It isn’t easy but Lib Dems are meeting this historic challenge.’

You can read his article in full here.

The first requirement is obviously that they are knowledgeable about the issues facing the country and the public. We often cite the requirement that in order to know about these things, the politician needs to have worked in the ‘real world’. But when one thinks about it, most people only work in one or two industries, and is someone who worked as a lawyer or engineer really more connected with the particular struggles faced by a pub owner or a nurse than someone who has worked as a special advisor (SPAD) to a minister? To me it seems obvious that the answer is no. This sort of broad knowledge can only really be gained by engaging with the public as a whole, something that one really should do before and during standing for election, rather than over a lifetime.

It is clear that this strategy, of really talking to people and getting to know constituents, pays off electorally and often makes you a better politician. Perhaps notable examples of Lib Dem MPs who fought to win their constituency consistently over several elections are Tim Farron and Norman Lamb. Both now sit in relatively safe Liberal Democrat seats, and both are respectable politicians who are well known for their good presentational style. In comparison most people would find little openness if they just went out from their non-political day jobs to knock on people’s doors and find out what they think, and thus would learn little.

There is also a sub point on this matter. We demand that our MPs are passionate about politics. It would be hard to be elected if you seemed disinterested in the whole affair. It therefore seems common sense to me that the sorts of people who are passionate about politics are often attracted to ‘political’ jobs. As well as former SPADs, obvious people who have been engaged in political jobs include Vince Cable, who as well as being a Councillor was also a lecturer in economics, treasury finance officer to the Kenyan government and Chief Economist at Shell. Others include Nadhim Zahawi who co-founded YouGov and is now a Conservative MP. Whilst both jobs are within the ‘politics bubble’, one involves immense economic expertise and the other specialises in finding out what people think. Both of those are skills and experiences that I would say make you more qualified as a politician, not less.

We also demand that our MPs are intelligent. Nick Clegg and David Cameron are often attacked for having gone to public schools and Oxbridge. In general there is much decrying of the over representation of people who went to independent schools and top universities in parliament and government. I’ve never really understood the problem some people have with politicians having gone to Oxbridge, UCL, LSE, Edinburgh etc. To me it seems obvious that often the same people who are motivated, intelligent and hard working and get into the top universities are likely to be motivated, intelligent and hard working enough to win elections.

Obviously there are the problems inherent within our education system: that frankly, state schools are not good enough compared to the independent sector, and thus a disproportionate number of people in the top universities are from private schools. This then reflects on the makeup of politicians. However I’m not sure we can really blame politicians for being a product of society. What matters is how they want to address these problems, not that they themselves received unusually good educations.

So in conclusion, we often moan about how MPs aren’t ordinary people but by definition, we require abnormal and extraordinary people. We need someone with extreme motivation and expertise who despite personal abuse and little privacy still works tirelessly at their job. I’m not sure that sort of person is very common in the “real world”.

We should be clear that Norman Lamb is one of the good guys, who spotted earlier than most the problems with the White Paper and the Bill, and has been very clear that it requires radical surgery. He has also been particularly concerned, and this week expressed this publicly, that the pace of change is financially (and consequently clinically and politically) far too risky.

In his introduction Norman highlighted one key quality of the NHS “Treatment free, when you need it, not when you can afford it. That’s an idea that must never be undermined.”

All good stuff, but a treatment is not free when the NHS does not provide it because it is not deemed cost-effective enough to be made available on the NHS. This is rationing and there is nothing wrong with that as long as it is done rationally and that politicians are honest enough to explain to the public that effective but expensive treatments can only become available on the NHS when there are increases in real terms spending. I hope that the Lib Dems, when economic circumstances allow, will always give the public the option of voting for more NHS spending through fair taxation.

“Under Labour the NHS became bloated and unaccountable, with more managers than nurses.”

The NHS has always been pretty unaccountable and the Health Bill currently plans to make it even less accountable, by reducing scrutiny of local authorities over commissioning and reducing the ultimate duties on the Health Secretary.

By “bloated” does this mean the NHS is over-managed or too big? Are its management costs higher or lower than equivalent health services? All we know is that don’t know as the Health Select Committee concluded last year at paragraphs 33-37 of its report on commissioning. There are suggestions that NHS management costs are increased further by introducing more market transactions.

“More managers than nurses?”

There are 400,000 nurses. There are patently fewer managers than that! About 40,000 in fact. I presume there is some Government propaganda circulating, rather like this nonsense which can still be found on the official Lib Dem website, which has misinterpreted a report that the percentage rate of increase in the number of managers under Labour was higher than that for nurses. Perhaps this misinterpretation is literally or psychologically cut and pasted into articles as was the infamous “UK as twice the rate of heart attack deaths for patients than France” fiction, which I am pleased to see has been put out of statistical misery?

“Bureaucracy must go and patients must get more control. As Nick said in his conference speech in Sheffield, ‘We have campaigned for years for an NHS that gives more power to professionals and to patients.’“

The current plans give more power to a sub-group of sub-group of a sub-group of health care professionals. The entrepreneurial few among the GPs who are a subsection of doctors who in turn are a minority of health care professionals. There is no mechanism by which a patient can influence commissioning decisions unless he happens to bump into to the full-time manager, who used to be her GP, at the supermarket and persuades him to commission service X from Y not Z. Compare that to the ability of locally elected councillors or health board members who can be elected on a platform of service change. Anyway, I venture to suggest that if we want the NHS to be a “wellness” service not a sickness service, with more preventive medicine, then those who wish to stay healthy should have as much influence as those already ill. That means the public as whole having a say not just a selected group of them, called patients.

This whole debate on “power to professionals” is fascinating for me a former Health Spokesman. When I used to oppose the politically-based targets (introduced by Alan Milburn and John Reid) on the basis that they distorted clinical priorities and prevented doctors form providing the most appropriate service for their patents, I was accused by David Laws among others of promoting “producer interests”, (and he is still saying it) perhaps especially because I was a doctor myself. I didn’t think that was true or fair (I was alone in opposing the new GP contract at the time as a bad deal for patients). So it is a curious irony to see the Orange book brigade now defending reforms which actually boast about promoting the interests of the producer professionals.

“And change is needed, too, because we must keep up with an ageing population and rising numbers of people with long term conditions like diabetes and Alzheimer’s, and we need to find the money for new treatments and new technologies so people continue to get the world-class care the NHS is known for.”

Change is needed? No. Positive change is needed. The mantra of reform and its justification is only rational if there is both a logical basis why the reforms would deliver positive change, and some evidence from elsewhere, or from pilots here, to back it up. Neither of those apply to these health reforms. No modern day engineer or mainstream clinician would apply something to their entire practice let alone that of the rest of their colleagues for based on dogma or blind faith.

“Paul Burstow has been working tirelessly to ensure that, for the first time, local government will have a real role in our NHS, holding GP consortia to account”

I am sure that that is what Paul would have wanted but its not there in the bill. There is hardly a role for local authorities to be able to scrutinise, let alone challenge, let alone force change to specific commissioning decisions which – until our intervention – were due to be made in secret. The Health and Well-being boards are currently designed to have a minimum of one (yes one!) councillor on and be responsible for a needs assessment and for strategic oversight of commissioning. If the HWB is important then make it a majority councillor body.

Local authorities “taking on responsibility for public health”

Yes, but if public health is detached from commissioning (and it is currently close bound in PCTs) then the role of public health is seriously diminished. That is just one reason (another being integration of health and social care which as Norman says is essential) why co-terminosity of local authorities with commissioning bodies is essential.

Norman quotes Nick saying at Conference of the NHS “World-class health care for all. Publicly funded. Free. Centred on patients, not profit. So yes to health reforms. But no – always no – to the privatisation of health.”

That sentence could have done with a “comprehensive” at the beginning because the bill in its current form proposes comprehensive cover only to those on GP lists, and that is why our motion called for geographically-based commissioning and geographically-based weighted funding allocations.

It is huge benefit for us to have Norman Lamb in the position he holds because he understands Lib Dem policy and can see the huge risks to us of being lashed to the mast of Tory NHS policy. I also think he can see what lies behind these reforms – that they can be used as a staging post for a new system delivered by a future Tory or New Labour Government where Foundation Trusts (ie all hospitals) are sold off and the Commissioning Consortia become Continental-style social insurers. The Liberal Democrats have called this out and we must stop it.

Evan Harris was Lib Dem Shadow Health Secretary 2001-2003 and is a vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee. You can find him on twitter here.

Final result – both amendment and motion passed overwhelmingly. The overall tenor of the debate was more good natured than might have been expected – people did not take the opportunity to express any unhappiness in strident tones, and the party being in coalition with the Tories until 2015 was accepted and expected, explicitly or implicitly, by all speakers. Tuition fees and NHS got mentions, but brief ones. Norman Lamb’s comments about the health debate (see below), however, were unexpected and welcome.

James Gurling, giving the final speech in the debate, ends with the line, “No pacts, no deals – just Liberal Democracy”.

As is often the case in such debates, the importance of liberalism has been mentioned frequently but both Evan Harris near the start of the debate and David Abrahams towards the end mentioned the importance too of the party’s social democratic heritage, pointing out how much poorer the party would be without the contributions of people such as Shirley Williams.

Tim Farron’s speech was good, but… it was rather like a Christmas repeat special, with the best lines from his previous speeches at Sheffield conference. Emphasises importance of effective campaigning; “we will not define ourselves by passing conference motions”.

Norman Lamb’s contribution to the debate emphasised that last year’s special conference was not a one-off agreement on coalition, but rather there needs to be ongoing involvement of the party in the working of coalition. “The party needs to be fully engaged” in drawing up the policy programme for the second half of the Parliament, and he promises that future major new policies that fall outside the coalition agreement must go through the party’s democratic processes.

Norman Lamb also makes very emollient comment about NHS debate yesterday – saying such a debate should never have to happen again as in future party should not have to debate a major departure from coalition agreement after, rather than before, the event.

In his speech, Simon Hughes talked about the benefits of being in power – the way that party members can influence government decision making and the way that it provides an opportunity to reach out to new audiences. (As an aside, that helps explain why the party’s fundraising is doing well and the next budget forecasts very strong results from larger donors.) Calls for a “closing [of] the gap between the rich and the poor”. Party should still aim to replace Labour as the radical alternative to the Tories.

Suzanne Fletcher from Stockton called for better information to be available about what the party is doing in government and why – and got a very warm response (and not just from the Lib Dem Voice team for her namecheck for the site).

Series of speeches calling for the party to be distinctive, but none criticise the party being in coalition and many praise the coalition agreement’s content. That’s been a consistent them through conference – plenty of calls for things in government to be done differently, but coming out of coalition isn’t one of them.

Former MP David Rendel: “Our party’s policy is still to abolish tuition fees … and we should not be afraid to say so”.

David Matthewman is providing a detailed commentary on the debate on Twitter.

The amendment, accepted by the movers of the motion, calls for a review of the party’s triple lock arrangements with any proposals for change to be put to the party’s autumn conference. In moving the amendment, Evan Harris both made the point that the Federal Policy Committee is not formally involved in the triple lock, even though policy is at the heart of post-election negotiations. That proposal is a good one (for the reasons I outlined in Wanted: one party locksmith).

As Gordon Lishman moves the party strategy motion the conference hall is reasonably full, but even allowing for it being a Sunday morning, it is not as full as it would be if people were expecting a contentious debate. Issues about party independence and no pre-election deals are important, but there’s unlikely to be much of a showing for any views disagreeing with those in the motion.

First, it more clearly sets out where the coalition partners disagree on policy. As having a relaxed, adult approach to admitting in public that people in government don’t always agree on everything is something I’ve talked about in the past, this is certainly good to see – and makes a very welcome contrast to the way the Blairite vs Brownite divisions in the last Labour government were played out via off-the-record briefing and unattributable personal spite dripped into the ears of friendly journalists.

Second, votes at Liberal Democrat conference strengthen the position of Liberal Democrat negotiators in government as it makes clear they need to secure further changes to win the party’s support. So although, for example, Norman Lamb and Paul Burstow have expressed less hostility to the use of private provision of services within an NHS framework than some of the speakers in the health debate, those views make it easier for them to secure more changes in the NHS bill as it goes through Parliament – especially considering the balance of voting power in the House of Lords.

Here’s the response to the Disability Living Allowance debate from Bob Russell MP (and put out by the party’s press office):

The Coalition’s review of the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance for disabled people in residential care is very welcome.

It is crucial that disabled people in residential care are not prevented from enjoying the freedom of movement so many people take for granted every day. For many, the Mobility Component gives them a lifeline to the outside world and we must take this into account.

I join Conference in calling on the Government to ensure that the decision they make is fair and ensures that any reductions to the Mobility Component are based on clear evidence that the cost of that support is provided via other means.

Evan Harris summates on amendment 1. “It is unusual for me to summate on a debate where there have been no speeches against my amendment”. Says government ministers must work hard to change the bill radically. Amendment 1 lays out how it should be improved – and Liberal Democrats in government “should follow what we overwhelmingly vote for today”.

John Alderdice, the other Co-Chair of the Backbench Health Committee, emphasises problems with existing NHS – i.e. doing nothing would not be a sensible policy. Calls for party to make the bill a better bill rather than to think sticking with existing NHS structure and policies is the right answer.

Andrew George MP pays tribute to Paul Burstow, and then comes the “But” – calls for conference to vote against the motion as a whole. “Once the private sector get their foot in the door, the genie will be out of the bottle”.

Many other speeches, including 1 minute mini-speeches from the floor, continue main themes of the earlier speeches. Noticeable that even the most critical speakers in health debate have talked of strengthening Lib Dem role in coalition – no-one has said coalition is wrong. Paul Burstow busy writing detailed notes as each person speaks in NHS debate.

Shirley Williams gets two warm rounds of applause as making way up to podium. “Nothing I am trying to do about health is intended to weaken Nick … [who has] done a remarkable job”. Next word? “But”. Attacks in particular combination of huge changes at the same time as cuts and calls for local public accountability to be greatly strengthened. Also concerned about cherry-picking by private providers. Powerful end of speech quoting letter written to her.

John Pugh, Co-Chair of the Health Parliamentary Backbench Committee, launches strong attack on NHS White Paper across the board. But does not call for motion to be defeated; instead calls for amendment 1 to be passed. Strongest applause so far.

Wendy Taylor calls for part of health motion to be deleted, defending the record of the NHS on cancer care and criticising data government has used to question the NHS’s record. Hall filling up very quickly, including the ‘overspill’ seating on the first floor.

Jeremy Hargreaves moves amendment 2 of local accountability and welcoming plans to give local councils a bigger role in health policy.

Charles West moves amendment 1 to NHS motion which attacked “damaging and unjustified market-based approach” in the NHS White Paper. Good, solid speech – but notable that although not delivered with oratorical panache, got bigger round of applause than Paul Burstow’s speech.

Paul Burstow opens debate and pledges to support “a universal health care service … free at the point of use … based on your need, not your means”. Attacks Labour for way it let private providers be paid extra for providing health services. Health reforms are rooted in Liberal Democrat belief in community politics, says Burstow. “The NHS is great. Please support this motion and make it even greater.”

Conference overwhelmingly votes for F4 on the Disability Living Allowance which “Calls on the Coalition Government to reinstate the Mobility Component or otherwise fund the mobility needs of those who cannot afford to do so themselves”. General mood of the debate was supportive of the role Liberal Democrats in government – praising efforts behind the scenes to get the policy changed.

Mike German in the debate on Disability Living Allowance strongly emphasises way Liberal Democrats in government are getting the Tories to think again on the issue. He also stresses the role of the Lib Dem Parliamentary backbench committees in helping the party exercise influnece on government decisions.

Widespread chatter amongst London activists about who might stand for London Mayor. The common theme is wanting an alternative to Lembit Opik when it comes to the selection ballot.

Norman Lamb moving the Federal Policy Committee report talks of need for party to come up with strong and distinctive policies for second half of the Parliament, i.e. to cover the period before the next general election but beyond the content of the coalition policy agreement from last summer.

Guardian is running a piece from Evan Harris about the NHS reforms:

I am certain that if it was left to Lib Dem ministers the NHS would survive in some decent shape or form under the new system. But legislation is not for one minister or one government. This bill in its current form would allow a future government (Tory or New Labour)and a future unelected regulator to move to the market that most doctors and most patient groups believe will threaten quality and fairness.

The Facing the Future policy working group is chaired by Norman Lamb MP and, as Norman explained on this site last autumn, is intended to set the party’s broad policy framework for the next few years. Having such a key party leadership figure chairing the group is good news as it raises the chances of the group’s deliberations and outcomes having an impact on what the Liberal Democrats in government subsequently do.

The big challenge for the group is to avoid the fate of previous similar broad policy reviews which generally have done a good job at the technical details of what policies need reviewing and in which order, but have tended to have either very muddled overall messages or messages that sink largely without trace. (It’s a time for Facing up to the Future of Challenge, Opportunity and Responsibility while Moving Ahead to Meet the Challenge, Make the Change a policy wonk might almost say.)

The success of this group is all the more important this time round as without a clear direction, the party’s policymaking processes are likely to get over-shadowed by the day-to-day decision making impetus from government – where the policy teams are coalition rather than Liberal Democrat teams.

Norman’s presence as chair of the group is therefore particularly welcome, and it’s the absence of a similar senior leadership figure from the chair of the other two groups that illustrates their main challenge.

The Information Technology and Intellectual Property group (chaired by Julian Huppert, and which I’m a member of) and the Inequality group (chaired by David Hall-Matthews) both need to get their own recommendations right. But almost as important is to have recommendations which Liberal Democrats in government then pay some attention to. In both cases, the more closely the policies are drawn up with regular discussion with those in government, the more likely they are to have an impact on what happens.

Take the example of the Inequality group, which amongst other issues looking at those of social mobility and how important, or not, overall levels of equality are. The consultation paper says both are “crucial” and that tackling the former “would not necessarily” lead to improvements in the latter. That, and the chairmanship of David Hall-Matthews, give a fairly strong clue as to the recommendations the group is likely to produce. The key test, however, will be the degree to which any such recommendations influence the words and actions of Liberal Democrat ministers, especially Nick Clegg whose emphasis has been very much on only the former.

In my experience, policy working groups are very open to the views of others in the party where they are clearly put and with some evidence or experience to substantiate them (not a hurdle all submissions pass, alas!). So although some of the bigger questions may be beyond the direct reach of individual party members, I’d strongly encourage people to take part in the consultation processes.

Liberal Democrat Spring Conference Agenda and Directory 2011

Further information about the Liberal Democrat federal conference is available in the Party Conference section on the main party website and the official Lib Dem conference Twitter account is @LibDemConf.

Questionable at the time it was uttered, the crash of 2008 rendered it a nonsense, but there are lessons to be learned for the coalition as they try to unravel the mess left by the Labour Government. The comment mentioned above is an example of a Chancellor falling victim to hubris, and the Coalition must be careful to not to be afflicted by the same condition.

Inflation and how best to prevent it wrecking the recovery is now at the heart of the economic narrative, as I indicated it would be.

And articles such as this indicate that the some coalition politicians and many business organisations favour taking the easy option of forcing inflation down by raising interest rates significantly over the next year.

This is certainly the easiest option, and the traditional method of government monetary policy management at this stage of the economic cycle for hundreds of years, until JM Keynes came along, but there is a danger that if the government take the easiest option then they could undo much of the progress towards economic stability which they have made since coming to office.

Raising interest rates will cause inflation to fall, but the price to the wider economy may be too high to allow the coalition to take this easiest of all options. Nick Clegg’s Chief of Staff Norman Lamb, speaking on Radio 4 on the day of the vote on tuition fees, listed one of the coalition’s achievements to date as: “we have fixed the economy”. This comment coming from someone so close to the Lib Dem leadership indicates that hubris may be entering the economic decision making process at a sensitive time in the economic cycle.

My contributions to this site have consistently been pro-coalition, and pro-coalition economic policy, but it is premature to say that the economy is fixed. A corner has been turned, but everything announced in the budget is spread over the cycle of the Parliament, and any policies on the monetary side, such as an interest rate rise, which are inconsistent with the fiscal strategy outlined by the Chancellor in the budget, will endanger the recovery.

Inflation is the major threat to the economy, but it is inflation which is largely on the supply side, rather than the demand side, while an interest rates increase is designed to address demand side inflation.

Supply side inflation is caused by the value of sterling against its peer currencies declining, making imports dearer, and the currency has declined because of the high rate of borrowing to fund the deficit. But if the rest of the coalition strategy serves to eliminate the deficit within the life of this Parliament, then the supply side inflation will decline as the deficit does. There may in time be a problem with demand side inflation, but there are specifc, targeted and effective remedies available in that area which wouldn’t damage the remainder of the economy.

So for the coalition to truly be able to claim to have ‘fixed’ the economy, they must maintain the current medium term view and not give into the temptation to raise interest rates to satisfy the short term concerns of the business lobby and certain Tory backbenchers, harking back to a time when interest rates were viewed as the only tool needed by governments to manage an economy.

(Ironically just before this took place, I was in Millbank to appear on the BBC’s Daily Politics Show and was joking with the floor manager about how they were double-checking that I was indeed me. As he said, “After the taxi driver incident…” though actually the taxi driver wasn’t a taxi driver.)

Norman Baker has also been in the news today, having publicly confirmed that he has not yet made up his mind which way to vote (and therefore may resign as a minister, if he decides to vote against rather than abstain).

Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell’s intentions to vote against have also been firmed up in the last couple of days.

Meanwhile, Greg Mulholland, in an interview on the BBC during which his feet appeared to be on fire (smoke kept on bellowing up from the bottom of the screen), called for the vote on Thursday to be delayed prior to a wider review. So far he is a lone voice on this, and other people who earlier in the year were pondering the merit of a wider review first are not supporting his call.

People have also gone off the idea of trying to unite around a mass abstention, which was the focus of speculation last week.

If you spot any other news on how individual MPs will vote, please do pop them up in the comments thread (but please use one of the other active threads on the subject of tuition fees for general discussion of the issue).

Gordon Birtwistle – PPS to Danny Alexander
Mike Crockart – PPS to Michael Moore
Duncan Hames – PPS to Sarah Teather
Jo Swinson – PPS to Vince Cable
Jenny Willott – PPS to Chris Huhne

and in addition Norman Lamb as Chief Parliamentary and Political Adviser to Nick Clegg is also his PPS.

But even as we put our principles into action, we must also renew and refresh our ideas – and indeed since we are in coalition government, it is more important than ever to establish and maintain our separate identity as Liberal Democrats.

And so to review the likely policy challenges of the next few years, to assess how our existing body of policy faces up to those challenges and to assess where we as a party need to do further work, the Federal Policy Committee has set up a wide-ranging review, Facing the Future. It will build on our existing and widely respected statement of Liberal Democrat philosophy, It’s About Freedom, and like the similar exercise that we carried out at the start of the 2005-10 Parliament, Meeting the Challenge, it should set out the areas where the FPC will commission further work through this Parliament, and the approach it will take to developing policy in those areas.

If we are to succeed in creating a strong political and philosophical approach for the party for the next few years, then it is vitally important that party members engage in the work of the group as widely as possible and take charge of the direction that it goes in. We have started this process already: we have written a consultation paper which will be available shortly on the conference section of the party’s website, and conference committee has given us most of the Monday morning at conference for a very full consultative session.

I hope as many members as possible will come along to that and contribute their ideas and views. But I also want there to be other opportunities to engage with party members: I and other members of the working group will be very happy to speak to local parties about our work, I hope we will also be present at regional conferences, and we are also planning to support discussion by local parties. I urge every party member to have their say either by taking part in such a discussion or by writing to me and the group with your views.

This exercise, similar to that undertaken at the start of the last Parliament, is emphatically not an attempt to review every line of existing Liberal Democrat policy: our intention is certainly not to re-fight old battles on well-established party policy positions. But it is an attempt to establish and maintain a clear and distinct Liberal Democrat identity in the new Parliament particularly given the changed circumstances which we are now in.

We will address the widest questions possible about how Liberal Democrat ideas are relevant to the future governance of Britain and the world. For example, what is the right macro-economic policy framework to meet the challenges of the next few years? What view should Lib Dems take in terms of the balance between sectors such as manufacturing and financial services? How can we make the economy more environmentally sustainable? Should we be pressing for greater support for mutuals, co-operatives and worker participation?

On the environment – does the UK have the right overall policy framework for tackling climate change? How can we improve it? How can we ensure that renewed growth in the economy is green growth? How do we meet our future energy needs?

As Liberal Democrats, we talk a lot about the need to create a fairer society. What policy areas and actions are most important in advancing the struggle against unfairness? How should we tackle poverty and inequality without promoting dependency? Is digital inclusion a key to social justice, or a diversion?

What is the right balance between liberty and security in the twenty-first century? How can we take reform of penal policy further forward?

And in the context of political reform, once we have implemented the constitutional reform programme set out in the coalition agreement, what further reforms should Liberal Democrats prioritise? What more can we do to liberate local government from central control?

These and the many other questions in our consultation paper could not be more relevant, broad-ranging and exciting, and I hope party members will engage enthusiastically in helping us to think through these questions and help us define a clear and distinctive Liberal Democrat policy approach for the next five years.

Norman Lamb MP is Chair of the Facing the Future working group and the new Chair of the FPC.

It gives an insight into how the party is adapting to government, what Norman thinks the big challenges are in his role as Chief Parliamentary and Political Advisor to Nick Clegg and, er…, has a short clip of me talking.

The piece is available on the iPlayer until just after noon on Sunday 25th July.

For Balls, defeating the Tories is the top priority. Given this, what is his advice to Lib Dem supporters in the 100 or so Tory-Labour marginals? “I urge Lib Dem voters to bite their lip and back us.” But what about Labour supporters in Tory-Lib Dem marginals? “I always want the Labour candidate to win, but I recognise there’s an issue in places like North Norfolk, where my family live, where Norman Lamb [the Lib Dem candidate and sitting MP] is fighting the Tories, who are in second place. And I want to keep the Tories out.”

A nod’s as good as a wink, and all that. Clearly Ed Balls is signalling his tacit approval for tactical voting by Labour supporters to help Lib Dems against Tories.

Of course whether his real motivation is to help the Lib Dems, or to position himself as a less tribal figure than he’s generally characterised in advance of a Labour leadership election, is a moot point.

Having previously pointed out that the party’s “four steps to a fairer Britain” doesn’t include how we will improve public services, I started by asking him how the Liberal Democrats would improve the NHS.

He explained that whilst the four steps are a plan to transform Britain, for the NHS the priority over the next few years would be “making sure it doesn’t get destroyed” given the tough spending choices that would have to be made to cut the deficit.

However, he believes the NHS can be protected and even improved despite an end to the era of large regular increases in its funding. To that end, he outlined four steps for the NHS:

1.       “Ensure value for money and reinvest savings in the NHS” – an important difference from other areas where savings will be used to fund new policy priorities (such as the pupil premium) or deficit reduction. For the NHS, “all savings achieved in health will be reinvested in health” and there would be a switch from paying for activity to paying for levels of patient care, thereby encouraging preventive health work.

2.       “We must dismantle the central bureaucracy” and instead “give people a say via elected health boards”. The Department of Health would be trimmed, Strategic Health Authorities axed and regulation rationalised. At the moment, 60 different organisations regulate or inspect hospitals in one way or another – at huge financial and staff costs and with the result that hospitals end up employing people who just deal with the regulation and inspections, so cutting them off from the actual coal face.

3.       “Guarantee operating times – or pay for people to go private instead” – the important point being a service free to the patient, rather than who the provider of the service is. Although Norman pointed to Denmark as an example of this policy working well in practice, it also has (unintentional) echoes of policies pursued by several Liberal Democrat councils. Islington, for example, introduced a policy of paying for private contractors to repair properties if the council missed its repair deadlines.

The benefits of the policy would not just be better immediate service for patients but also a subtle shift in the dynamics of how the health service is run. Currently budgetary pressures lead to services being provided less well; however, under this new scheme the way to save money would be to make services better – so that you do not have to pay for the person to use a private provider.

4.       “Give the million unpaid carers who work the longest hours get a week’s break every year – to be taken in whichever way they choose”. I queried why this specific pledge – of all the many that could be made – was in the four steps. Norman Lamb explained that this was because it is the party’s alternative to Labour’s Personal Care at Home Bill, which has been heavily criticised for failing to deliver help to those most in need. With Labour making that Bill central to their health campaigning, our alternative should be central to ours.

Turing to one of the big causes of wasted money in the NHS – IT – Norman Lamb described the NHS IT program as “a complete disaster … imposed from on high”. He was particularly critical of the way in which the scheme had not been properly scoped and was based around replacing existing systems with one new central system.

Instead, Norman Lamb argued, the NHS should be laying down standards which different systems could then meet and use to work together. This diversity of supply would build better on existing working systems and provide the necessary competition and innovation to keep future systems value for money and effective. A good health service, Norman Lamb said, required good IT.

On the question of personal records – just being introduced in England and central to many of the NHS IT plans – although Norman said he personally probably would not opt out, he had many sympathies with those worried about the security of the system: “a database can’t be 100% secure”. He highlighted in particular one way that the theoretical security would fall down in practice: busy GPs leaving their security cards in the card readers so that others can pop in and out of the system as needed during the day.

Ending by comparing the Liberal Democrat plans for local health boards and devolved accountability with the Conservative Party’s plans, Norman Lamb was scathing about the Tory plan for a “completely unelected quango in charge of a £110 billion budget”, i.e. their ‘independent board’ for the NHS.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrat plans would means that people could genuinely hold the local health boards to account – both because of the elections to them and because those health boards would have the power and the budgets to make their own decisions. If they’re making their own decisions (rather than following orders from on high), then they can be held truly accountable for local health services.

Overzealous interpretation of the requirements by NHS Trusts and long delays in the system mean that NHS surgeons cannot move between Trusts quickly enough to deal with rare cases, of which there are many in children, and to cover absences. The RCS is calling for immediate roll out of passport-style arrangements that allow NHS staff who have already received an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check for one Trust to be recognised across the health service. Is the NHS a national service or not?

Since October 2009 the Vetting and Barring Scheme has introduced new standards for checking anyone who works with children, including surgeons. However, many Trusts are insisting that NHS surgeons who have already had an enhanced CRB check go through the same process whenever they work in a different Trust, even though the process can take several months. Some trainee surgeons have had more than 10 separate Criminal Records Bureau checks in two years. Read more here.

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary said,

This is a disgrace. The Government has implemented these new regulations without making sure that they will actually work on the ground.

When top surgeons have already been CRB checked, it’s madness to restrict them to one hospital when they are needed all around the country.

Protecting children must always be a top priority, but the situation has descended into complete farce with potentially dire consequences for patients and NHS staff.

Ministers have buried their heads in the sand despite mounting evidence of how badly flawed this system is.

We need a simple but effective system to protect our children. Once you’re CRB checked for one Trust, that should be enough to mean you can work in any hospital.