Opinion: A new direction for choice

“What’s a nice guy like you doing with a bunch of Tories?” one journalist asked me as I discussed the Barriers to Choice Review.

“You see, I’m a Liberal Democrat,” I explained…

The truth is that this was not a coalition problem.  It was a problem about the word ‘choice’.

My task as an independent reviewer, appointed by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, was to find out how people used the choices they have been given in schools, hospitals, social care and so on – especially disadvantaged people.

But the word ‘choice’ itself divides people, even those who might otherwise agree on pretty much everything.

On one side there are those who believe it is a weasel word, designed to obscure a push towards privatisation.  On the other side, there are those who take the word at face value, but worry about the logistics.

Nobody seems to be quite agnostic about the idea, because – since the political establishment sometimes uses ‘choice’ and ‘competition’ interchangeably – this is often a proxy for an argument about competing service infrastructure.

What I have found talking to a large number of service users around the country, and polling them more widely, is that a large majority of people are positive about choice in theory – the polling certainly suggests that too – but are sometimes confused about it in practice.

They don’t see the neat demarcations between services, the carefully delineated and defined rights to choose.  They certainly want to choose – there was really no desire to go back to a deferential system where you got the service you were given – but they want to choose in a whole range of other areas where, at the moment, they can’t.

This was an important message in the report of the review, which is published today (Thursday).

Competition certainly has a role, but people also want – and sometimes believe they have been offered – choices around a range of other areas.

They might want the choice of a consultant who won’t mind them asking lots of questions.

Or to study Spanish at A level when all that prevents them is their school’s timetabling system.

Or to go to bed later than 5 o’clock when their carer comes round.

Choice could cover a whole range of possible approaches, including:

  • The choice of providing institution: this is the choice which is largely offered under recent policies. It provides people with a choice of school, hospital or social care provider, as set out in the choice ‘frameworks’, and is designed to encourage competition between providers.
  • The choice of professional: this is implied by the choice of provider, but is actually something different, though people are increasingly able to choose a named professional as well. When surgeons or consultants work peripatetically between local hospitals, as many do, then the choice of provider may deliver patients exactly the same professional.
  • The choice to switch: this is the choice of ‘exit’; in a rare emergency – when your consultant is unpleasant or your children are being bullied at school – it means the choice to change provider. It is something that confident people tend to get, just by demanding it, but there are usually no guarantees under the current system.
  • The choice of solution: this is the choice of different treatments, curriculums or styles of social care, which most service users are not normally given (though personal budgets holders get it, in theory). This requires a flexibility of service which rarely exists at present, and which depends very much on the presiding professional and how constrained they are.
  • The choice to share responsibility: this goes beyond choice, and implies the option – which many users certainly prefer – of a grown-up conversation with a professional, which might include discussions about options but which also implies a shared responsibility for the decision. This is guaranteed under the NHS constitution.
  • The choice to contribute: this is the option, rarely given at the moment, to give back in some way, and to play a role in the delivery of public services, using your time or specific knowledge of your own condition to help others, and broadening the range of choices before other users. It is also known as co-production.

As service users know very well, there are times when choice and competition are aligned, but there are also times when they cancel each other out. This is so, for example, when the actual choice is made, not by patients, but by service commissioners choosing between two alternative candidates for block contracts.

Or when the weight of demand is such – as it is for some popular schools or GP surgeries – that the choice is made by the institution, not by the user. In both cases, there is competition, but no user choice.

This is a long-term problem for the choice agenda. It means that choice is politically unstable, vulnerable to a change of political leadership just as it is vulnerable to professionals who disapprove of or misunderstand it.

The review recommends a Choice to Switch, in extremis, putting people into another provider in the same position in the queue, with some safeguards.  It also recommended a broadening of the Choice to Contribute.

But the review also heard from people who wanted flexibilities within their service.  There is a case for this to be a new cross-service Right to Request Flexible Service Delivery.

In each case, the provider would not be obliged to provide it if it is impossible, but they will be obliged to explain why and that letter must be posted on their website.

This could not be an obligation on service providers, but it could be organised along similar lines to the ‘right to request’ parental leave.

This kind of right has a political power beyond its immediate effect. It could potentially shift power in the system and do so without expensive changes in institutional framework.

It is part of a much broader agenda for choice that has the potential to make public services more flexible and much more effective.

David Boyle has been the independent reviewer of the government’s Barriers to Choice Review.  His report is at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/news

* David Boyle is a former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate and the author of Tickbox (Little, Brown). You can buy the book from Hive or Amazon.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Martin Lowe 24th Jan '13 - 4:23pm

    Sometimes ‘choice’ gets imposed when it offers no benefits.

    Look at what happened to Directory Enquiries. ‘Choice’ has meant a plethora of providers duplicating effort with variable quality at greater expense and with more consumer confusion – even when it comes to trying to find a number to dial.

    The moral of the story? ‘Choice’ is not necessarily the panacea it is claimed to be.

  • Peter Hayes 24th Jan '13 - 5:22pm

    Choice is always a lie. Where I live there is a grammar school selecting by ability at the random age of 11. In other areas there is hidden selection by schools who have opted out of the LEA but expect them to provide a school for those they exclude. We do not need choice we need quality LOCAL provision.

  • Bernard Salmon 24th Jan '13 - 10:49pm

    @Peter Hayes

    Choice is always a lie
    Really? I must say I’m astonished to see someone who is apparently a fellow Lib Dem express such a view. As Lib Dems, surely what we value most is the ability for people to take more control over our own lives. I fail to see how that is possible without giving people a substantial element of choice. I think choice is certainly not the only element in public service provision – equitable access is another basic consideration – but to say it’s always a lie is just silly.

    We do not need choice we need quality LOCAL provision.
    That is a recipe for municipal socialism, not liberalism. Who decides whether particular services are of sufficient quality – is it the local authority or is it the people who actually use the service? I would suggest there is large scope for the latter. And what happens to those who don’t have that quality local provision? It seems to me that the only options such people have would be either to lump it or to move somewhere else. And if the only criterion is that services are locally run, what happens if some areas are too small or too rural to offer certain services? And I think this ‘local at all costs’ approach ignores some ways that might easily extend choice to people. For instance, to use David Boyle’s example of wanting to study Spanish for A Level, it is the case that some schools might be too small to offer that or there might be timetable difficulties in allowing it to be combined with other subjects. However, I think there’s substantial scope for using technology to allow students to access more course choices – maybe linking up pupils at other ends of the country. Such a service might not be local but would certainly extend choice.

    I have to say, as a Lib Dem, I think in general there are far more problems caused by people lacking the ability to choose than there ones caused by people having too much choice.

  • Richard Dean 25th Jan '13 - 8:58am

    Choice costs, and can be wasteful.
    If everyone is able to choose GPs, then there need to be more GPs available than needed.

    Fortunately, different people have different criteria by which they choose.
    As a scientist, I prefer my son to go to the best school for science. My wife prefers our daughter to go to the best school for law. Our daughter would prefer the best school for dance. Our son wants the best school for dating.

    Choice directs
    If we all want bacon rather than egg, we need to breed more pigs and fewer chickens!

    Choice requires accurate information and the ability to process it
    If people don’t know that LibDems exist, how can we expect them to vote for us?

    Choice can be a social game
    I’d prefer everyone else to achieve their goal of getting their children into the best school. That way, my child can have one-on-one attention at the second best school, and beat the lot of them!

    Choice can be inconsistent, and require support
    I wish I could stop drinking, but my pals won’t let me

  • Daniel Henry 28th Jan '13 - 1:31am

    When will this report be available to read?

  • Daniel Henry 28th Jan '13 - 11:12pm

    Ta Mark

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • David Allen
    Not all wars are like WW2. Some, like Korea, end in stalemate. Others, like Afghanistan, end very badly. In WW2, the Allies didn't only reject appeasement....
  • Chris Rennard
    It is sometimes claimed that we “underperformed” in 2005 when I was Chief Executive and Charles Kennedy was Leader. But electing 62 MPs, tripling our Westm...
  • David Raw
    Michael Bukola hits the spot. My advice to Sir Edward would be to avoid any interview with Andrew Neil under any and every circumstance....
  • Chris Rennard
    I do not think that those people seeking to see a sharper focus for us on some high profile issues are seeking for us to be a “think tank”. Whilst I would ...
  • David Raw
    @ Paul Fox. Some good and interesting points, Paul, and of course Paddy had charisma, an interesting hinterland, and could make an inspiring speech....