Adrian Ramsay | 05 August 2008
In a number of recent articles, Charles Clarke suggests that the Government should introduce a much wider range of ‘user charges’ for public services. Most controversially, he suggests that state schools and the NHS should charge pupils and patients for ‘non-core’ services. These proposals are likely to deepen inequalities in access to health and education, and should be vigorously challenged by the Green Party.
In a recent report for accountancy firm, KPMG, Clarke asserts that people are demanding improved public services, but are increasingly cynical about the state and therefore unwilling to pay higher taxes. He argues that the only way to improve public services is to introduce a system of charging for ‘non-core’ services.
Clarke states that ‘it might be beneficial to increase the proportion of public service costs paid for by the user of a service, rather than the general taxpayer’. This proposed solution fails to address the reasons for people’s cynicism towards taxes and the state, and leads us further away from the principles of a welfare state based on need and equity, not ability to pay.
User charges are already widely applied by local and national authorities for a range of discretionary services (such as TV licenses, passport fees and bridge tolls). Whilst most are fairly uncontroversial, the problem with Clarke’s proposal is that he wants to extend user charges into such essential and life-changing services as the NHS and state schools.
Clarke concedes that inequality will be one of the major criticisms of his proposals. He asserts that ‘this is a legitimate concern which the advocates of any particular change need to answer convincingly’. However, he does not provide any convincing answers himself. He advocates the use of means testing, benefits, insurance or loan schemes for poorer people – all of which bring their own problems of bureaucratic complexity or debt burdens, and which could still leave many people unable to pay.
Clarke’s proposals would also increase the role of the private sector in public service provision. Although he denies that it would lead to creeping privatisation, he states that one of the outcomes of user charging would be ‘better public-private co-operation’ – something many would regard with deep suspicion in the health and education sectors.
Clarke asserts that user charges would not be applied to the existing ‘core’ of free education at 5-16 yrs, but should be applied to ‘extra-curricular’ activities and tutoring. He claims that educational provision for under 5s and over 16s could be improved by introducing state services paid for by individual users.
There is clearly a need for improvements to pre-5 and post-16 education services, and for a wider range of extra-curricular activities, but is user charging a fair and efficient way to provide it? Surely the greatest benefits would accrue to those most able to pay, while those from poorer backgrounds (and likely to have greater need of extra services) would be excluded from the full range of education provision. Clarke argues that free services could be provided through means-testing or other benefits systems. But this would be complex to administer and may still leave many people not eligible for benefits and unable to pay for these services.
If a child is unable to access under-5 education due to the costs, that child will surely be disadvantaged compared to other children whose parents can afford it. However, Clarke seems to think differently, stating that ‘higher quality under-5 education and childcare for one child does not disadvantage another’. This view shouldn’t surprise us, coming from the man who introduced top-up fees for universities and insisted they wouldn’t present barriers to poorer students.
The Green Party firmly believes that education should be free to all, publicly funded, and equally accessible. This should include extra-curricular activities, after-school clubs, nursery education and post-16 education. Such opportunities make an enormous difference to the life of every child, but only if they are equally available to all. Equal access to education is a fundamental principle of any equitable society. A child’s opportunity to access a full and rewarding education should not be limited by their parents’ ability to pay.
How can such improvements be paid for without huge tax increases? A good start would be to re-allocate expenditure from unnecessary and expensive projects (failed IT systems, ID cards, illegal wars – to name a few) and by reducing the bureaucratic burden on teachers. In the health sector, further savings could be made by promoting the prevention of lifestyle-related diseases exacerbated by poor nutrition, stress, pollution and under-exercise.
Clarke’s proposals for the NHS include user payments for ‘extra’ services like chiropody, osteopathy, alternative therapies, regular check-ups, GP visits out of hours and extra hospital services. This would create a two-tier system in which many health-enhancing treatments would be less accessible to those on low incomes, and choice would be available only for those who can afford to pay.
The Green Party manifesto states that ‘Healthcare is not a commodity to be bought or sold. The National Health Service must provide healthcare, free at the point of need, funded through taxation….The NHS is concerned with healthcare provision and should not be subject to market forces either internal or external.’ Clarke’s proposed user fees would lead to further inequalities and uneven standards in health care, while doing little to tackle the real problems of under-funding in the NHS.
The need to invest more in essential public services like health and education cannot be side-stepped by implementing user fees. High quality and accessible services could be funded by tax payers if the Government would shift expenditure away from wasteful projects, close the tax loopholes on corporations, and increase income tax for the highest earners. Charging individual users is not the way to improve the health, education or fairness in our society.
Charles Clarke’s report was covered in a number of local and national newspaper article last month. Mr. Clarke is Labour MP for Norwich South and former Home Secretary and Education Secretary.
Adrian Ramsay is Leader of the Opposition on Norwich City Council, where the Greens hold 13 seats. He is also Mr. Clarke’s challenger for the Norwich South seat at the next General Election and candidate for Deputy Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales. In the 2008 local elections the Green Party finished in first place across the Norwich South General Election constituency, three thousand votes ahead of Labour.
Promoted by Cami Ouzerdine on behalf of Adrian Ramsay, both c/o 27 Clarendon Road, Norwich, NR2 2PN. Validate XHTML Validate CSS
Write a comment
Posts: 10
Reply #10 on : Sat February 04, 2012, 06:18:05
Posts: 10
Reply #9 on : Fri February 03, 2012, 02:24:43
Posts: 10
Reply #8 on : Mon January 16, 2012, 08:26:49
Posts: 10
Reply #7 on : Tue December 06, 2011, 09:07:04