OPEN PUBLIC SERVICES

Response to the Government White Paper

Crocels

White Paper

Response

P4

New Generation Organisations in the post-credit-crunch era: Solutions for economic recovery

R E S P O N S E T O G O V E R N M E N T W H I T E P A P E R

New Generation Organisations in the post-

credit-crunch era: Towards the P4 Model

Prepared by Cllr Jonathan Bishop with the assistance of Charlotte Galsworthy for the following sections: The co-operative consortium of people, private and public sector organisations, The White Paper asks how to stimulate more openness and innovation in public services through new types of providers within the public sector, where this will improve services and give better value to the taxpayer. Crocels believes this is through the P4+invest model. This model is, Crocels believes, best placed to enable access to new forms of external finance demanded by the White Paper.

Safe investments for innovation and growth

The Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems The Institute of Life Sciences Swansea University Singleton Park Swansea SA2 8PP

www.crocels.com

Charlotte Galsworthy 71 Cae Glas Cwmavon Port Talbot SA12 9AZ

Version: 070514/DInfoSys/July-02

Table of Contents

Introduction to the P4 Models ........................................................ 5

Towards the ‘P4 Models’ ........................................................................ 5

The P4 Model ...................................................................................................... 6

The Three Equal Sectors – Towards Contingent Working .................... 6

The People Sector............................................................................................... 6

The Private Sector ............................................................................................... 6

The Public Sector ................................................................................................ 7

Summary ............................................................................................................. 7

Technology Driven Services ................................................................... 7

Minimum standards ................................................................................ 7

New Generation Neighbourhood Services .................................... 8

The Neighbourhood Council ................................................................... 8

General power of competence ............................................................... 9

Revenue-raising powers through law enforcement ........................................ 10

Local Referenda in the P4+gov model ............................................................ 10

Determining a Qualified Majority ..................................................................... 11

Zero-tolerance: Three strikes and they’re out ................................................. 12

E-Neighbourhood Watch ...................................................................... 12

Conclusions .......................................................................................... 12

New Generation Commissioned Services ................................... 13

The strategic body and service providers ............................................ 13

Public Choice on Organisation Structure ........................................................ 13

Education .............................................................................................. 14

Accountability ........................................................................................ 14

Healthcare ............................................................................................. 14

New Generation Individual services ............................................ 15

The co-operative consortium of people, private and public sector

organisations for providing individual services ..................................... 15

New Generation Contingent Working .......................................... 17

Reducing Red-tape ............................................................................... 17

Capturing overall value ......................................................................... 18

New Generation Investing ........................................................... 19

Safe investments for innovation and growth ........................................ 19

New Generation Tax, Welfare and Immigration .......................... 20

People-sector administering of assessments ...................................... 20

An end to disincentivising welfare ‘freebies’ ......................................... 20

Encouraging work, saving, and learning .............................................. 21

Non-Income-based Means Testing of Tax Liabilities ........................... 21

Progressive VAT and Community Taxes ........................................................ 22

Enhanced National Insurance .............................................................. 22

Simplified assessment of ‘allowable expenses’ ................................... 22

Fairer immigration ................................................................................. 22

New Generation Justice System ................................................. 24

Co-operation between people, private and public sector organisations

for quick and effective justice................................................................ 24

Stage 1 – Social Dialogue / Issuing Fixed Penalty Notice ................... 26

Stage 2 – Consultative, Co-operative, and Competitive Dialogue ...... 26

Stage 3 – Interpretative, Proportional, and Jurisdictional Dialogue ..... 26

Stage 4 – Fair, Public, Independent, Impartial, Dualist, Restorative

Justice ................................................................................................... 26

Detention for persistent trespass (‘pertinax reus’): Tough on crime .... 27

Forever Deferred Liability (‘malum reus’): Tough on crime causes ..... 27

Debt management and enforcement services ..................................... 28

Technology for New Generation Organisations .......................... 29

CCTV and Surveillance ........................................................................ 29

Community Kiosks and Point-of-sale ................................................... 29

Internet Services (e.g. the Web, ‘apps’, local TV) ................................ 30

24-Hour Telephone Lines ..................................................................... 30

E-Learning and Online Communities ................................................... 30

E-Complaints, E-Petitions, E-Reporting, E-Surveillance ................................ 31

A national perspective ...................................................................................... 31

Consultation Questions on P4 New Generation Organisations .. 32

Enabling the Big Society ....................................................................... 32

Changing Models of Enforcement ........................................................ 32

Education .............................................................................................. 32

Healthcare and Disability ...................................................................... 33

Economic Models ................................................................................. 33

Law Enforcement .................................................................................. 33

Cross-border use of welfare and tax and law enforcement ................. 34

The P4 model was devised as part of a project to bring together the people, private and public sectors to bring about social change by blending e-learning and arts with the build environment.

The White Paper on Open Public Services sets out the Government’s comprehensive policy framework across public services, which recognises that it cannot all be achieved at once. This response to the White Paper builds on the legislation and technology systems already in place, including under New Labour and the present Coalition Government.

The New Labour Government (1997-2010) promised to govern pragmatically in the interest of all people. Their initiatives of Public Private Partnership (PPP) and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) whilst bringing new schools, hospitals and transport services only scratched the surface of what can be achieved through balancing co-operation with competition so that there is a thriving private sector with those new generation organisations providing for the public good being either owned by them or accountable to them. They pioneered the use of Fixed Penalty Notices and Anti-social Behaviour orders, which this document shows can be more effectively used. This consultation paper presents several New Generation Organisation models that can achieve this greater return on government investment based on what the authors call the ‘P4 model’, that is ‘People Private Public Partnership’.

Towards the ‘P4 Models’

Crocels accepts the Government’s five principles for modernising public services in setting out the P4 model of people, private and public sector service provision:

- Wherever possible choice should be increased.

- Public services should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level.

- Public services should be open to a range of providers.

- There should be fair access to public services.

- Public services should be accountable to users and to taxpayers.

P4 / P4+

Chapter

1

Introduction to the

P4 Models

6

In order to achieve this we believe public and other services should be modelled on three equal sectors as set out in the following section.

The P4 Model The P4 Models advocate that the most successful society do not have one single dominant sector, but is driven by the ability for citizens to not only have a voice but be able to exercise it though choice. This will mean the people in society can access their public services or make changes or enhancements to their community using the provider of their choice or a combination of them. For example, someone with an ethically guided conscience could choose to buy and/or receive their and/or their families’ gas, electricity, telephone, Internet, postal services, healthcare, education from a people-sector organization associated with Co-operatives UK (e.g. the Phone Coop), a private sector organization (e.g. Tesco), or a public sector organisation (e.g. NHS-funded hospitals, LEA-controlled schools).

The Three Equal Sectors – Towards Contingent Working

In the White Paper the Government stipulates that it does not have an ideological presumption that only one sector should run services and Crocels supports this view. It has been known for over a generation that the best firms are those which focus on what they do best and using the services of another provider to do those things which while essential are not required to be done in-house. This includes things such as customer-service and IT-support, which can be more effectively done by private firms like Logica. It also includes odd-jobs, like grass-cutting and litter-picking, which can be more cheaply and more effectively done by volunteers (e.g. from Friends of the Earth) or ‘involunteers’ (e.g. from the youth offending or probation services, welfare system, or conscription).

The White Paper asks how the Government could extend the autonomous status to most of those organisations within the public sector that provide services, while ensuring transparency and accountability. Crocels believes this is best done through allowing any type of organisation, whether people, private or public to provide services in any area without market partitioning through catchment areas. To define these sectors:

The People Sector

- The people sector includes charities, social enterprises, voluntary organisations,

dividend-based not-for-profits (e.g. consumer co-operatives) and other statutory not-for-profit organisations, like Welsh Water and Network Rail.

- Where possible new generation organisations should seek to collaborate with

the people sector to meet their stakeholder’s objectives on a co-operative basis

where there is a vertical relationship or where a non-competitive horizontal relationship with a block exemption is possible.

The Private Sector

- The private sector consists of private individuals, such as residents, who may be

freelance or self-employed, formally incorporated businesses (e.g. Centrica,

7

Tesco), or other organisations run for-profit (e.g. Profit-distributing to members in workers co-operatives or clubs).

- The new generation organisations should use the private sector where they can

provide the most competitive tender in terms of quality and price (i.e. where they are the best person for the job).

The Public Sector

- The public sector is the local authority, police, environment agency, state

hospitals and schools, parliaments/assemblies.

- Where the public sector is responsible for a particular matter and they can

resolve the matter quickly they should be used by new generation

organisations.

Summary It summary, we support the Government’s objective in the White Paper that wherever possible, public services should be open to a range of providers competing to offer a better service. This third principle of open public services is foremost in the construction of the P4+ organisations in this response.

Technology Driven Services

Crocels accepts the Government’s premise that it is important to ensure that the datasets government collects are open and accessible in order to support individuals to make informed choices about the services they use. This is because the difference between a successfully implemented P4 model and one that fails to work is that it is supported by technology, comprising of using the fullness community-based kiosks, point-of-sale machines, online services. A patent-pending technology called Vois, could give existing technology the humanity it lacks.

Minimum standards

Also essential to the success of P4+ organisations is minimum standards. Crocels believes these are best done on a market led basis, which can be in collaboration between the different P4+ organisations. We also believe in extending this so that is a non-means-tested basic level of provision so people are not disincentives from going to a higher level of earnings. Crocels further believes that any means testing should be based on surplus wealth and not income, as this is the fairest way to get people out of the ‘benefit trap’.

8

The P4+gov model is ideal for a local community to effectively tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in their communities, without the need for an expensive police presence. By using the ‘community council’ model in combination with its powers relating to Fixed Penalty Notices and Anti-social Behaviour Order along with the precept raise money to clean-up crime and deal with persistent offenders without expensive criminal or civil legal action.

Crocels accepts the Government’s premise that it is not always possible to give people direct control over their public services, and therefore elected representatives should have more choice about who provides services and how. This first principle of open public services is embodied in the P4+gov model set out in this section.

The Neighbourhood Council

The White Paper suggests the establishment of ‘neighbourhood councils’ and Crocels fully support this. The executive of this council could be made up of a cross-party power sharing executive of party members and independents (e.g. rate-payers association) of around three councillors from elected by the people to wards that are based on the Office for National Statistics’ ‘Lower Layer Super Output Areas’. This makes it easy to manage progress of the community and effectiveness of councillors. In the community of Treforest in South Wales, they may be those to the right. The community is made up of every elector in the ward and their dependents. For example, a mother with two children will have three votes which she can vote for on their behalf. Others in a household can act as proxies for anyone else in that building providing they are on the electoral register. The White Paper calls for Police and Crime Commissioners to be elected. Crocels thinks however that these persons should be replaced by the executive of neighbourhood councils. This executive would direct the leadership of local services, acting as consumer and health champions for their local wards. They may need to be full-time.

P4+gov

Chapter

2

New Generation

Neighbourhood

Services

9

Inclusive participation

The White Paper says inclusive participation is a fundamental principle of neighbourhood councils. Decision making in a P4+gov organisation therefore could be based around the European Union principles of ‘representatively’, ‘subsidiary’, and ‘proportionality’, as well as adopting some of the procedures used by the Council of Ministers to work with the European Parliament, as can be seen in . This ‘technical jargon’ basically reflects the Government’s second principle of open public services, which is that power should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level.

General power of competence

Taking into account these principles of ‘representatively’, ‘subsidiary’, and ‘proportionality’, there would be a general rule that margins of appreciation should lie as far as is possible with the people as expressed through P4+gov bodies. Looking at these principles; In the case of the first this means that the organisation makes sure all those who are affected by a decision are involved in making it (e.g. a person who wants to install a conservatory who has made a planning application and their neighbours). The second is that decisions should be made closest to the people affected by them. That is that P4+gov organisations would have to cover areas of between 3000 people (20* Dunbar’s number of 150) and 5000 people (33.334 * Dunbar’s number).

Figure 1 The P4+gov model

10

Revenue-raising powers through law enforcement Crocels supports the White Paper’s commitment to granting greater revenue raining powers. Crocels believes that communities should be run on the basis that the most proportional thing to do when someone commits an offence is fine them (i.e. Fixed penalty notice) without giving them a criminal record, and then on the third occasion of the same offence request an ASBO, which would mean on the fourth occasion they could go to prison. This would free up resources for the state police to focus on organised crime and offences such as homicide, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and sexual offences. Those who can’t afford the fine can have it added to their ‘maintenance loan’ as discussed in the P4+fairness section.

Local Referenda in the P4+gov model Crocels supports the White Paper’s proposals for local referenda, including for greater financial control. We believe this can best be done through the following procedures.

Taking into account the concepts of ‘neighbourhood planning’, ‘overview and scrutiny’ and discussed in the White Paper, the ordinary procedure would be used for:

- Making Decisions relating to

o Town and country planning

o Priorities relating to policing, play areas, parking, etc.

o Licensing consultations

o Other externally-directed statutory consultations

- Under the ordinary procedure the public can veto or approve any decision where a qualified majority say so and 1 councillor supports them

Considering the concept discussed in the White Paper relating to the ‘Community Right to Buy’, ‘Community Right to Build’, and transforming community assets, the co-decision procedure would be used for:

- Making decisions relating to:

o Increasing/reducing the precept (tax)

o Payment of grants to individuals, charities, voluntary sector

o Appointment of governors

o Internally-directed statutory consultations

- Considering the concept of ‘Community Right to Challenge’ discussed in the White Paper, under the co-decision procedure the people can veto a particular point of detail of a proposal if a qualified majority say so and 1 councillor supports them

The special procedure, in place of the ‘beat meetings’ discussed in the White Paper would be used for

11

o Reporting problems and making decisions relating to solving/penalising offences relating to:

o Parking and motoring offences

o Environmental problems (e.g. noise, litter, dog fouling, fly posting, footpaths, grass cutting, bus shelters)

o Disorder (drunk and disorderly, offensive language and behaviour)

o Child protection (selling alcohol to a minor, offensive behaviour towards a minor, truancy by a minor)

- The P4+gov organization may have right to veto a person’s request under the special procedure if two councillors say so, such as if they issue a fixed penalty to someone they have a grudge against due to that other person’s protected characteristics

Determining a Qualified Majority The White Paper calls for public meetings. Crocels supports this and believes that the determination who is allowed to vote is based on the European principle of ‘representativity’ which means only those affected by an issue can vote on it. In the EU this meant that Trade Unions have managed to get Business leaders to agree to maternity rights for example. Also in the EU a ‘qualified majority’ is used so that decisions can be made without one objecting voice holding everyone else back.

In terms of a P4+gov organisation, a qualified majority is made up of the number of residents affected by an issue (for example, everyone in a certain street if another person in that street wants to put up a conservatory or extension).

- Under the ordinary procedure a simple majority of the people affected is required

to make a decision binding on councillors, except where the number of people

affected is 10 or less when 100% is required.

- Under the co-decision procedure where everyone is affected, majority of 75%

approval of the public is required providing that at least 150 people are present.

- Under the special procedure, where a single person has made a request to the

government, such as requesting a fixed-penalty notice be served on an illegally

parked car, the government may veto this if two councillors think it would be too

costly or be discriminatory for example.

- Alternatively the councillors could give another person, such as a volunteer, the

authority to issue fixed penalty notice, and the person it was issued to will have the

right to appeal if they think it was unfairly issued, and if two councillors say so it

can be withdrawn.

12

Zero-tolerance: Three strikes and they’re out Where someone is issued with three fixed penalty notices under the special procedure for the same offence, then an application will be made for an Anti-social Behaviour Order, which will mean on the fourth instance they commit the offence they could go to prison for up to two years if a Court says so. Using ASPOs in place of criminal proceedings under criminal statutes will mean that with the evidence of acts (i.e. ‘actus reus’) of injury (i.e. ‘malum reus’) on a persistent basis (i.e. ‘pertinax reus’) the most proportional action is to detain the offender for a period of rehabilitation so they no longer likely to commit the offence again so they no longer meet the criteria for pertinax reus. These terms are based on EU Competition Law, where Microsoft was fined for breaking the law persistently (‘pertinax reus’) until the time they stopped injuring their competitors (‘malum reus’) through anti-competitive acts (‘actus reus’).

The ‘Common Man Test’ The councillors elected to the council would be responsible for applying ‘The Common Man Test’. This means that where a complaint against someone under the special procedure is made they would need to determine whether it is in the public interest to continue with the proposed action. For example they would need to sift out vexatious complaints. Equally the councillors will be able to veto criminal cases not currently brought before the Crown Prosecution Service which they think are not in the public interest.

Recall Elections

The Neighbourhood Councils would carry a lot of responsibility and power. It would therefore need to be possible for members of the community to demand a re-call election for a councillor where they have been found to fall short of meeting the Nolan Principles on Standards in Public Life. This may include lack of honesty or integrity by continually treating one party or another with more or less favour than others. A clear example of this would be if when applying the ‘Common Man Test’ they were to treat someone from their street, club, or political party more favourable than someone else of a different persuasion.

E-Neighbourhood Watch

As discussed later in the technology section, those volunteers or workers in CCTV centres would be advised on how to report the trespasses witnessed. These could be bridged into a website like Google Latitude where P4+gov bodies anywhere in the country could apprehend the trespasser.

Conclusions

The White Paper States that as choice becomes more available in public services, we will examine the role of elected and unelected office-holders in championing individuals’ rights, ensuring availability of services and providing overview and scrutiny. Crocels suggests that P4+gov organisations may be more adept at meeting this at a local level, than say police and health authorities are currently able to.

13

The P4+choice model is on the basis that a strategic body is needed to run public services with complex infrastructure (e.g. telecoms, gas, electricity, postal services, healthcare) where it is necessary to maintain a universal service, but where consumer choice and competition are necessary to drive innovation and low prices.

Crocels agrees with the premise in the White Paper that good public services are one of the foundation stones of a civilised society. We strongly accept the Government’s premise that wherever possible, choice should be increase by giving people direct control over the services they use – the fundamental component of the P4+choice model.

The strategic body and service providers

The Government says in the White Paper that it is committed to ensuring that providers of individual services who receive public money, from whichever sector, are licensed or registered by the appropriate regulator. At Crocels we believe this is best done by a firm independent of government. Organisations like BT, Centrica, and Network Rail operate as strategic authorities, independent of government while having the character of an organ of the state and are best placed to meet this objective. These bodies are responsible for bridging divides, such as the digital divide in the case of BT, so that social exclusion is minimised and universal provision is realised. Each of these bodies provides the infrastructure so that a competitive market can exist in their respective area to deliver a lot

Public Choice on Organisation Structure Everyone has the opinion on the best way to run the National Health Service or Royal Mail for instance. The old left think these and the strategic bodies and service providers above should be completely nationalised, and the old right think they should be completely privatized. The other way tinkered with by the third way parties was ‘peoplisation’, where Railtrack became a not-for-profit, but this affected shareholders and therefore pensions.

The Fourth Way proposed by Crocels is that the shareholders and customers decided the state model they want in their area (e.g. London, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc.), whether a not-for-profit like Network Rail, a for-profit like Centrica and BT, or State-run like the present NHS. Alternatives include the Foundation Trust model discussed in the White Paper. In the case of the first this would be ‘peoplisation’, in the case of the second

P4+choice

Chapter

2

New Generation

Commissioned

Services

14

this would be ‘privatisation’ and in case of the third this would be ‘nationalisation’. In all cases the staff would remain on the same contracts in line with the TUPE regulations and pensions would be protected highlighted in the White Paper.

Education

Crocels accepts the Government’s conclusion that the attainment gap in schools between rich and poor is stark, particularly as children who qualify for free school meals are half as likely to get five good GCSEs as their better-off peers, and this gap has remained constant over the past five years despite a per-pupil funding increase of around 20 per cent between 2005 and 2010.3

Crocels believes that by using the P4+choice method, where there is a strategic authority that builds infrastructure, such as dedicated school buildings and which works with local community centres and sports clubs to develop their premises for education use.

These school buildings and sports facilities for example can then be hired by grant-maintained schools, such as those ‘free schools’ or ‘co-operative trusts’ which could be run by the parents who use them as ‘service providers’. It should be accepted that these organisations would only exist as long as the parents had their children then. However, the P4+choice body would always be ready to make the premises available to a new school.

Accountability

Crocels supports the Government’s will to establish a more effective role for Ombudsmen in playing a greater role in supporting the ability of individuals to exercise choice in specific services. Crocels believe the most effective procedure is that the first line of complaint should be to the organisation closest to the problem. So this could be the service provider in the case of a health-service, whether public, private or people. If this failed it would then be for the P4+choice body to get involved. Failing that it would then go to the Ombudsman.

Healthcare

The White Paper calls for the formation of Health and Wellbeing Boards and public health being transferred to local authorities. Crocels is concerned by this as it believes that the only bureaucracy should be in the P4+choice strategic body and all other decision making should be driven by consumers through the market. That is, if a consumer wants ethical healthcare they can go to a mutual provider, and equally they can choose any provider that gives a specific added value that people want. With regards to drug and alcohol recovery, these services would be better managed by the service provider the consumer chooses, all of which would be obligated to provide a basic level of provision.

15

The P4+mixed model is on the basis that no organisation can go it alone, and that mergers create more problems than they solve. Current models of co-operatives are limited in that they require equal share ownership, which is off-putting to private investors and therefore limiting the growth of the sector. The authors propose P4+mixed to create co-operatives that have unequal share ownership and profit-distribution while maintaining characteristics like one-member-one-vote and open membership.

The co-operative consortium of people, private and public

sector organisations for providing individual services

A company limited by shares consortia is a great potential P4+ partnership, which could not only attract various ways of investments, but also bring all the required expertise and support to the enterprise.

The public sector can use assets, staff use or seek their own source of funds for investment.

The private sector to use staff, assets or seek funds for their share of investment

The people sector can use membership investment, community owned assets or seek funding through grants and community lending.

Investment could also be used through social bonds , where a partnership with an investor be created where a small percentage of the enterprise could be given in return for their investment into bonds that were used, instead of an interest in cash of their original investment.

Within the individual sectors, they would form or have their own individual company set ups, where the percentage of their shares of the P4+ consortia would be distributed within their sector accordingly to their legal constitution.

P4+mixed

Chapter

3 New Generation

Individual services

16

Figure 2 A New Generation Co-operative in action

17

The P4+contingent model is a new approach to people not engaged through PAYE who have unlimited liability. It reduces the complexity of the current system on the basis of being a ‘lite’ version of a limited company.

Crocels welcomes the White Paper’s highlighting of plans to make procurement more transparent, remove procurement pre-qualification and providing opportunities for smaller providers. Crocels sets out how it thinks this can best be done through the P4+conteigent model below.

Reducing Red-tape

The essence of a P4+contigent organisation is to simplify tax for the self-employed and partnerships, and to make sure there is always a ready supply of labour to keep the economy going in a time of industrial dispute. A P4+contingent company would need to be registered with Companies House, but would not need to submit accounts to them nor an annual return, as they would deal directly with HMRC. These Unlimited Liability Companies (ULC) would be required to register with a ‘Contingent Worker Scheme’ which would be the ‘Construction Industry Scheme’ applied to every sector. This means their

P4+contingent

Chapter

4 New Generation

Contingent

Working

18

‘income tax’ would be debited at source at 20% or 40% as appropriate – perhaps on the terms discussed on page 21. They may be required to pay for a higher rate of National Insurance than at present to cover their public health insurance from the NHS and other public services, should they not want to opt-out. They would be responsible for their own pensions through Independent Pension Accounts modelled on ISAs rather than getting a State Pension. If they are registered with the CWS (formerly CIS) as Gross then at the end of the year they would pay corporation tax on their surplus. If they are registered as Net then they would pay dividend tax on their surplus.

Capturing overall value

Crocels supports the Government’s initiative through the White Paper to focus on capturing overall value. We believe all organisations should be able to appoint contingent workers, including firms, not just on the basis of who is cheapest, but other factors such as experience and qualification.

19

The P4+invest model is on the basis that the equity/loan models don’t work in practice. Governments sell guaranteed bonds so should this be the best investment type for P4+ organisations.

The White Paper asks how to stimulate more openness and innovation in public services through new types of providers within the public sector, where this will improve services and give better value to the taxpayer. Crocels believes this is through the P4+invest model. This model is, Crocels believes, best placed to enable access to new forms of external finance demanded by the White Paper.

Safe investments for innovation and growth

The credit crunch was caused by unaccountable bankers taking risk with others’ money for their own purposes. Such a model driven by putting risk in the hands of those who won’t suffer any consequences is a flawed model of growth and sustainability. Crocels proposes that the risk and benefit should always be in the hands of those who are meant to benefit from it, with the risk being underwritten by either private insurance companies or government protection schemes.

P4+invest

Chapter

5 New Generation

Investing

20

The P4+welfare model is on the basis that the current benefit system discourages people from working and that schemes to help people with disabilities are often made on the basis of finance not need.

Crocels strongly agrees with the Government’s the fourth principle of open public services to ensure fair access to public services. We believe where possible this should be on the basis of universal access, as would be the case with P4+choice organisations. This section sets out some ways in which Crocels thinks this fourth principle could be met. In essence it is through greater involvement of the people sector in assessing need, an end to the welfare ‘freebies’, greater encouragement for saving and investment, and a choice-driven use of National Insurance Contributions as a way of funding only the public services an individual wants.

People-sector administering of assessments

Anyone who makes having addition health insurance know that if they see a consultant privately that they will only recommend the best treatment not one based on cost. Equally the people-sector, such as disability charities are best placed to assess what help disabled people need in order to be most effective in their domestic lives and at work. Equally the people sector is best able to assess what help other people with protected characteristics need. It could be that the complex tax credits, statutory maternity pay, other statutory payment schemes like sickness, could all be replaced with the UK Government’s Personal Independent Payment scheme, which would not only be used for disabled people, but those in pregnancy or maternity for example as well. This would cut down on bureaucracy for small businesses and mean people whether employed or self-employer could get fairness and equality.

An end to disincentivising welfare ‘freebies’

There are people we all know who have been benefit claimants nearly all their lives. The White Paper identifies the Government’s commitment to a Work Programme. Crocels recognising that such a program can only be successful if it recognises that claiming welfare is often not completely by choice, but fear of uncertainty and prejudice and discrimination by employers. The student loan system introduced by the Conservatives and extended by New Labour has increased access to education by enabling all students to ‘buy now pay later’ with their higher education, meaning there is more money to go around to pay for more students to go to university. The advantages of this system is that wherever in the

P4+fairness

Chapter

6 New Generation

Tax, Welfare and

Immigration

21

world the students go, if they benefit from their university education they have to pay the loan back. This ‘student loan’ system could be extended to replace welfare benefits, so those who are out-of work have to borrow money instead of getting hand-outs, perhaps called ‘maintenance loans’ and be in de facto debt if they don’t work, which they are reminded of through statements each year. The implications of this would be that the repayment threshold of say £21,000 would create a cap for wages in those who would otherwise stay on benefits for life who wouldn’t want to pay it back. This would help meet inflation targets through controlling wages.

Encouraging work, saving, and learning

A significant problem with the Welfare system in its current form is that it prohibits saving, even for things such as weddings and continued education to develop workplace skills. The ISA system provides a suitable means with which to make saving and pensions fairer. Instead of handing out community grants for things such as washing machines to those with low financial resources, the ISA system could be used to encourage civic activity and independence trough Enhanced ISAs (EISAs). So if someone wanted to save for a wedding or university course the Exchequer could top it up with an amount towards it when they pay into this EISA. Individual Pension Accounts could require a minimum of 5% of someone’s pre-surplus tax annual income to be placed into an Individual Pension Account which could be either in Cash or Stocks/Shares. The higher the percentage of one’s income put it to an IPA the earlier one can retire. Instead of ‘Pension Credit’ when they retire those on low income would have their IPA toped up as they pay into it. It could be that instead of having people registered unemployed, they would be registered as Contingent Workers so they are ready to take up any employment, even for just 8 hours a week, which some people on benefits are afraid of doing. Those in the Contingent Worker Scheme with no income could get maintenance loans (based on student loans).

The White Paper talks about support for financial support for 16–19-year-olds and the most vulnerable, including disabled. To simplify administration, we think these groups and those with protected characteristics like disability or pregnancy could get Personal Independent Payments if they are unable to reach the level of work a typical person could due to that characteristic. Also, those who are from disadvantaged groups, such as those with no qualifications, a family with no university degree, or an economically deprived area would get educational services paid for them out of taxation, with this being paid directly to the service provider on demand. So as there is a novel in every taxi driver, those ones with few qualifications could take up a degree in creative writing for free, whereas those who are in elite professions like surgeons would have to pay upfront or saving using an EISA.

Non-Income-based Means Testing of Tax Liabilities

Many economists will say that taxing people based on their income is unfair and disincentives work. Also, is it fair that a Head-teacher of a state school pays the same rate of tax as an elite footballer or banker? It is not. Instead what may be more appropriate is to use the rates in the Construction Industry Scheme (i.e. 20% Net, 40% Net, Gross) for everyone. Those in elite professions like surgeons, premiership footballers, Chief Officers of FTSE 100 companies, and similar categories, should have to pay 40% regardless of income on all their income. Other people, such as office workers, cleaners, and other

22

manual or clerical professions should only pay 20% tax on all their income. In essence, ancillary professions should have to pay 50% less income tax than elite professions.

Progressive VAT and Community Taxes One thing known about VAT is that it is regressive. Yet the progressive income tax also acts as a disincentive to work. Through income tax fixed at 20% and 40% Net as it is in the construction industry, VAT could collect taxes on a more equitable basis. VAT on items which mainly people with huge wealth could afford, like brand new sports cars over £100,000 or the latest TV around £2,000 would pay higher tax than those cheaper alternatives (£5,000 or £150 respectively) that poorer people would be forced to accept. This progressive sales tax could be used to fund municipal services normally done through Council Tax, while P4+gov could raise tax through the ‘precept’ for community initiatives that would otherwise be subject to the free-rider problem. .

Enhanced National Insurance

As IPAs would replace the state pensions, National Insurance would take on a different role – to fund the NHS and other universal provision services, like the Postal Service, Utilities and other P4+choice bodies. People would be able to opt-out of paying this, should they want to take up private or people options, or it could be used to subsidise those services directly. Even with opt-outs an alternative would be mandatory. This insurance would pay for people’s universal provisions in healthcare and postal services, etc. It would mean that in Gas and Electricity for example, pensioners and the disabled could have a threshold before they start paying for it. This would be administered by the private firms through accessing the person’s records on Government Gateway, cutting costs in administering the Winter Fuel and Cold Weather Payments.

If all British Nationals were required to pay National Insurance, regardless of which EU country they paid their income tax in, then programmes like the NHS, Direct Payments, could be used to fund treatment while they are abroad taking up their rights to free movement. This would break down the barriers many disabled people face in moving to another part of the EU, as they usually have to give up all their support with the exception of the Personal Care component of Disability Living Allowance, following a ruling of the European Court of Justice.

Simplified assessment of ‘allowable expenses’

Those workers who are currently part of the Construction Industry Scheme have to, when they submit an invoice, state what is ‘Labour’ and what is ‘Materials’. This system could be applied to all Contingent Workers (e.g. self-employed persons) to increase transparency and reduce tax-avoidance. On each invoice someone would have to state what they are charging for Labour and what they are charging for ‘Allowance Expenses’ (which would replace the ‘materials’ column). They would then be taxed 20% or 40% as appropriate on the labour element and not be taxed on the ‘allowable expenses’ element.

Fairer immigration

The White Paper calls for views on immigration. Crocels believes that it should be possible to make all immigration applications online from any country and e-learning should be

23

used to explain how the UK works to potential applicants. We think people outside the EU should only be granted a visa if they have a legitimate course, job or family member to go to. Also, they should only be able to request a Visa if they pass a Citizenship test on the EU, set by the European Commission and also the UK Citizenship test.

24

The P4+juris model is on the basis justice is most effective done at the level that has greatest margins of appreciation of a ‘bleasure’, that is a perceived trespass against someone.

In the White Paper, the Government said it wanted the Government views on the potential to extend commissioning approaches to other national services. This section looks at in particular court and tribunal administration;

Co-operation between people, private and public sector

organisations for quick and effective justice

The essence of a P4+juris system is that P4+gov organisations are the most effective bodies to determine the ‘triage’ of the case, which is whether it is a vexatious complain, whether it only requires a Fixed Penalty Notice, or whether serious enough to refer to a P4 organisation with powers to investigate and prosecute.

These P4 organisations would be selected through providing the person who experienced a bleasure (perceived trespass) with a list of approved P4 organisations to assist with the investigation of their case. If they were people sector organisations they may be based on the ‘RSPCA model’, where they represent a particular interest and have to powers to investigate and prosecute. These organisations would be called upon if the bleasure was in relation to a perceived trespass against someone in a personal way (such as that they were physically or verbally abused for being Black), in a social way (such as that were denied access to a church because they were gay), or because of a trespass relating to their health (such as that they were denied health treatment because of their age). It is assumed that these people sector organisations would have more of an interest in resolving the perceived trespass against a person they representing than the current state police.

Private organisations, mainly insurance companies, would be called upon to solve bleasures relating to property and obligations. For example, the insurance of someone who had a £25,000 car stolen would have to decide whether they wanted to tap into the P4+gov organisations CCTV or pay-out due to the costs of the investigation being too high. It is assumed that these private organisations would have more of an interest in solving the perceived trespass than the current state police.

P4+juris

Chapter

7 New Generation

Justice System

25

The public sector organisations would be involved in serious issues such as those relating to organised crime such as counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, human trafficking, forced relationships of a sexual or other nature, homicide, and other trespasses covered by international treaties which are not in the competencies of the people or private sectors.

26

Stage 1 – Social Dialogue / Issuing Fixed Penalty Notice

The P4+gov organisation would first consider whether the perceived trespass could be resolved amicable between the parties, or whether a Fixed Penalty Notice would have to be made. This may also be appropriate for example when the trespass is against the community such as in the form of littering, parking and motoring offences. In other cases where Fixed Penalties are not appropriate they should proceed to Stage 2.

Stage 2 – Consultative, Co-operative, and Competitive Dialogue

In this stage, the P4+gov body on behalf of the bleasured person, would need to engage with external organisations from an approved list on a consultative, co-operative and competitive dialogue process and then present the bleasured person with the options.

Stage 3 – Interpretative, Proportional, and Jurisdictional

Dialogue

Should the bleasured person wish to work with the appropriate P4 organisation to resolve the issue, any case built would have to go before the court of first instance (CFI), which would be the current Magistrates Court, where the merits of the case would be assessed to determine whether it is proportional to bring the case, whether there is a case to answer, and which jurisdiction it is. That is whether the case should be heard in the Civil and Family Court (e.g. for personal nuisance, discrimination, harassment); or a Professional/Trade Court (e.g. for professional negligence, employers liability), such as an industrial tribunal, British Medical Association, etc.; an International General Court (e.g. for negligence, dangerous products, breach of duty, defamation, occupier liability), such as the County Court for minor trespasses or High Court for major offences or cases where there is no precedent; an International Criminal Court, such as the Crown Court for minor offences (e.g. breach of human, civil or fundamental rights), or the High Court for major offences (e.g. breach of UN treaties, organized crime) or cases where there is no precedent including judicial reviews. The Queen’s Bench and Chancery Division would only be part of the Court of Appeal, which would hear appeals after the High Court had considered them. The Court of First Instance has the authority to make an ‘Ouster of Jurisdiction Order’, where the parties in the case can resolve to make it under a different recognised legal system, such as alternative dispute resolution, or a religious doctrine. This separate legal system would have to make a recommendation to the CFI for sentencing. This could become a norm for cases of a non-international nature.

Stage 4 – Fair, Public, Independent, Impartial, Dualist,

Restorative Justice

All cases would be handled on the basis of fairness and that they are held in public, independent and impartial. They would be ‘dualist’ in that each party involved in the case (called pressioners), would be under equal scrutiny of the court and ‘counter-claims’ or trespass would be the norm. That is, that ‘arranging pressioner’ bringing the case could be equally found to have committed a trespass as the ‘responding pressioner’ who is the defendant in the case.

27

The International General and Criminal Courts would be able to make preliminary references to the Supreme Court, the Court of Justice of the EU, The European Court of Human Rights, the UN Criminal Court, and other UN bodies to make justice more efficient.

The Court of Appeal would hear appeals on points of law where a complex case has been subject to ‘rifferance’ to determine liability, or ‘rifference’ to differentiate a right from a trespass. The Queen’s Bench would hear appeals relating to Civic and Family affairs, inter alia consumer contracts, discrimination, harassment. The Chancery in addition to equity would hear other property issues inter alia intellectual property, and anything relating to commercial obligations, whether relating to the policies of a professional body, or business to business issues. After these courts, cases could be heard before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom if necessary. If further necessary they could be referred though rifferance or rifference to the European Court of Justice, and then if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights which would become the EU’s highest court, balancing the European Convention on Human Rights and Charter of Fundamental Rights with other international recognised laws to which the EU is a signatory as a distinct legal personality. The European Court of Human Rights would have the authority to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ of the defending nation’s law with ECHR/CFR/UN laws and the United Nations would need to take appropriate action. For instance the UN could be given the powers to annul any incompatible law with a resolution of the UN Security Council excluding that nation. The nation if maintaining that law could be brought before the full UN Criminal Court for such breaches.

Detention for persistent trespass (‘pertinax reus’): Tough on

crime

Instead of 90-days without trial or statutory prison sentencing anyone on the basis of the European Convention of Human Rights could be detained if it was reasonably foreseeable they would commit a trespass. Law enforcement officials could detain anyone, such as someone drunk and disorderly for 24 hours if they may commit a trespass. Equally the International Police could detain someone for 24 hours if they think they may commit an act of terror for example. After the 24 hours the CFI would need to determine whether they are likely to continue. Someone persistently speeding could be detained so they can’t kill someone one the road after a deminimis threshold is passed. Detention can also be made after a trespass.

Forever Deferred Liability (‘malum reus’): Tough on crime

causes

When deciding a case, if someone is found to have committed a trespass (actus reus) then the court would have to consider whether there is any causation between their actions and the actions for others. For example, someone with autism may have committed a trespass after being deceived by another who will be liable, and they may have only done it because of a need to project the way they were bullied.

28

Debt management and enforcement services

Crocels welcomes the Government’s commitment in the White Paper to reform debt management and enforcement services. At present it is near pointless to bring legal action in the small claims court as even when a County Court Judgement is issued the money then still needs to be retrieved. This is all too often done through unethical forms of acquisition of property such as bailiffs.

Crocels on the other hand believes that when someone is owed money they should easily be able to get it back, though using the Maintenance Loan system discussed as part of the P4+fairness system. This would mean that when someone is owed money, it is deducted from the same point as their current student loan, and future maintenance loan to replace welfare.

29

The P4 models are dependent on modern technology in order to work and offer advantages over existing models. Information flow, to and from the organisations’ stakeholders in essential in order that their services remain both efficient and effective, and that stakeholder satisfaction is maintained at all time. The chapter proposes some technologies that will reduce anxiety of service users, who may not know what is going on when they are using the services of a new generation organisations, as well as allow them to maximise their participation with those organisations and its other stakeholders.

The White Paper requests views on customer contact services, identity-related services and back-office functions for prosecutors. This section sets out hoe Crocels thinks this can be achieved through the P4+ model.

CCTV and Surveillance

Communities operating a P4+gov new generation origination would assume control of all CCTV in their area, whether on business premises, public buildings such as libraries and hospitals, in the street, or elsewhere. Using patent-pending technology, called Vois, they will easily be able to see whether a known terrorist, sex offender, or illegal immigrant for instance is in a place they shouldn’t be and then be informed of the procedure to take to resolve the problem. Vois will also be able to inform them whether someone is intoxicated, such as being drunk-and-disorderly so they can notify the nearest resident with the authority to issue fixed-penalty-notices to target them. Where violence is on the screen, instead of the ‘walk-on-by’ society we have now, Vois would pick up gestures such as violence and notify the person at the CCTV what is happening and who to report it to.

Community Kiosks and Point-of-sale

Kiosks are not that new, but their use is non-strategic and non-integrated. They currently used in Job Centre’s, seen by New Labour as a way of facilitating easy flow of information to jobseekers. A further opportunity for them exists, with White Paper’s commitment to making Government data more open and the public’s access to their information through approved providers to be made easier.

A P4+ organisation, such as the P4+gov law enforcement and regeneration body could use kiosks to provide information on what constitutes an offence and where they can get

P4+tech

Chapter

8 Technology for

New Generation

Organisations

30

help from other parts of the people/private/public sectors to reduce the likelihood of committing such an offence. Both kiosks and point-of-sale, such as Pay Point, can be used to pay fines, taxes, utility and other bills, and in the case of P4+gov organisations to vote on community issues. They could book appointments with P4+choice licensed organisations based on their preferences such as time, location, etc.

In a hospital or 24-hour walk-in clinic, such as those operating under a license from a P4+choice body, could use kiosks to allow patients in need of assistance to get health advice on where to get support, and if in A&E to know how long they have to wait to be seen, know the results of tests, etc. Using the patent pending technology called Vois these kiosks could recognised the emotional state of the user and reassure them accordingly through a chat-bot. Should they need to be referred to a specialist the chat-bot can talk them through the options and understand their concerns and help them work out what is best for them. The kiosk can also list potential organisations that could provide them with extra support, such as a lift home if it is early in the morning.

Internet Services (e.g. the Web, ‘apps’, local TV)

The Internet would offer all the services of the Kiosks, presented differently, as well as link the P4+ new generation organisations to the stakeholders’ social networking services, at present, Facebook and Twitter. Furthermore, Crocels agrees with the White Paper’s commitment to look at local TV services, which could use the Red Button to access these services over the Internet also.

24-Hour Telephone Lines

Instead of paying for staff to man phones during normal office hours, a specialist provider should be sourced to give a dedicated service. This could be done by small new generation organisations through small providers like Regus, or through larger originations such as P4+choice strategic infrastructure organisations through large outsourcing firms like Logica, based in Bridgend.

E-Learning and Online Communities

The New Generation Organisations could collaborate on producing open-source re-usable ‘learning objects’ to provide to their users. For instance health providers operating under the P4+choice model can share resources to help their patients deal with difficulties such as chronic illness, through recognised authoritative information through websites of the choice. For instance, the website of the charities Mind and Samaritans could use the same materials produced by mental health professionals in order to support their stakeholders with depression for instance.

Figure 3 A kiosk-using Tony Blair

31

These charities could link into the P4+choice organisations and online social networks to help patients become part of e-communities, where they can with the help of people with similar conditions overcome the social and emotional difficulties associated with their condition.

E-Complaints, E-Petitions, E-Reporting, E-Surveillance Crocels supports the Government’s fifth principle of open public services, which is that they must be responsive to the people they serve and held to account by citizens and their elected representatives. To achieve this Crocels believes that any stakeholder of any P4+ organisation should be able to raise concerns or make requests confidentially through their information systems. For example if they spot someone committing an act (‘actus reus’) which injures the community in the form of a person or the environment (‘malum reus’), using their smart-device they should be able to capture it and then text, upload or transfer it via MMS, a mobile app, the Web, a Kiosk, for the appropriate authority to handle.

Equally if there is a particular concern they and other stakeholders have, such as that a provider under the P4+choice model is not providing the service they expect, they should be able make a complaint via any of the above means. If there is a particular service the stakeholders want from a P4+ new generation organisation, they should be able to petition the directors/trustees directly without intervention of an elected representative. This should be possible through Kiosks, the Internet or telephone any time of day.

Any resident or stakeholder should be able to report any problem in their community through one of these systems. If it is within the competencies of a P4+gov organisation, then that new generation organisation should through the ordinary procedure consult with the people as to their priorities, or if it needs immediate action under the special procedure, such as drunk and disorderly behaviour, graffiti of an offensive nature or noise from neighbours then councillors should take steps to resolve it quickly.

A national perspective It is known that with crimes such as theft, the thief could be at another part of the country before the police even respond. With tracking devices build into smartphones and cars, these could be added to websites like Google Latitude and P4+ law enforcement volunteers or officials could intercept the stolen possession and detain or fine the thief.

32

Enabling the Big Society

1. The White Paper askes about empowering public sector staff to take control of their own services in new enterprises like mutuals. Equally, how can the skills of members of the public be raised so that they may be emancipated from the controlling state, where they may have a voice at the ballot box, but have little choice in the decisions made for them?

2. The White Paper envisages actively encouraging new providers, of all sizes and from all sectors, to deliver public services. How can those elected representatives who believe in the means of production, distribution and exchange being in the hands of the State and imposed by democratically elected governments, be transitioned to a people-led society where government plays a smaller role than at present?

Changing Models of Enforcement

3. The White Paper says the Government wants to involve independent champions like Which in open public services. Crocels agrees with this in principle and ask: Would a body like this make a better job of enforcing trading standards than local authorities?

Education

4. The White Paper speaks about school and university admissions. Would it be fairer if the top 5% of students at every school, regardless of the marks of the candidate get given an A* grade? This could mean those from disadvantaged areas could meet admission criteria for elite universities even though there is still work to do in improving local provision.

5. The White Paper speaks about the English Baccalaureate. Would it not be better to have a system similar to Bologna to harmonise qualifications across the EU while using Europass Mobility to explain local curricula?

Questions

Chapter

9 Consultation

Questions on P4

New Generation

Organisations

33

6. The White Paper speaks about the Pupil Premium and school funding. Could the Pupil Premium be used to allow greater choice and mobility of pupils beyond catchment areas, such as on the basis of the successful Assisted Places Scheme?

7. The White Paper speaks about improving school funding arrangements. As in the previous paragraph, could this be done of the basis of choice so the funding goes directly to schools picked by the student’s parents and by-passing the local authorities?

Healthcare and Disability

8. The White paper talks about various health funding schemes such as for sufferers of chronic health conditions, adult social care, and support for special educational needs (SEN) and disability. Would it not be best if these various pots of money were given to the persons preferred P4+choice service provider, for example Bupa/AXA/etc. in the case of healthcare, or charities like the NAS for people with autism or RNIB for people who are blind, who are currently financed from Direct Payments?

Economic Models

9. What changes need to be made to economic models based on financial capital so that they take account of the ‘mass-collaboration’ drive of the Big Society, where volunteers and ‘involunteers’ give or are made to give their time often only being exposed to opportunity cost.

10. Could the ‘P4+contingent’ model be the mandatory option for those out of work? Could this mean they will always be available for work should they be needed to cover for people who have withheld their labour?

Law Enforcement

11. Would a P4+gov body as the enforcer against everyday trespasses, like drunk and disorderly behaviour and other anti-social offences using P4+self ‘contingent workers’ be more cost effective than the current employee-based policing structure?

12. Will this proposed localised non-criminal resolution of trespasses, where something is a crime if the person feels ‘bleasured’ and this is found to be proven through ‘actus reus’ and ‘malum reus’ more quickly resolve ‘crime’ than the current system?

13. Would a protracted dualist judicial process discourage vexatious claims and reduce the likelihood of ‘ambulance chasers’ trying to make a quick profit?

14. Would removing police from day-to-day trespasses, where they stand likely to lose their jobs is crime is reduced, and replacing them with charities who have

34

an interest in the victim, and insurance companies worried about their bottom line be more likely to lead to the resolution of ‘crimes’?

Cross-border use of welfare and tax and law enforcement

15. Does it make sense that National Insurance be used to fund health-care and social services support for UK Citizens wherever in the EU they are?

16. Would having a welfare system modelled on the ‘student loan’ system mean that other EU Nationals would have to pay back the ‘benefit payments’ they claimed in the UK when they go back home or anywhere else in the world?

17. Would having cross-border IT systems which flag-up registered offenders when they approach risk-areas, make it easier for EU Citizens to self-enforce the law through people-sector organisations like Neighbourhood Watch or other P4+gov initiatives?

18. Would EU-wide private-sector provided systems like Google Latitude make it easier for EU citizens to intercept property stolen from other EU citizens?

Responses

Responses can be made by writing to the addresses at the start of the document or at the following Web address:

http://www.crocels.com/index.php/130/