The UK's economic prosperity depends on both a competitive and dynamic economy and on strong and effective public services. Global competition requires continuous improvements from the key sectors in our economy - which includes public services - if we are to maintain the strong economic performance of recent years.
We are in times of rapid change. But increased international competition does not have to make public services unaffordable. It does mean that to stand still is not an option. Globalisation and technology are changing the way we live, work, learn and consume. The standards we expect and the prices we are prepared to pay are increasingly informed by the power of the consumer.
There is no reason why we should accept that services our taxes pay for collectively are ever of a lower quality than those we can purchase individually. Whatever model of delivery is used, quality of provision and equality of access should go hand in hand. Our public services cannot be museum pieces from the 1950s, '60s or '70s - they must change to provide the right helping hand for everyone who wants to succeed in the modern world.
Transformation and continuous improvement is essential for the success of public services and central to their mission in delivering universal, high-quality services. Business - as a service user, a funder and a provider of services - has a vital contribution to make to this process. The model we argue for is to use the best provider available. This will mean a stronger role for the private and voluntary sectors, which have already done much to challenge existing providers - often for the first time - and allow competition to drive change. That is to be welcomed: too many parts of our public services are modelled on an early 20th century vision of state monopoly and municipalism that, if appropriate once, is not today.
We would never accept a monopoly, state or otherwise, in the provision of the most basic of necessities - food or housing - so why should we accept one for health, education or municipal
services? Choice and personalisation must become the norm, and increasingly that will be achieved through consumer-led market mechanisms.
This is not a demand for privatisation. But once the government has decided which services are to be funded from the taxes we pay, it has a duty to ensure the best possible provider, regardless of sector, delivers them. Increasingly, the decisions on who provides them and how they are provided must rest on the views of citizens.
Markets are not an alternative to the principle of equity in service provision. They enable it. Schools and hospitals can still be paid for out of taxation and delivered free at the point of need while markets for provision, management or services ensure the best possible service is provided. Effectively managed markets no more threaten equity than private companies supplying school books, nurses' uniforms or police cars.
We recognise markets in public services need to be managed - there can't be competing accident and emergency departments, for example. But there should be an opportunity for new managers to improve services and deliver more to the public.
The government cannot retreat from its essential task: to decide what services are to be provided and to be accountable to the electorate for those decisions. If a contractor fails to deliver, it should pay the price. Service providers that excel should be properly rewarded. But if the government fails to specify the outcomes it wants, politicians should be held accountable if people don't get what they need.
These principles drive our campaign for reform. They are not dependent on any political outlook and apply to leaders in Westminster as they do to those in devolved administrations. We challenge all who lead or seek to lead political parties to back them and engage in the debate on how best they are delivered.