Public Service Agreements (Hansard, 6 December 2001)

§ 1. Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh)
What work his Department has carried out to date on the public service agreements that will form part of the 2002 spending review. [18682]

§ 8. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)
What work his Department has carried out to date on the public service agreements that will form part of the 2002 spending review. [18691]

§ The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith)
The Cabinet Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, monitors Departments' performance against their public service agreements. Departments will propose a new set of PSAs covering the period 2004 to 2006 as part of the 2002 spending review decisions, which will be published at the end of the review.

§ Mr. Francois
The Chancellor's PSAs cover a wide range of Departments, including the Department of Health. From his perspective, can he or one of his Ministers please explain why, if the Treasury's claims that it is putting ever more money into the health service are correct, waiting times in accident and emergency units are going up instead of down?

§ Mr. Smith
The progress that we are making on the national health service in implementing our public service agreements and targets is evidenced by the fact that, as we said we would, we cut waiting lists by 100,000 and have increased the number of nurses by 17,000 and the number of doctors by 6,700. Also, some 600,000 more operations are taking place in the NHS and we have the biggest hospital-building programme in its history. This Government and this party would not follow the advice of the shadow Chancellor, who describes the NHS as a "Stalinist creation" and wants to bring in charges.

§ Mr. Robathan
May I quote from objective 1 for the Cabinet Office in the public service agreements for 2001 to 2004? That objective is to work with No. 10, Departments and others to secure…information age government. Given all the fine words that we get from the Government about freedom of information, as they are the only Government who have ever refused to comply with the findings of the parliamentary ombudsman on the code of practice on access to Government information, are not these public service agreements yet another example of fine words but absolutely no substance in reality?

§ Mr. Smith
Not at all. We are complying with the public service agreements and our requirements under the relevant codes. The evidence is there in the extra investment and extra quality of services that the people of this country are seeing.

§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)
I welcome this innovative feature of the spending review, which was introduced in 1998. However, we are aware that not all the money allocated last year was spent. Indeed, I think that £7 billion had to be spent. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the public service agreements will help that money to be spent, so that we can get delivery on the ground? There was also a plethora of targets. Can he assure us that we have targets not merely for the sake of targets, but for delivery at the end of the day?

§ Mr. Smith
On the architecture of the public service agreements, I echo what my hon. Friend says in welcoming this innovation, as did the National Audit Office, which described the introduction of public service agreement targets and, in particular, the move to outcome-focused targets as an ambitious programme of change which puts the United Kingdom among the leaders in performance measurement practice. I also agree with him that it is delivery on the ground that matters. That is why we realigned the targets more closely with the key priorities in the last spending review and are working with the delivery unit in No. 10 and with the Departments to ensure that promises made are promises kept.

§ Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington)
What prospect would there be of delivery on any single one of these public service agreements if it were Government policy to get public spending down to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product?

§ Mr. Smith
There would be no prospect of such progress. Of course, that is the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
How astonishing it is, in view of the importance of the question, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should run away from it and leave it to the Chief Secretary to answer. In relation to achieving the aim of the public service agreement on health, what importance do the Government attach to their policy of raising spending on health care to the European average by 2005?

§ Mr. Smith
It is very important indeed. That is why that policy was set out by my right hon. Friend the 447 Prime Minister in Question Time last Wednesday and yesterday, and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in Monday's debate on public services. It is the Government's policy.

§ Mr. Howard
In that case, will the Chief Secretary answer one of the questions that I asked the Chancellor on Monday, namely, does that mean the European average as it was in 2000, as it is in 2001 or as it will be in 2005?

§ Mr. Smith
If I recall correctly, the most recent figure for the European average is from 1998, when it was 7.9 per cent. The Prime Minister committed us yesterday to achieving 8 per cent. in 2005. We shall achieve that target.

§ Mr. Howard
Is that the sum of the Government's ambition—to reach by 2005 the European average as it was in 1998? Does not that show the utter confusion at the heart of the Government's policy on health? Is not it extraordinary that they make a song and dance about that target when people in this country are dying from illnesses that they would survive if they lived elsewhere? Is not the meddlesome Chancellor at the heart of the mess?

§ Mr. Smith
I think that the shadow Chancellor is trying to rerun Monday's debate when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) comprehensively demolished him. When challenged on whether he would keep the NHS free at the point of need, he would not confirm that. He remains committed, as he said in the last Parliament, to reduce the proportion of national output taken by the state towards 35 per cent. That would inflict incalculable damage on our national health service, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described as a "Stalinist creation".