| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): We welcome the publication of the White Paper, with its objective of improving the quality of public services. We look forward to debating the important issues in it, and we congratulate the Minister on not appearing on the "Today" programme to trail it. I have to tell him that I preferred the original title, "Better Government", to the one that he has chosen, "Modernising Government".
Does the Minister agree that the foundations of what he calls joined-up government were laid by his predecessors? City challenge, the single regeneration budget and Government offices for the regions--which were all opposed by Labour Members--were pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). In driving this concept forward, should the Minister not re-examine some of the initiatives launched since 1997? In our cities, we now have education action zones, employment zones, health action zones, crime and disorder partnerships and new deal for communities. Will those now be joined up?
Should we not consider other issues? For example, as we just heard in Question Time, there has been more money from the Department of Health for the national health service, which we welcome, but I know that Hampshire has had less money from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for social services. What people gain from the NHS swings, they lose on the social services roundabout. As the Minister patrols the frontiers between Departments, will he tackle these problems of conflict and confusion?
The Minister's statement raises important issues for Parliament. We vote money to Departments and we hold Ministers to account, but, as more money is pooled and spent collectively, the more difficult it is to stick to our historic approach to accountability. Has the Minister
thought that through, and are there not issues for our Select Committees to consider? Does devolution not make the achievement of joined-up government more difficult? For example, disabled people need cash and care, but policy on cash is retained at Westminster, whereas policy for care has been devolved.
On the use of information technology, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the risk of pinning his faith on large IT systems at the moment? All hon. Members have constituents caught up in the shambles of the immigration and nationality directorate at the Home Office, where people have to queue from 4 o'clock in the morning and which it is impossible to get through to by phone. Government there is not so much joined up, as clogged up. The Benefits Agency has had much publicised difficulties with the national insurance recording system. People have not received the right pension, and have been offered £10 compensation.
What the Minister has just outlined is larger than any system that has so far been successfully introduced. Will he approach it with a measure of caution? He recognised the need to deregulate, but there have been 2,000 new regulations since 1997, with schools receiving roughly one communication from education departments every day. Will he reassess that approach?
If the Government are to provide a more coherent approach to the services that the individual needs, how will the individual be identified? Will we all have a number? Are we moving towards ID cards, and how will civil liberties be protected?
What will be the cost and who will pay for the delivery of public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Does that pledge cover the whole of the United Kingdom? Will it be possible to retain a unified home civil service after devolution? Will Wales and Scotland end up with their own civil service? Does the White Paper stress the importance of a non-political, impartial civil service? Has not some injury been done to that concept since 1997 by the increase in special advisers, the establishment of a strategic communications unit and the decision to make the Prime Minister's private secretary and press secretary political appointments?
We welcome the Government's stated aims to improve government, to make it more accessible, more accountable and more cost-effective, but we shall watch the details and the implementation with some care.
Dr. Cunningham:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the White Paper. His tone and comments were in marked contrast to the buffoonery of some Conservative Members, and I also welcome that.
I shall try to deal with his important questions. Wehave not thrown away successes from the previous Government's policies. The White Paper acknowledges that there were some successes in this area under the previous Government, and we want to build on and retain them. I am pleased to put that on the record.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that action zones should be "joined up". The whole purpose of health and education action zones is to join up local services so that they can deal with problems more comprehensively. Action zones are examples of joined-up government in action.
The right hon. Gentleman welcomed more money for the health service--in marked contrast to his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who opposed such action and described it as reckless. Again, there is a divergence of opinion in the shadow Cabinet on what investment in the health service is welcome and what is not.
There is no conflict and confusion in government. The White Paper covers all the activities of both central Government and local government. Sir Jeremy Beecham, leader of the Local Government Association, has been a working member of the Cabinet Committee preparing the work.
The "invest to save" budget is an example of precisely what the right hon. Gentleman asked us to do. It will target resources for new activities of this kind, in which more than one agency is involved, with the aim of providing services more efficiently. That applies to local government, Government agencies and Departments of State in Whitehall.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals raise questions about accountability. We have asked the performance and innovation unit--[Interruption.] We have asked the performance and innovation unit to examine issues of accountability in one of its first studies, because, understandably, the House will want to know how it may be affected by the pooling of resources and the sharing of budgets. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, notwithstanding the inane mutterings of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Devolution means that elected Governments in Scotland and Wales will have to decide for themselves. Of course we hope that they will join us in many of our initiatives where that is appropriate, but the very fact of devolution will, in some cases, mean diversity and choice. That was recognised when we embarked on the major constitutional reform that has been so widely welcomed.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard me say that, precisely because we want to avoid the problems of large single information technology systems that he identified, we are developing a corporate strategy for the whole of government. Such a strategy did not exist under the last Administration; that was rather remiss of them. We intend to establish not a single mega-system, but different systems using nets to avoid the problems described by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned identity cards. As the White Paper makes clear, there will be no compulsion. If people choose to use smart cards to gain access to government services, that will be a matter for them, but it will be purely voluntary: no one will be compelled to have a smart card.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about making government services available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. People with web television sets will soon be able to fill in their self-assessment income tax forms at home, and send them to the Inland Revenue electronically. Businesses will be able to do the same with their value added tax returns. The idea that that is not a major advance for people and businesses in terms of convenience and efficiency is laughable: it is a major step
forward, enabling people to fill up forms conveniently in their homes without all the paperwork that has dogged them in the past. I am sure that both individuals and businesses will welcome this development warmly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the future of the civil service. Civil service unions have been closely involved in the work as it has developed. I see the general secretaries of the unions regularly. My hon. Friendthe Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office and other ministerial colleagues have been engaged in a wide- ranging series of workshops with front-line service providers in the public service, learning from them how we can improve the delivery of services. They have many good ideas about how that improvement might be achieved. None of the proposals threatens the future of a unified civil service; nor do we have any intention of doing so.
Dr. David Clark (South Shields):
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and wish him well in his efforts to ensure that the service that our citizens receive in the public sector is equal to the best that they experience in the private sphere. I remind him that, for most of our citizens, government means standing in queues and filling in unnecessary forms. Will he give an assurance that it is his objective to use the best information technology, including voluntary government smart cards, to ensure that unnecessary queueing and form filling are things of the past?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |