| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Correspondence
3. Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): What targets his Office has set Government departments regarding ministerial replies to correspondence received from hon. Members. [90872]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Each Department sets its own target for replying to correspondence from hon. Members. Over the next three years, all Ministers will work towards ensuring that at least 90 per cent. of all correspondence received from hon. Members is replied to within those targets.
Mr. Fabricant: That is a hopelessly irresponsible reply. The Minister does not set the targets or even say what the individual Department's target should be--he says only that the work should be completed within three years.
In January, I wrote to the Department of Health about a problem. It was admitted that there was a problem. Eventually, at the end of June, I received a reply saying that it could do nothing about that problem. Does the Minister agree that the targets should include not only the speed of the reply but its quality? Are not the Government singularly failing to deliver replies promptly, and developing a grand canyon between promises made and performance delivered?
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The hon. Gentleman should keep his hair on. He should not get excited by such things. As he well knows, each Department is responsible for the targets that it sets. The Cabinet Office has set its own targets. It has achieved a 96 per cent. success rate on those. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has written to individual Departments exhorting them to ensure that they fulfil the requirement that, within the next three years, they meet 90 per cent. of their targets.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
I commend the Minister's assiduousness in trying to get Departments to live up to the targets that they set. Without wanting to be the school snitch, may I tell him that, in acknowledging a letter, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was brazen enough to say that its target was to
Mr. Kilfoyle:
There is some merit in the argument that there has been an increase in correspondence, which went up by 5 per cent., but I make it clear on behalf of the Government as a whole that we hold no brief for any Department that fails to meet within the required period the targets that have been set. It is in the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that there are speedy responses to legitimate correspondence on matters of interest to them and their constituents.
4. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
What recent discussions he has had with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) concerning new policy areas suitable for discussion in the Cabinet joint consultative committee. [90873]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham):
The review of the work of the Cabinet joint consultative committee, which I am undertaking with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), includes consideration of new policy areas for discussion.
Mr. Prentice:
I do not know what to think about that answer. I expected rather more. It was announced with a fanfare last November that the remit of the new Cabinet joint consultative committee, on which our Liberal Democrat comrades also sit, would be extended. I am left wondering whether the committee is hugely significant, or whether it is not worth the candle.
Dr. Cunningham:
The aims of our co-operation with our Liberal Democrat colleagues are clear and simple. The Liberal Democrats have helped us to hold a more constructive and rational debate about a very important constitutional reform programme, but just at the moment their minds appear to be on other matters.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Perhaps we might get specific about the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he recall that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) takes the view that one of the constitutional issues to be discussed in the Cabinet joint consultative committee should be the campaign for British entry into economic and monetary union? Does the right hon. Gentleman share the opinion that that is a constitutional issue and that it should be discussed in the committee?
Dr. Cunningham:
Fortunately, although I have many responsibilities, responsibility for the statements of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) does not feature among them.
Mr. Lansley:
If the right hon. Gentleman will not help me on new policies, perhaps he will help me on
Dr. Cunningham:
Our discussions with the Liberal Democrats are confidential, but I hope that we may be able to help the hon. Gentleman a little more when consideration of the report is concluded.
5. Mr. Amess:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received on the criteria for public appointments. [90874]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle):
I receive occasional representations from hon. Members about public appointments issues.
Mr. Amess:
Is the Minister aware that the fourth report from the Commissioner for Public Appointments states that an increasing number of health authority appointments are of Labour supporters? What is the Minister's view of the report's remarks about the possibility of political bias in appointments by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Why are so many Labour party supporters or financial backers recipients of public appointments?
Mr. Kilfoyle:
I am sure that the Scots and the Welsh can speak for themselves, but the Commissioner for Public Appointments in fact lauded the progress that the Government have made. She has responded to complaints about certain national health service appointments by setting up a small scrutiny group, which she announced to the Neill committee on 15 July. The Government's policy is one of appointment on merit. The previous Government did not always adopt that approach.
Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South):
Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure at the Government's successful attempts to increase the number of disabled people, women and people from ethnic minorities given public appointments? Does he also share my satisfaction at the decrease in the number of business people given such appointments who have no connections with the areas that they purport to represent?
Mr. Kilfoyle:
I think that the commissioner would agree that the Government have increased the number of women, disabled people and people from ethnic minorities who serve on public bodies. It is certainly true that, rather than bringing people in from outside an area for political reasons, we have implemented the principle of proportionality in those appointments to ensure that they are far more representative of the population in a given area.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
Would Ministers be prepared to contemplate taking appointments, such as health service appointments, out of the hands of Ministers and passing
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The arguments for appointments coming before Select Committees, analogous to the experience in America, have been well rehearsed, but there are sound reasons for not doing that. The hon. Gentleman must remember that all appointments are subject to the usual scrutiny by the Neill committee. The report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments gives due credit to the Government for the way in which they apply the Nolan principles to those appointments.
6. Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North):
If he will make a statement on progress on modernising Government. [90876]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham):
The "Modernising Government" White Paper is the basis of our change programme to reform and modernise public services. We have already made substantial progress, and I shall shortly be publishing a document with an action plan towards meeting the commitments in the White Paper.
Ms Keeble:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that an important part of modernising Government is updating employment practices and making them family friendly? What progress is being made in that regard in Government Departments and, in particular, what steps are being taken to ensure that all Departments reach the standards of the best in terms of flexible working, job sharing and all the other practices considered usual in a modern workplace?
Dr. Cunningham:
Yes, I do agree, and we are developing a programme of more family-friendly employment policies in the civil service. It is our objective to promote best practice in all departments in the civil service and in Government agencies, and we shall continue to do so.
Mr. David Prior (North Norfolk):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister that people working in the public service are a major barrier to change?
Dr. Cunningham:
I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that. He was referring to the culture and some of the management systems in our public services which are obstacles to change. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have now made it clear to the civil service unions, whose leaders I met earlier this week, that we will open negotiations with them on a formal partnership agreement, and I applaud those unions for their considerable commitment to the "Modernising Government" agenda.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |