| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Jan 2003 : Column 717—continued
Correspondence
23. Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): What steps he plans to take to improve the speed and relevance of replies by Departments to letters and inquiries from (a) hon. Members and (b) the public. [93524]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments on the handling of correspondence for Members of Parliament and the public. However, it is the responsibility of individual Ministers to ensure that their Department responds to all correspondence promptly and accurately.
Mr. Allen : It is very unfair to ask the Minister this question since his replies are prompt, full and an example to all other Ministers. Indeed, I believe that Sir Andrew Gordon, the chief executive of "Ofmin", may well consider making my hon. Friend a beacon Minister. May I tell my hon. Friend that the standard that he delivers does not necessarily apply across Government? There is increasing discontent among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the speed and fullness of some of the responses to Members. That must be writ large in terms of the public. Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that his colleagues reply as promptly and fully as he does?
Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. Of course I acknowledge that there is
concern in the House about this important matter. We have a responsibility to the House as Ministers to reply promptly. I pay tribute to the work done by the Select Committee on Public Administration on this issue, about which the Government have made clear their determination to improve standards. We are continuing to work towards those goals.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Given that MPs' letters are the last resort for many desperate constituents who have suffered severe bureaucratic delay and that, according to parliamentary answers, the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have between them 1,500 MPs' letters unanswered after six months, will the Minister bring the authority of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary to bear on the Departments that are not delivering, although I am not sure whether that will work with the Lord Chancellor, to whom I wrote on 8 October about the temporary closure of Berwick court and who still has not replied long after the court has reopened?
Mr. Alexander: I shall be happy to pass on the right hon. Gentleman's concerns to the relevant Ministers.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): The hon. Gentleman will perhaps know of the proposal to use Caythorpe Court in my constituency as an emergency centre for refugees. Is he aware of the strong opposition to that in my constituency? Is he aware that, on 14 December, I wrote to the Minister of State responsible, but did not receive a reply until 17 January, after a parliamentary question asking for a reply? Is he aware that, on Monday last week, I asked for a meeting? I have been told that there are personal reasons why I cannot have a meeting until 11 February. Accordingly, I have asked the Home Secretary for a meeting and, so far, that has been declined. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that pattern of conduct is in accordance with the conventions and practices of Ministers or the House, or is in any way satisfactory?
Mr. Alexander: I can only reiterate that as the concerns raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman relate directly to the Home Office, I will pass them on to the Home Secretary.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): Is the Minister aware that one of the problems with ministerial replies to correspondence is not just the speed or fullness of the reply but whether the Minister answers the question? Is it possible to advise officials that it is not good enough to pull together a few standards paragraphs on a subject? It is helpful to read the letter and answer the question that the correspondent has put.
Mr. Alexander: The present guidance, "Handling Correspondence for Members of Parliament: Guidance for Departments" sets out the principles that Departments should follow when replying to Members' correspondence.
Fire Dispute
12.31 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, I shall make a statement on the fire dispute and the Government's proposals in the light of the breakdown of negotiations at ACAS.
The House will be aware that all sides welcomed the resumption of talks after last Tuesday's 24-hour strike. The chair of ACAS agreed terms of reference for those talks with both the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. The terms of reference are very wide and say that both sides should
- "bring their respective agenda to the table and neither side would seek to rule any issue in or out".
While we sit here, the armed forces and other emergency services, including the police and the many retained firefighters who have continued to work during the strikes, are providing cover for the striking firefighters. I am sure that the House will want to join me yet again in expressing our thanks for their courage and hard work and for the way they have conducted themselves throughout this dispute. I have made it clear that the armed forces will have the resources that they need. As I said when I made my last statement to the House on 20 January, we have now provided 177 red engines to augment the green goddess fleet. For the first time during these strikes, we now have a number of aerial water towers to provide cover in extreme situations. The armed forces also have 30 new thermal imaging cameras.
The history of this dispute has been one of last-minute ultimatums and walkouts by the FBU. Let no one in this House be in any doubt: the switch from a series of eight-day strikes before Christmas to a programme of one-day and two-day strikes after Christmas does not represent a change of heart on behalf of the FBU; far from it. All it represents is a change of tactics. Its aim is minimum pain for FBU members and maximum disruption for everyone else.
It is the Government's duty to maintain public safety, and we will continue to do so. The House should be aware, however, that so far this dispute has cost the taxpayer more than £70 million, and costs will continue to rise at £1 million a day for as long as the dispute continues, whether or not the FBU is on strike. That money has not come from the reserve; it has come from programmes in my Office, many of which are designed to help the most needy in our communities.
The FBU is now trying to shift its ground by claiming that this dispute is about job cuts and protecting the fire service rather than pay and modernisation as set out by Sir George Bain's independent review of the fire service. The FBU is not interested in the modernisation agenda. It has put out false and misleading information about thousands of job losses and hundreds of fire station closures. That is a gross distortion of the proposals set out by Sir George Bain. Sir George made it clear that there is absolutely no need for compulsory
redundancies. Modernisation will not lead to hundreds of fire station closures. Instead, it will lead to a better fire service, greater safety for the public and more rewarding careers for fire service employees. The FBU is now seeking a judicial review of the proposed repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is now before the House and is recommended by the Bain inquiry. That is a sign of how completely it is opposed to modernisation.The repeal of section 19 will do no more than put the management of the fire service in local hands. All it removes is a bureaucratic obstacle, but it is one that the FBU has used to good effect to protect its outdated working practices. Contrary to what the FBU claims, local communities will still be consulted on fire service priorities and plans. That has not changed. Let no one be in any doubt: the FBU's claim remains, as it has for the past nine months, a 40 per cent. pay rise for firefighters and a 50 per cent. pay rise for control room staff without any commitment to modernisation whatsoever—no change, no compromise, no modernisation.
Talks at ACAS started on 4 December. There have been days and days of talks about talks, yet the FBU has walked away from any substantive negotiations. I have had numerous discussions with the general secretary of the FBU, and the Government have given him the benefit of the doubt, but this latest strike, coming so soon after the terms of reference for the negotiations were agreed, leads me to conclude that the FBU executive is not serious about a negotiated settlement.
The latest round of strikes confirms that the FBU is playing cat and mouse with the employers, the Government, public safety and public money. The Government and local authority employers want a fully modernised fire service providing the best service to the public. The FBU refuses even to negotiate about that. The employers are now rightly insisting that in light of the past two months of strike action, talks cannot take place while strikes are in progress or threatened. As yesterday's decision by the FBU shows, the union is determined to press ahead with further strikes. As a result, negotiations have broken down and we are in deadlock.
The fire service is not like any other industry. The public cannot be put at risk on a weekly or monthly basis. It is essential to resolve the dispute. We all want a resumption of talks. The employers have rightly put forward a fully costed proposal on pay and modernisation based on Sir George Bain's agenda. That is the only basis for negotiation. But the Government have to be prepared if the FBU continues to refuse to discuss modernisation. Against that background, I have concluded that the time has come to take a further step to help break the deadlock.
As a matter of priority, I will introduce legislation in the public interest to take new powers of direction over the fire service. Those powers will, I hope, bring a new and much-needed sense of reality into future negotiations. I will discuss, through the usual channels, including the devolved Administrations, the best way to introduce the legislation. I will draw on the provisions in the Fire Services Act 1947 that were repealed in 1959. Those provisions allowed a Secretary of State to specify the pay, terms and conditions of the fire service. In addition, we will propose powers to direct the fire
service on its objectives and the use of facilities and assets. Legislation itself will not end the dispute, but it is prudent to take those powers to use, if necessary, to help to reach an agreement.The current strike is due to end on Thursday morning. I hope that the FBU will sit down again and negotiate with the fire service employers, but, for the avoidance of doubt, the Government's position will not change. We will continue to implement the Government's part of the Bain agenda; we will continue to resist the strikes; and we will continue to do all that we can to protect public safety, especially at a time when there is a heightened level of terrorist threat and our armed forces are under increasing pressure from competing demands.
It will take some weeks to put in place the legislation and the discussions and consultations that I have proposed. Meanwhile, the House will agree that the best possible outcome is for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated agreement. I urge the FBU to call off further strikes and get back to the negotiating table in the remaining weeks available.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |