| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 675—continued
Correspondence
21. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): If he will make a statement on steps that he is taking to reduce the time taken by Ministers to reply to Members' letters. [100198]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments on handling correspondence from Members of Parliament. However, it is up to individual Ministers to ensure that their Department responds to all correspondence promptly and accurately.
When that issue was raised with me last month by Members, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, who has in turn written to Departments reminding them to ensure that every effort is made to handle correspondence efficiently.
Mr. Bercow : I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. Given that the Cabinet Office guidance states that the handling of correspondence with Members of Parliament, peers and the general public is an issue to which the Government "attaches the greatest importance", can he explain to me why the letter that I sent on 7 May 2002 on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Steve Watkins of 72 Embleton Way,
Buckingham, on the national health service human resources and payroll system, did not receive a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), until 16 January this year? On the assumption that the Minister regards that delay of eight months and nine days as unacceptable, when will he do something about it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only 10 minutes.
Mr. Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I am happy to take that matter up with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I have already corresponded with him since the last Cabinet Office Question Time in relation to correspondence to the Department of Health. It is important to point out for the benefit of the House the scale of the challenge facing Departments: about 160,000 letters from Members were received across Departments in 2001 and the Prime Minister alone received more than 1 million letters from the general public in 2002.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Are Ministers encouraged to deal with letters in a number of ways? Some communications are urgent and need swift responses, while others may be more routine. Of course we do not want to wait for as long as eight months for answers to those, but should not important communications be upgraded?
Mr. Alexander: I am sympathetic to that point. Obviously it would be wise to identify the relevant Minister in such correspondence, but the fact remains that we should try to answer all letters as expeditiously as possible. Targets are set by specific Whitehall Departments, and it is on that basis that individual Ministers are responsible, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): As the Minister will know, many organisations have become considerably more efficient by using electronic mail for communications of this sort, in terms of both the time taken to reply and the cost involved. Unless such systems are implemented properly, however, they are worse than useless: e-mails are diverted all over the place, or disappear into the ether. Would the Minister consider commissioning work in his Department to bring together the various players in Departments, Parliament and so on, and to establish whether an efficient system of e-mail between Members and Ministers could be devised for Members who wish to communicate electronically?
Mr. Alexander: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this area. It is a matter of record that the House has considerably improved its facilities for electronic communications in recent years, which is all to the good, but I will give some thought to the hon. Gentleman's question and then write to him.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): Will the Cabinet Office undertake to publish a league table showing how rapidly Ministers respond to correspondence? Will it introduce sanctions so that the
worst performing Ministers suffer some penalty, such as the loss of their exemption from the London congestion charge?
Mr. Alexander: That would seem a curious sanction indeed.
The guidance is set by the Cabinet Office, and it is then for individual Departments to set responsive targets. The average Whitehall target is 15 working days. Clearly some Ministers and Departments could do significantly better. That is why, after the most recent Cabinet Office questions, I was keen to ensure that the matter was raised with the Cabinet Secretary, who in turn has raised it with individual Departments.
Lord Birt
22. Norman Baker (Lewes): If he will list the subjects on which Lord Birt has advised the strategy unit in the last six months. [100199]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Lord Birt was appointed by the Prime Minister as an unpaid adviser under paragraph 51 of the ministerial code. His role is to provide the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers with long-term internal strategic analysis and policy thinking.
Norman Baker : We need more freedom of information. I asked which subjects Lord Birt was advising on, but the Minister did not give me the answer to that question. Why is what Lord Birt is doing such a secret? Is it that embarrassing?
Mr. Alexander: I am well aware of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman about this. I remind him that, in his letter to the hon. Gentleman dated 21 May 2002, the Prime Minister made it clear that Lord Birt provides private internal advice to the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith): Would my hon. Friend be prepared to ask Lord Birt to advise the strategy unit on Government policy on waste? As he knows, the unit recently suggested that the Cabinet Office should conduct a review of the current
division of responsibility between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If Lord Birt would not be the right person to conduct the review, could the Minister ask someone else to do it on behalf of the Government?
Mr. Alexander: Two distinct issues are inherent in that question, but I will certainly consider how we can best deal with the issues relating to waste.
Civil Service
23. Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): What plans he has to review whether the requirement that each civil service agency undergoes a quinquennial review of its public sector status should continue. [100200]
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government no longer require quinquennial reviews of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Because our focus is on the effectiveness of delivery of public services rather than on individual structures, Departments are now being asked to look holistically at the contribution that agencies, NDPBs and others make to achieve their delivery objectives.
Dr. Whitehead : Now that the agency system is mature, might this not be the time to review the whole basis on which agencies work, especially smaller agencies? Could the system be refined to match more closely the size and function of an agency, rather than the focus being on the undertaking of reviews?
Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend will be aware that a joint review of agency policy was recently carried out by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, and the report, "Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century"—copies are available in the Library—was published in July 2002. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the function of the reviews of agency work, I agree that the challenge is not solely to look at individual structures, but to ensure that the structures that are in place reflect the delivery objectives of the Department. That view is shared by the Cabinet Secretary, who, through his work on advancing performance partnerships, is undertaking significant work in this area.
Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about the confused messages coming out of the Department for Education and Skills today on university admissions. This morning, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is reported to have said that she was going to set a specific target for the percentage of children from poorer backgrounds going to university. She is reported to have said:
- "I'm actually going to set a target—where we want to get to by 2010."
- "an overall target would be inappropriate and we have no plans to introduce one."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |