4 Ministerial correspondence
56. Members of Parliament (MPs) pursue complaints
about Government on behalf of their constituents by writing to
ministers. In 2005, the Cabinet Office produced guidance for handling
ministerial correspondence, which set out general principles to
be adopted by ministers and ministerial offices when responding
to correspondence from Members of both the House of Commons and
House of Lords, MEPs and Members of the devolved assemblies:
All departments should set targets for replying
to correspondence from MPs. These targets (which may be different
to the targets set for other types of correspondence) will be
published in the annual correspondence report co-ordinated by
the Cabinet Office. Individual departments' targets for routine
correspondence from MPs should be a maximum of 20 working days.
Departments should consider setting themselves more challenging
targets.[69]
Box 4: Cabinet Office guidance on Ministerial Correspondence: Examples of how to handle correspondence[70]
Substantive replies:
"Departments must ensure that all replies to letters from MPs are of the highest quality-accurate, clear and helpful".
Confidentiality:
"MPs may write to departments about personal matters relating to their constituents and/or attaching confidential information that relates to them or other matters. Where this is the case departments should treat correspondence with great care to ensure that confidentiality is not broken. Only those who have a direct policy interest should have access to the papers/information and account should be taken of the basis on which the confidential information was provided".
Email correspondence:
"Some MPs prefer to correspond by e-mail [...]Replies should be in the form of an e-mail or in the form requested by the MP unless it is more convenient to write to the Member concerned, for example, if there are various attachments [...] MPs who send e-mails direct to officials should not expect a Ministerial reply".
|
57. The guidance also refers to an annual report
by the Cabinet Office on departmental performance in the handling
of correspondence from MPs. However, in response to a written
question from Mr William Cash MP in February 2013 about correspondence
from MPs, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Rt Hon Francis
Maude MP, said:
Individual Departments are responsible for the
effective and efficient handling of correspondence received in
accordance with the principles set out in the Cabinet Office guidance.[71]
58. PASC wrote to all MPs in June 2013 in order to
examine how constituents' casework and complaints referred by
MPs to Ministers and Whitehall civil servants were handled, and
whether departments were adhering to Cabinet Office guidance.
Feedback suggested that there is little consistency in how different
departments receive, acknowledge and respond to correspondence.
Opinion on which departments performed best and worst varied.
One MP said that the Department for Work and Pensions was particularly
poor in respect of turn-around times, but another said that they
had found the Department "particularly good at answering
technical questions" regarding the circumstances of constituents.[72]
59. There was a general consensus that correspondence
was not always replied to within the appropriate timescales. One
MP noted that ministers were not replying "consistently"
within 20 working days as set out in the 2005 Cabinet Office guidance,
while another said that "my estimate is that about 80% are
responded to in six weeks and 20% need a chase up". One MP
highlighted the impact of these delays:
[...] excessive delays in response times, loss
of correspondence, and requirement to chase up do not encourage
constituents to have confidence in the system, meaning that they
are less likely to accept the substance of the response.[73]
60. The guidance is clear that responses should be
"accurate, clear and helpful". This raises the question
about how justified it is for ministers to refer correspondence
to another body or delegated authority, such as an NHS Trust.
Reference was made to occasions when departments wanted to pass
on a complainant's information to the team or agency they were
complaining about. Some MPs felt that this should be at the permission
of the complainant, rather than at the discretion of the department,
and that correspondence that needed to be shared with, or sent
to, another department resulted in unnecessary time delays. One
MP, for example, said:
We had correspondence sent to DfT and transferred
to HMT that took from August 2012-February 2013 to be dealt with
despite repeated chasing.[74]
61. Mr Cash made specific reference to ministerial
correspondence in respect of the failings at the Mid Staffordshire
NHS Hospital Trust and the complaints he had raised with the Secretary
of State for Health on behalf of his constituents. In a House
of Commons debate on 5 March 2014 he highlighted the importance
of the Cabinet Office guidance and said that Members were "entitled
to receive a personal letter" in response to their letters
but that this "did not happen in all instances when matters
were raised with regard to Stafford hospital".[75]
He also said:
I was glad to note, however, that in the course
of evidence to the [Francis] inquiry, the situation moved from
what appeared to be resistance to going down that route, to an
acceptance thatto paraphrase from the evidence given by
the chief executive of the Department of Healthfrom now
on, when a Member of Parliament writes with a letter from a constituent,
and explains that things have not gone properly regarding that
constituent's health problems, there is a mechanism to ensure
that the issue is dealt with properly.[76]
Mr Cash also submitted evidence to this inquiry that
made similar comments.
62. Ministerial correspondence is key to the way
MPs make complaints on behalf of their constituents. It is vital
that ministers themselves see and respond to correspondence in
the manner set out in Cabinet Office guidance, to ensure that
complaints and concerns are handled without undue delay, and that
signs of emerging problems can be quickly identified and acted
on. It should be a matter of regret that ministers appeared to
pass on correspondence from MPs about the quality of care at Mid
Staffordshire Hospital to the Trust concerned, without themselves
investigating why these complaints were being made.
63. The Minister for the Cabinet Office should
review its 2005 guidance on handling correspondence from Members
of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, MEPs and Members
of devolved Assemblies, so that it is explicit that responsibility
for responding cannot be delegatedministers remain responsible
for replies to MPs. It should also be explicit that a complaint
from an MP should only be transferred to the body concerned or
to a third party with the explicit agreement of the MP. This would
also include how confidential or personal information should be
handled.
64. The Minister for the Cabinet Office should
reaffirm the need to adhere to guidance on handling correspondence
from Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, MEPs
and Members of devolved Assemblies, so that MPs can deliver swift
redress for their constituents and that ministers can use the
intelligence gathered from correspondence in a timely manner.
69 Cabinet Office, Handling correspondence from Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, MEPs and Members of devolved assemblies
(July 2005), p5 Back
70
As above, p9 Back
71
HC Deb, 25 February 2013, col 198W [Commons written answer] Back
72
Members of Parliaments (PHS 24) Back
73
As above Back
74
As above Back
75
HC Deb, 5 March 2014, col 925 [Commons Chamber] Back
76
HC Deb, 5 March 2014, col 948-949 [Commons Chamber] Back
|