§ 3. Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire)If he will make a statement on progress in improving the timeliness and quality of ministerial replies from all Government departments to requests from hon. Members. [58913]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle)The Cabinet Office issued guidance last month to all Departments reminding them of the correct procedures to be followed when handling correspondence from hon. Members. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The guidance emphasises the importance of setting robust and challenging targets for replying to letters from hon. Members and reminds Departments of the need to ensure that all replies are of a consistently high standard.
§ Mr. PickthallI thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a great deal still needs to be done? For example, only this Monday, I received a reply to a letter I sent to a Department on 20 March this year. As we inflict league tables on schools, would my hon. Friend consider league tables for Departments? Perhaps there could be performance-related pay, the idea of an advanced skills civil servant and, possibly, "headlamp" training for Ministers.
§ Mr. KilfoyleI agree that the treatment that my hon. Friend received is not up to expectations, but I hope that it was the exception, not the rule. We are mindful of the need to improve target times for the turnround of correspondence. If we were to introduce performance-related pay and league tables for the House and apply 924 them to the performance of the Opposition, they would end up paying money into the Exchequer and would face another relegation.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)Does the Minister accept that many of my Buckingham constituents, whose courtesy is unsurpassed anywhere in the United Kingdom, are justifiably irritated when they have regularly to wait a minimum of two months—sometimes much longer—before they receive ministerial replies? Further to the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), does he agree that a reply, if it has taken at least two months to provide, should always be accompanied by an apology to the constituent from the Minister involved for its tardiness?
§ Mr. KilfoyleThe guidance sets out clearly the responsibilities of Departments and Ministers. The guidance for the treatment of correspondence from members of the public is different from that for correspondence from hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that correspondence from hon. Members is often more substantive and it takes longer for Departments to reply, but that is no excuse for not making a speedy response.
§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)Let me press the Minister on his point about a speedy response. In response to a request dealing with central standards and decisions in the House, a card was received stating that the matter had been passed to the Northern Ireland Office. Surely such a request should be answered by a Minister in the Department to which it was addressed, not passed all around the world to the Northern Ireland Office and back again.
§ Mr. KilfoyleI agree with the hon. Gentleman that it makes sense that correspondents should have one initial point of contact for any request, and an explanation of the reasons behind it. The guidance makes clear the good practice that should be followed, but doing so is the responsibility of the Department concerned.