Written Statements

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

Thursday 20 May 2004

Firearms: Consultative Arrangements

Following the Home Secretary's decision not to further extend the life of the Firearms Consultative Committee, we have been considering how best to establish a forum for consultation and to assist in the current review of legislation. We have decided to establish a broad-based firearms advisory committee with around 21 members to be drawn in equal measure from shooting interests; law enforcement/regulation; and organisations and community groups with an interest in the social consequences of firearms use and misuse.The committee's terms of reference will be to advise the Home Secretary on the law and policy on firearms, having regard to the need to maintain public safety and prevent criminal misuse and taking into account the interests of legitimate shooters and the efficient, effective administration of controls.It will be assisted in this task by a technical subcommittee with 12 to 15 members drawn principally from representatives of law enforcement bodies and shooting organisations with knowledge and experience of firearms matters. The sub-committee's terms of reference will be to consider the technical and legal aspects of administering and enforcing firearms controls and to make recommendations to the firearms advisory committee on these and such other matters as may be referred to them.We will be approaching interested organisations and individuals to seek nominations to serve on one or both committees with a view to appointing members as soon as possible.The committee will be asked to submit a report of its work after 12 months and copies will be placed in the Library.

Department Of Health: Reducing Bureaucracy

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.On 30 October, I announced to the Health Committee that the department would be conducting a review of its arm's length bodies (ALBs). The first stage of this has now been completed. I wanted to update the House on the decisions that I have taken and how the review will move forward to the next stage.In his Budget speech, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked on the importance that the Government attach to improving public sector efficiency and reducing bureaucracy. In the Budget report, he set out that "the pursuit of efficiency also includes reducing bureaucracy, which both cuts headquarters' administration costs and frees up time of front-line professionals to respond better to the needs of their customers". The department's ALB review needs to be seen in this context and related to the work of Sir Peter Gershon in reviewing public sector efficiency. It is about putting the front line first, and it is clear from the first stage of the ALB review that, although much good work continues to be done by ALBs, there is considerable scope for improving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy.The review covers bodies undertaking national functions sponsored by the department that were in existence or in the pipeline in 2003–04. The 42 ALBs included in the review are listed below. In a full year, ALBs spend more than £2.5 billion and employ more than 22,000 staff. If left unchanged, they would employ about 10 times the number of staff of the department itself after completion of its change programme. It is clear from the analysis we have done during the first stage of the review that:

there are overlapping and duplicated functions;
there is scope for reducing unnecessary regulatory and policy activities;
back-office functions such as human resources, finance, information technology and estates could be carried out more effectively;
a considerable number of bodies could be merged, thereby reducing overheads and integrating like functions;
some bodies could be moved to a more independent status with greater stakeholder control; and
there is scope for significant efficiency and productivity gains particularly in the area of services acquired centrally for the National Health Service.

The ALB sector has grown over several decades and, as currently constituted, does not best meet the health and social care needs of today and tomorrow. I have therefore asked my department to take forward with the sector a reform agenda that delivers the following objectives:

maximum devolution of responsibility to frontline NHS and social care;
improved efficiency across the sector with minimal bureaucratic overhead;
closer working across the boundaries between health and social care; and
minimised burden of inspection and regulation on health and social care services without reduced effectiveness.

These objectives are aimed at putting the front line first and improving services for the public while ensuring value for public money.

In light of preliminary findings of the first stage, I have set the parameters for the next stage of this review. These are, against a baseline year of 2003–04:

a 50 per cent reduction in the number of ALBs;
a saving in expenditure by ALBs of £0.5 billion by 2007–08; and
a reduction in posts of 25 per cent in the same period.

Changes on this scale will enable considerable extra resources to be redeployed to the front line. For example, another £0.5 billion would provide for four new hospitals, or 20,000 more nurses, or 6,250 consultants, or 7,500 general practitioners.

I recognise that the changes in prospect will cause uncertainty and disruption, but they are needed. I intend for the next stage of the review to be completed as quickly as possible, within my parameters, and taking into account the need for proper discussion with the ALBs concerned and the devolved administrations. The department will be in touch with ALB chairs and chief executives shortly to discuss our ideas for change. We want to work with them on the detail of our proposals over the next two months. We are hoping to complete this next stage by the end of June so that decisions can be announced before the summer recess.

LIST OF ALBs CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW

ALBs in 2003–04

1. † CHI—Commission for Health Improvement

2. CPPIH—Commission for Patient & Public Involvement in Health

3. CRHP—Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals

4. † DPB—Dental Practice Board

5. DVTA—Dental Vocational Training Authority

6. FHSAA—Family Health Services Appeals Authority

7. GSCC—General Social Care Council

8. HDA—Health Development Agency

9. HFEA—Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority

10. HPA—Health Protection Agency

11. † MHAC—Mental Health Act Commission

12. MHRA—Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Authority

13. NBA—National Blood Authority

14. NBSB—National Biological Standards Board

15. † NCSC—National Care Standards Commission

16. NCAA—National Clinical Assessment Authority

17. NHSAC—NHS Appointments Commission

18. NHS CFSMS—NHS Counter Fraud & Security Management Service

19. NHS Direct

20. NHS Estates

21. NHS IA—NHS Information Authority

22. NHS LA—NHS Litigation Authority

23. NHS Logistics Authority

24. NHS Modernisation Agency

25. NHS PASA—NHS Purchasing & Supplies Authority

26. NHS PA—NHS Pensions Agency

27. NHS Professionals

28. NHSU

29. NICE—National Institute for Clinical Excellence

30. NPSA—National Patients Safety Agency

31.† NRPB—National Radiological Protection Board

32. NTA—National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse

33. OIR—Office of the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts

34. † PHLS—Public Health Laboratory Service

35. PMETB—Postgraduate Medical Education & Training Board

36. PPA—Prescriptions Pricing Authority

37. † ROC—Retained Organs Commission

38. UKT—UK Transplant

† These separate organisations have now gone or are planned to go.

OTHERS COVERED BY THE REVIEW

These are now operational:

39. CHAI—Commission for Health Care Audit & Inspection

40. CSCI—Commission for Social Care Inspection

These are planned hut not yet operational:

41. Dental Special Health Authority

42. HTA—Human Tissue Authority

Regulatory Impact Assessments

The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require departments to produce and publish regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.My honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has today presented to Parliament a Command Paper listing RIAs published between 1 July and 31 December 2003. Copies of those RIAs listed are available in the Library. This is the 20th such Command Paper.

Government Departments And Agencies: Correspondence Report 2003

My honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has today published a report on departments' and agencies' performance on

Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and agency chief executives¹
	2002			2003
Department or Agency	Target set for reply (working days)	Number of letters received	% of replies within target	Target set for reply (working days)	Number of letters received	% of replies within target
Cabinet Office	15	475	73	15	443	90
Department for Constitutional Affairs²	20	2,577	54	20	2,746	49
Court Service	20	230	84	15	464	95
	15^*	593	78	—	—	—
HM Land Registry	20	32	100	20	48	96
National Archives³	15	166	98	15	30	90
	10^**	61	98	10^**	34	100
Public Guardianship Office	15	261	31	15	95	88
^*Target for correspondence sent direct to Agency Chief Executive.
^**Target for correspondence sent direct to Agency Chief Executive.
Crown Prosecution Service	15	366	85	15	298	88
Department for Culture, Media and Sport	18	4,767	83	18	5,460	85
HM Customs and Excise⁴	18	1,616	59	18	2,040	62
Ministry of Defence⁴	15	5,381	83	15	5,565	76
Armed Forces Personnel	15	18	100	15	93	98
Administration Agency Army Personnel Centre	—	—	—	15	16	94
Defence Aviation Repair Agency	10	14	100	—	—	—
Defence Estates	—	—	—	15	24	88
Defence Housing Executive	—	—	—	15	14	79
Met Office	15	14	100	—	—	—
UK Hydrographic Office	—	—	—	15	14	100
Veterans Agency	15	265	99	15	251	94
Department for Education and Skills⁴	15	15,595	84	15	14,424	92
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs	15	11,241	47	15	10,410	68
Food Standards Agency⁵	—	—	—	20	981	13
Foreign and Commonwealth Office	20	15,535	83	20	30,168	80
UK Visas⁶	15	10,322	98	15	16,964	86
Department of Health⁷	20	17,942	29	20	19,029	54
NHS Pensions Agency	15	65	95	10	63	84
Medicines Control Agency	15	36	89	—	—	—
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency	—	—	—	10	26	85
Home Office⁸
^*Non Prison Service correspondence	15	26,053^*	35	15	37,153	58
^**Prison Service correspondence	20	1,267^**		(20 days for IND)
Criminal Records Bureau⁹	5	632	N/A	10	461	92
HM Prison Service	20	942	77	20	1,437	65
UK Passport Service	10	132	97	10	337	79
Inland Revenue^{4, 10}	18	3,157	71	18	2,803	81
* Local Tax Office delegated figures (where local tax offices have replied to direct to MPs)	18	439^*	80	18	1,795^*	35
Valuation Office⁴	18	20	75	18	13	77
Department for International Development	15	2,612	96	15	3,676	88
Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lord's Office	15	155	96	15	43	88
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers	15	378	63	15	325	65
Northern Ireland Office	10	501	59	10	503	69
Northern Ireland Prison Service	10	33	91	10	44	68
National Savings and Investments⁴	15	44	66	15	24	70
National Statistics⁴	20	212	82	15	193	84
^*Letters where National Statistician replied on Minister's behalf				10	104 ^*	84

handling Members' and Peers' correspondence for 2003. Details are shown in the table. Departmental figures are based on substantive replies unless otherwise indicated.

The footnotes to the table provide general background information on how the figures have been compiled.

Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and agency chief executives¹
	2002			2003
Department or Agency	Target set for reply (working days)	Number of letters received	% of replies within target	Target set for reply (working days)	Number of letters received	% of replies within target
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister	15	5,523	76	15	8,737	73
Planning Inspectorate	8	291	90	8	384	89
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons	15	488	95	15	385	96
Scotland Office	15	115	73	15	73	87
Department for Trade and Industry¹¹	10	11,565	41	15	14,678	58
Companies House^*	10	45	100	10	33	100
Employment Tribunals Service^**	6	46	93	—	—	—
Insolvency Service	10	398	96	10	34	88
Patent Office	10	367	98	10	484	98
Radiocommunication Agency¹²	10	44	89	—	—	—
Small Business Service^***	—	—	—	—	—	—
^* Letters sent direct to Agency Chief Executive.
^** Target date for letters sent direct to Agency = 15 working days.
^*** Figures included in main DTI return.
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions	15	7,671	83	—	—	—
Department for Transport	15	6,505	84	15	10,196	88
Driving Standards Agency	15	56	98	15	108	90
DVLA	10	729	99	7	1,028	99
Highways Agency	15	273	96	15	263	85
Maritime and Coastguard Agency	15	27	100	10	33	97
Vehicle Inspectorate	15	27	100	—	—	—
Vehicle and Operator Services Agency	—	—	—	15	25	92
HM Treasury⁴	15	4,647	78	15	4,036	83
Treasury Solicitor's Department	10	26	100	10	34	100
Wales Office	15	118	97	15	120	82
Department for Work and Pensions	20	14,297	65	20	12,157	74
Appeals Service	15	52	88	15	84	88
Benefits Agency	20	504	87	—	—	—
Child Support Agency	20	3,194	51	20	3,521	87
Employment Service	15	72	95	—	—	—
Jobcentre Plus	15	1,103	57	15	1,052	69
The Pension Service	15	511	71	15	1,157	50
Disability and Carers Service	15	749	100	15	554	99
Debt Management	15	30	86	15	31	85
Child Benefit Centre¹³	20	20	95	20	11	91
Health and Safety Executive	—	—	—	10	195	91
¹ Departments and Agencies which received 10 MPs/Peers letters or less during 2003 are not shown in this table. Holding or interim replies are not included unless otherwise indicated.
² DCA is currently undertaking changes to its processes for handling correspondence. In the short term these have lead to delays in response time, but in the longer term will improve the quality of responses. These changes include quality control of all responses, and revising the DCA correspondence monitoring system.
³ Formerly the Public Record Office.
⁴ Includes all Ministerial correspondence.
^* The statistics for the FSA are dominated by a single lobbying campaign which accounted for almost 70% of its total annual correspondence. The Agency is reviewing its procedures for handling peaks of work arising from such a campaign. Majority of replies are signed by Health Ministers.
⁶ 2003 figures also include a small number of letters from members of the public.
⁷ Department of Health improved its performance to just under 70% in the last quarter of 2003.
⁸ Figures include a small number of interim replies relating to correspondence sent to HM Prison Service. 2003 performance figures also include 16,268 cases answered directly by the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Response times to these cases relate to drafting performance only. Figures based on final replies will be available for 2004. Immigration and Nationality Directorate response target was increased to 20 working days with effect from 1 April 2003 to account for the wide geographical spread of offices and the nature of the correspondence which is predominantly about specific cases rather than policy issues.
⁹ The CRB target was raised from 5 to 10 working days at the beginning of 2003 to reflect the standard set out in the CRB's Corporate Plan.
¹⁰ Performance suffered due to the exceptionally high volume of correspondence following the introduction of the Working and Child Tax Credits in April 2003 and because, early in 2003–04, the Revenue's priority was to get claimants into payment. Since the processing of tax credits claims has been stable, the Revenue has restored normal complaints-handling procedures and increased the resources on its complaints teams. As a result, performance should begin to improve.
¹¹ DTI increased its response target from 10 to 15 working days with effect from 1 January in line with other main Whitehall departments.
¹² 2003 data currently not available because of transfer to OFCOM.
¹³ The Child Benefit Centre transferred to the Inland Revenue with effect from 1 April 2003. Figures quoted are for the period 1/1/03 to 31/3/03.

Written Statements

Volume 661: debated on Thursday 20 May 2004