Written Parliamentary Questions

House of Commons Procedure Committee

Third Report of Session 2008–09

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 1 July 2009

HC 859 Published on 16 July 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

Procedure Committee

The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations.

Membership during the Session Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chairman, from 9.11.05) Ms Celia Barlow MP (Labour, Hove) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Ms Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Mr Mark Field MP (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster) Mr Roger Gale MP (Conservative, North Thanet) Andrew Gwynne MP (Labour, Denton and Reddish) John Hemming MP (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham, Yardley) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mrs Siân C. James MP (Labour, Swansea East) Mrs Linda Riordan MP (Labour, Halifax) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Sir Peter Soulsby MP (Labour, Leicester South)

The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Mr David Anderson MP (Labour, Blaydon) Mr Jim Cunningham MP (Labour, Coventry South) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North) Mr David Gauke MP (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative, Macclesfield) (Chairman till 9.11.05) Mr Rob Wilson MP (Conservative, Reading East)

Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Lynn Gardner and Miss Sara Howe (Clerks) and Rowena Macdonald (Committee Assistant).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA . The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5

2 Number of Questions 5

3 Tabling Questions 8 Types of Questions 8 ‘Trivial’ or ‘frivolous’ questions 8 Round robin questions 9 Questions where the information is already available to Members 10 The Table Office 12 Resources 12 E-tabled questions 13 Cut-off point 13 Guidance on Tabling Questions 14 Authentication 16 Authentication technology 18

4 Answering Questions 19 Departmental Resources 19 Guidance for Departments and Ministers when answering questions 21 The Ministerial Code 22 Freedom of Information 23 ‘Unsatisfactory’ answers 25 Late answers 28

5 Conclusion 32

Conclusions and recommendations 33

Formal Minutes relating to the Report 38

Witnesses 39

List of written evidence 39

List of unprinted evidence 40

Reports from the Procedure Committee since 2005 41

Summary

The use of Written Parliamentary Questions is vital to the scrutiny of Government. Although the continuing increase in the number of questions tabled has placed some strain on the systems that handle WPQs, both in Parliament and in Government, it would be wrong in principle to restrict the number of questions that Members can ask. The high volume of questions is not likely to be a temporary phenomenon, and action should be taken to ensure that these levels of questioning can be smoothly accommodated in the long term. To this end, the resources dedicated to processing questions both in the House of Commons and in Government departments should be increased where necessary to meet demand and to ensure questions are answered quickly and effectively. Cut-off times should be established for the processing of electronically-tabled questions, after which time the question would be treated as having been tabled the following day. This would help to smooth the workload of the Table Office. No such cut-off point should be applied to the processing of questions tabled in person.

Concerns were expressed that the rise in the number of questions had been in part caused by Members tabling unnecessary or irrelevant questions. However, there can be a serious motivation behind even the most seemingly trivial question. In all cases the benefit of the doubt must be given to the Member, and the Government should answer the question in accordance with its responsibilities.

Members would benefit from a clearer codification of the rules on what can and cannot be tabled. The Table Office should develop additional guidance to assist Members in drafting orderly and effective questions.

The system of electronic tabling has been largely successful, but has raised questions over the extent to which Members should delegate the preparation and tabling of questions to their staff. We understand that researchers are likely to have a role in preparing questions, but tabling questions is an exclusive right and responsibility of Members of Parliament. We do not consider that a stronger level of authentication would adequately address this problem, given the variety of legitimate arrangements Members may have in place for preparing and tabling questions within their own offices, but we believe Members must be reminded of their responsibilities in this respect. It should be reiterated to Members on a regular basis that WPQs are a proceeding in Parliament and that they are personally and directly responsible for questions tabled in their name.

There is widespread concern that many answers to WPQs are unsatisfactory. We are particularly concerned that, in some cases, information is refused under a WPQ but later granted through a Freedom of Information request. The Government has a duty to answer WPQs accurately and in full. It is unacceptable that some answers fall short of these standards, and the Government must reiterate these responsibilities both in guidance provided to officials and in the Ministerial Code.

We propose that, for an experimental one year period, the Procedure Committee take on the role of monitoring unsatisfactory answers referred to us by Members. This will enable the Committee to assess the extent of any problems, and will send a message to

Government that if it fails to meet its responsibilities in answering WPQs these shortcomings will be recorded and pursued.

We recognise that there is also a problem with answers being received late or not at all. In the event that departments need to give holding answers, the holding answer should include a explanation of the reason for the delay, and a fair indication of when an answer will be provided.

We do not believe that a strict formal deadline for answer should be imposed as this could compromise the quality of answers. However, we strongly believe that ordinary WPQs should receive an answer within five working days, and certainly no later than ten working days, and we urge the Government to work to this timetable. We would encourage Members to refer any answers they consider unacceptably late to the Procedure Committee as part of its monitoring experiment. We also recommend that statistics on the timeliness of answers be compiled by Departments and submitted to the Committee, to ensure this aspect of the system is adequately monitored.

1 Introduction

1. The Procedure Committee last considered the matter of written parliamentary questions (WPQs) in detail in 2002.1 That Report recommended a daily quota for named day questions, the establishment of an electronic system for tabling questions, and the introduction of tabling facilities during the Summer Recess period. The Report also concluded that it would be wrong in principle to seek to impose any limit on the number of ordinary written questions that could be tabled by a Member.2

2. In the five year interval between that Report and the commencement of our current inquiry, the improvements recommended by the Committee have had time to bed down and become part of the accepted system for tabling questions. Some positive innovations have been made: for example, the introduction of tabling days during the summer recess. We decided to initiate this further inquiry to evaluate the impact of the previous recommendations and to assess new challenges facing the system of WPQs. In particular, the number of WPQs has continued to rise, placing pressure on the resources of both Parliament and Government. We were also aware of frustration among Members with the quality and timeliness of some answers to WPQs. In addition, the introduction of the e- tabling system, although largely successful, has further heightened long-standing concerns over the authentication of tabled questions and the extent of Member participation in the process of drafting and submitting WPQs.

3. In 2007, we heard evidence from the then Leader of the House, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, and a group of MPs representing opposition and backbench interests: David Drew MP (Labour), Oliver Heald MP (Conservative) and David Laws MP (Liberal Democrat). We then decided to suspend this inquiry while conducting our inquiry into e-petitioning. In 2009, we returned to this subject and brought the inquiry up to date by taking further oral evidence from officials in the Table Office of the House of Commons, and from Chris Bryant MP, the then Deputy Leader of the House. We also invited all Members of the House to submit examples of questions which they felt were answered either inadequately or not at all. We are grateful to all those who took up this invitation.

2 Number of Questions

4. In 2002 our predecessor Committee recommended a quota for the number of named- day questions3 that could be asked by Members. The quota limits Members to five named- day questions per day. This restriction was supported by witnesses to the inquiry as a necessary measure to ensure that pressing issues were able to get meaningful priority

1 House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions, Third Report of Session, 2001–02, HC 622. 2 Ibid; paragraph 78. 3 Questions where Members can name the day they expect an answer, a minimum of three days from the date of tabling.

treatment.4 An important factor in support for this quota was that there remains no limit on the number of ordinary WPQs that can be tabled by a Member.

5. The total number of WPQs tabled has continued to rise steadily thoughout recent years. The average number of questions appearing on the notice paper each day increased from 414 in 2007 to 434 in 2008, and had reached 514 by March 2009.5 This is a significant rise from the average figure of about 350 WPQs per day that persisted between 2002 and 2005.6

6. This rise can be attributed to a number of factors, some positive and some less so. Most importantly, WPQs are highly valued by Members as a means of scrutinising government and obtaining information. The particular advantage of a written parliamentary question is its transparency, and the fact that, because the answer is placed clearly on record, it can be followed up by any Member who takes an interest. The witness panel of opposition and backbench MPs discussed the relative merits of other methods of seeking information, such as correspondence with Ministers, oral questions, or meetings with officials, but in each case concluded that WPQs were the most effective form of scrutiny.7 WPQs are particularly prized by opposition frontbenchers. Oliver Heald MP described WPQs as ‘one of the most important tools an opposition has. If you want to pursue matters of detail with the Government this is absolutely vital’.8 The extensive use of WPQs by opposition frontbenchers is partly responsible for the rise in the number of questions, and a significant proportion of questions tabled are from opposition frontbench teams.9

7. There are a number of secondary factors that may have also contributed in part to the rise in the number of questions. First, Members are under increasing pressure to demonstrate parliamentary activity, not least because the internet has provided new ways to scrutinise the actions of Members.10 The then Deputy Leader of the House confirmed that the intense analysis of statistics by websites could have encouraged Members to table more questions ‘as proof of their effectiveness as MPs’.11 Although the website theyworkforyou.com (the most high profile site to rate Members in this way) has now changed its ranking system, the habits it set in motion are likely to persist. The tabling of WPQs is one of the few concrete and comparable statistics that can be gleaned from the varied careers of MPs, and in spite of its inadequacy as a performance measure the perception that high numbers of questions equates to high levels of activity is likely to remain.

8. Secondly, Members are better resourced and therefore better able to delegate a proportion of the work involved in researching and drafting WPQs to their staff.12 Indeed when the then Leader of the House gave evidence to us in 2007 he stated his belief that the

4 Q86 (Mr Laws, Mr Heald, and Mr Drew) 5 Q102 6 Ev 45 7 Q68 (Mr Heald), Q77 (Mr Drew); Q77 (Mr Laws); Q85 (Mr Heald) 8 Q68 9 Ev 45, Q162 10 Ev 12, Q76 11 Q153 12 Q77 (Mr Laws); Ev 45

growing role of Members’ staff was, in some cases, feeding significantly inflated numbers of questions into the system: ‘some Members have got under-employed researchers who are trying to make a point’.13 The e-tabling system has also made it easier for Members to table questions. It may also have allowed researchers to play a greater role in preparing questions than some would consider appropriate (see Chapter 3 for further discussion of this point).

9. The consistent rise in the number of questions has inevitably placed some strain on the systems for processing and answering questions.14 These complications will be discussed later in our Report. But there is, quite rightly, little enthusiasm for imposing further quotas on Members. In 2002 our predecessor Committee stated ‘we do not propose that any limit be placed on the number of ordinary written questions a Member can table and, indeed, believe that it would be wrong in principle to do so’.15 In 2007 the then Leader of the House, while suggesting that there might be a need to bring ‘ballooning’ numbers under control, also rejected the idea of a quota for ordinary WPQs,16 as did the then Deputy Leader of the House in 2009, in spite of his concerns over the quality of some questions. The then Deputy Leader stated that ‘questions are a vital part of how we do our business and hold the government to account’.17

10. We agree with Oliver Heald MP that ‘vigorous use of WPQs is a sign of a healthy democracy’.18 And, while recognising that the current system will need to adapt to accommodate high numbers of questions, it is important to maintain perspective on the numbers. Although relatively few Members are responsible for a significant proportion of the questions tabled,19 even the recent high figures represent the equivalent of only one question per non-Ministerial Member, per day.20

11. The use of WPQs is vital to the scrutiny of Government and, in line with previous recommendations of the Committee, we believe that no restriction should be placed on the number of ordinary written parliamentary questions Members may ask. As such, the rest of this Report addresses how the system can be run more efficiently and effectively, without compromising the number of questions Members can table.

13 Q2 14 See, for example, the former Principal Clerk of the Table Office’s comments on Table Office resources in Ev 45-46, and the comments made by the then Leader of the House, regarding departmental resources for answering questions, in Q2 15 House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions, Third Report of Session, 2001–02, HC 622, para 78. 16 Q15 17 Q147 18 Ev 12 19 Ev 45. For example, in session 2005-06 the 20 most prolific tablers were responsible for 26% of all WPQs tabled. 20 Ev 45

3 Tabling Questions

Types of Questions

‘Trivial’ or ‘frivolous’ questions 12. Erskine May states that questions ‘must not be trivial, vague or meaningless’.21 The question of whether or not a question is trivial is particularly pertinent given the rise in the number of questions, and accusations that some Members may be tabling questions not as part of a genuine search for information, but in order to push up their tabling statistics. David Laws MP noted that using questions ‘in an utterly frivolous way, because you have a bored researcher, or whatever, would run the risk of bringing the system into disrepute’.22

13. The then Leader of the House, Jack Straw MP, told us in 2007 that many questions tabled were ‘without serious value’23 and were taking up departmental resources that could better be spent on more ‘serious’ questions. In particular, he cited questions asking about domestic management issues such as ‘flushing lavatories, private office square footage, wine cellars, flora and fauna, flag-flying, [and] staff magazines’.24 He suggested that there should be stronger rules to prevent ‘trivial’ questions of this kind, stating ‘this is ridiculous. It debases the system’.25

14. Others argued that questions that seem trivial may, however, have a serious basis, and this also applies to the examples cited by Mr Straw. Oliver Heald MP believed that ‘identifying waste and extravagance in Government is a valid reason for tabling WPQs and so-called ‘trivial’ questions may still be of value’.26

15. Without knowing the motivation of the Member it is difficult for any observer to reach a definitive judgement on whether or not a question is trivial. When the Table Office clerks consider that a question does not fall within the rules as set out in Erskine May, they will ‘card’ the question. This means that they will send a message to the Member concerned, inviting him or her to come into the Table Office to discuss the question and any obstacles to it being tabled. The Table Office told us that they would only ‘very rarely and with extreme reluctance’ card a question on the grounds of triviality, given the many reasons a Member might have for asking it.27 The ‘triviality’ of a question can therefore often be judged only by reference to the Member. David Laws MP told us:

21 Erskine May, 23rd Edition, p353 22 Q78 23 Q15 24 Q46 25 Q56 26 Q74 27 Q109

I do not know how, without self-policing, we can really strike the right balance without denying access to things for which the Government wants to cover up the boundaries.28

16. We understand the frustration of departments when dealing with questions that may seem frivolous. However, Members may have serious motives for tabling these questions, and must be allowed to do so. We do not agree with the suggestion of the former Leader of the House that there should be stricter rules against such questions. It is not appropriate to ask the Table Office to judge definitively whether or not a question is trivial, and the benefit of the doubt in these cases must be given to the Member. Departments should aim, as with all questions, to provide a full and accurate answer, even if the question appears trivial.

Round robin questions 17. ‘Round robin’ refers to the same question asked to many or all government departments. Round robins allow Members to build up a wider picture of Government activity across departments, and can be particularly useful for identifying departments that are performing poorly in a certain area. However, round robins can also allow many questions to be tabled for relatively little effort. In 2007 the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office told us that round robins had become a useful tool in the armoury of Members wishing to push up their tabling statistics.29

18. The number of round robin questions is continuing to grow,30 contributing to the overall rise in the number of WPQs. The burden on departments answering questions is complicated by the fact that round robins may not be directly relevant to every department. For example, the then Deputy Leader of the House told us: ‘it is quite easy to spot round robins. They come to the Leader of the House and nearly always they are completely inappropriate. I am always answering “nil”, “none” or “not applicable”’.31 The Table Office tries to weed out irrelevant round robins, but is not always able to do so.32

19. It has to be recognised that, even if some round robins may not seem immediately relevant, as with apparently trivial questions the Member may have a valid reason for addressing the question to that particular department. Asking an apparently irrelevant question may reveal an important wider point. In addition, identical questions allow easy comparison of the level of information provided. The inevitably varied approaches of parliamentary units can, sometimes unfairly, show some departments to be less helpful than others. This variation in the quality and content of answers is sometimes a source of grievance for Members, but it can also be one of the most valuable aspects of round robins, highlighting variations of practice, or showing where a government ‘message’ has not quite filtered through to a department.

28 Q94 29 Ev 45 30 Ev 45 31 Q155 32 Q106

20. The then Deputy Leader of the House suggested to us that, although the Government already tries to provide a coordinated response to round robins, it would be easier if a question was clearly flagged as such and if the Government then had the time to produce a single, coordinated response giving the information from all relevant departments.33 He suggested that this could also produce a better standard of answer for Members. It is true that such an approach could remove the need to table large numbers of questions on a single point, and that it could also remove the temptation of making statistical gains by tabling round robin questions. However, a formal process whereby round robins were sent to a central government unit would remove the benefits for Members of tabling round robin questions, notably the opportunity to identify variations in practices and ‘chinks in the armour’. In any event, the Government can already try to identify round robins and coordinate a response, if it so wishes.

21. Members should be free to table round robins to all departments, if they wish. The Table Office should try to identify instances where a round robin is not relevant to a particular department, and advise the Member accordingly, but the Member should continue to have the benefit of the doubt. However, Members should be encouraged to consider carefully whether questions are relevant to all departments, and should recognise that a smaller number of carefully focused questions may be more effective.

Questions where the information is already available to Members 22. Current rules on tabling state that questions should not be tabled if they seek information readily available to a Member, either self-evidently or as revealed in past answers. Indeed, the 2002 Report of the our predecessor Committee urged:

all Members of the House, and their staff, to develop greater awareness of alternative sources of information, especially via the Internet, and to seek information by means of parliamentary questions only if those alternative sources have been explored and found wanting. Members must ensure that their staff do not draft PQs as a first resort when researching a particular issue.34

23. The then Leader of the House told us in 2007 that if researchers consistently turn to WPQs as their first resort this could constitute ‘straight abuse’ of the system.35 The then Deputy Leader of the House asked Members to bear in mind that there was sometimes a swifter route to obtaining information than tabling a WPQ.36 The Table Office tries to assist this process by checking if information is already available, in particular by searching Hansard and PIMS (the Parliamentary Information Management Service) to see whether the information has already been given in an answer.37 Where information is found to be readily available in published departmental reports, or where past answers have confirmed

33 Q155 34 House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions, Third Report of Session 2001–02, HC 622, paragraph 79 35 Q5 36 Q154 37 Q108

that the information is readily available on websites, the Table Office will card the question.38

24. There is a difficulty that, while information may be available, it may not always be easy to find or interpret. For example, Members may require a single nugget of information concealed within a lengthy and complex publication of statistics. David Laws MP described a situation where a department directed him to information that was only obtainable if available figures were manipulated in the right way: ‘you would have needed a doctorate in economics to come up with it. That is not my definition of publicly available’.39 The then Leader of the House told us in 2007 that where available information was dense or obscure, and Members only wanted a small section of it, the answering department should oblige by providing the information in a more accessible form.40 The then Deputy Leader of the House reiterated this by stating that even when information was available elsewhere, departments should be as helpful as possible.41 This message is encouraging, but it must be consistently adopted by all departments. Chapter 4 of this Report addresses this issue in more detail.

25. In certain cases Members will be aware that the information is already in the public domain, but will have a secondary motive for asking the question. As well as wanting to get a Minister’s views on the record,42 Members might ask questions in order to raise awareness that a publication is available43 or to prompt publication of updated information.44 David Drew MP noted that WPQs asking for information that was already available could help by ‘focusing [a Minister’s] attention on an issue about which you might subsequently be able to talk to them informally’.45 These secondary motives are valid, and demonstrate the many valuable alternative uses of WPQs. The rules on the availability of information should not prevent questions from being used in this way.

26. Members should not use WPQs as the first resort for obtaining information that could be available elsewhere. We strongly encourage Members to investigate other options before tabling a WPQ. The Table Office should continue to seek to identify, where possible, when information is available elsewhere. However, we recognise that Members may have legitimate reasons for asking such questions, such as wanting to get a Minister’s views on record or wishing to see the information presented in a certain way.

38 Ev 47 39 Q81 40 Q8 41 Q154 42 Q81 43 Q80 44 Q81 45 Q82

The Table Office

Resources 27. The Table Office is at the front line of the WPQs system. Among other duties, the Office is responsible for processing, editing and sorting questions; ensuring they meet the rules of the House; and advising Members on drafting. All questions flow through the Table Office, and it has therefore been particularly affected by the consistent increase in the volume of questions.

28. In particular, it is worth noting that the statistics on question numbers only show those questions that are deemed orderly and make it to the notice paper for the following day. The actual number of questions tabled and handled by the Office can be significantly greater, and it is the ‘carded’ questions (i.e. initially disorderly questions that require discussion with the Member) that are often the most labour-intensive for the Table Office.46

29. At present, all questions tabled must be processed that day. As the numbers of questions have crept up, this has imposed a particular burden on the Table Office, especially late in the day. Even when additional staff have been provided, and rosters revised in an effort to counter the problem, Table Office clerks have often had to work overtime hours after the rise of the House, and occasionally beyond midnight on Mondays and Tuesdays.47 This then impacts on the staff of the Office of the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote, who are responsible for printing questions.

30. The skills, knowledge and professionalism of the Table Office clerks are highly valued by Members. However, there is a risk that continued pressure on the Office could inevitably come to affect the quality of its work. The then Principal Clerk of the Table Office, warned in 2007 that the high workload affected ‘the ability of Table Office Clerks to do their job as effectively as would be ideal, giving rise to the risk of uneven application and interpretation of the rules’,48 while Nick Walker, a Table Office Clerk, told us more recently that sometimes the volume of questions could make it difficult for the Office to weed out questions that were not relevant to certain departments.49 Jacqy Sharpe, the current Principal Clerk of the Table Office, noted that a sixth full time clerk might prove necessary if question volumes remained high.50

31. The Table Office provides a vital and highly valued service, the quality of which must be maintained. The rise in the volume of question is not a temporary phenomenon and should no longer be handled on an ad-hoc basis. The resources of the Table Office, and other offices involved in the process of handling and printing questions, should be increased wherever necessary to maintain standards and meet demand for the long-term.

46 Q102 47 Ev 46 48 Ev 46 49 Q107 50 Q104

E-tabled questions 32. The success of the e-tabling system (which now regularly accounts for more than 50% of all WPQs tabled51) has caused large spikes in the volume of questions coming into the Office in the late afternoon and evening, as Members’ offices submit sometimes hundreds of questions at the end of their working day. The then Principal Clerk of the Table Office told us this phenomenon was responsible for much of the late night working in the Office.52 Nick Walker proposed a possible solution of limiting the number of questions a Member could have in their electronic ‘basket’, the part of the e-tabling system that stores drafted questions before they are submitted to the Table Office:

After a Member had drafted 30 questions the system would not allow him or her to draft any more until those had been sent off to the Table Office. The Member could then start a new basket. It would not affect the total number; it would just mean that questions would have to be sent in regularly to the Table Office, rather than arrive in a huge pile at the end of the day.53

33. It is certainly in Members’ interests that their questions are processed promptly and effectively, rather than as part of a large backlog in the early hours of the morning. Setting a maximum ‘batch size’ for e-tabled questions would be an effective way of smoothing the Table Office workload, but there is a risk that it may unnecessarily restrict the tabling habits of Members. As such, we believe it is best first to experiment with a voluntary system. Members should be encouraged to submit questions in small batches. Such an encouragement should appear on the e-tabling page, and in confirmation emails for e- tabled questions. In the event that there continues to be a problem with large quantities of e-tabled questions submitted in single batches, we would be prepared to reconsider placing a firm limit on the number of questions permitted in the e-tabling ‘basket’ at any one time.

Cut-off point 34. In 2007 the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office suggested that an earlier cut-off point for processing questions tabled each day could be a further option for easing the flow of questions through the Table Office.

One option would be to bring forward the cut-off point on Mondays and Tuesdays to say 8pm, either generally or for e-tabled questions, while still guaranteeing that Named Day questions would be dealt with. Other questions would be processed so far as time allowed, up until the rising of the House.54

35. David Drew MP said he would support an earlier cut-off if it meant clerks were able to perform their duties carefully and effectively.55 The current Principal Clerk of the Table Office, Jacqy Sharpe, added that in the event of an earlier cut-off being imposed, the Table Office would still seek to process that day any questions brought in person to the Table

51 Q102 52 Ev 46 53 Q105 (Mr Walker) 54 Ev 46 55 Q90

Office by Members.56 While this would meet the concern raised by the then Deputy Leader of the House that there should still be a way of tabling and processing urgent questions late in the day,57 other witnesses were sceptical of the value of an earlier cut-off time. Oliver Heald MP rejected the idea:

Personally, I would not be in favour of it. I think the Table Office should be geared up to meet the needs of Members because this is such a vital tool. […] Our job is to hold the Government to account. This is a key way of doing it. If we need to have a few more clerks, let us have them, but let us not give up on something as important as this.58

While David Laws MP said it was ‘not usually vital’ for him that questions were processed that day rather than the next morning, he agreed that he ‘would not want the system to be designed too much around administrative convenience rather than accountability to Government’.59

36. While we recognise that administrative convenience should not unnecessarily restrict the tabling of questions, we do believe that action must be taken to smooth the workload of the Table Office and ensure that each and every question receives the most thorough consideration. It is clearly undesirable for questions to be processed hurriedly in the early hours of the morning. As such, we recommend introducing a cut-off point for the processing of e-tabled questions. Questions tabled electronically after 7pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, 6pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and 2.30pm on Fridays (or, in each case, the rising of the House, if earlier) would be treated as having been tabled the following day, and processed accordingly. No such cut-off point should be applied to questions tabled in person.

Guidance on Tabling Questions 37. The main principles of the House’s rules on tabling questions are set out in Erskine May,60 but neither the form nor the text is particularly helpful to Members. The Table Office has recognised that some of the existing rules are quite difficult to understand,61 with the former Principal Clerk of the Office noting: ‘The rules as set out in Erskine May are not always easy to interpret. Some past decisions and interpretations of the Chair recorded are arcane and deal with issues of little obvious relevance’.62 As a result, the current rules on tabling are not as well understood as they could be.

56 Q105 (Ms Sharpe) 57 Q150 58 Q89 59 Q89 60 Erskine May, 23rd Edition, pp345-354 61 Q111 62 Ev 43

38. The then Deputy Leader of the House told us that most Members have a broad understanding of rules, but sometimes ‘need to have it cleared up’.63 This clarification of the rules is a key function of the Table Office, and although their advice on individual cases is generally greatly appreciated, we recognise that their intervention can occasionally be irritating for Members. Members told us that the Table Office can sometimes seem ‘restrictive’ or ‘pedantic’ in their treatment of written questions,64 and that the carding a question could lead to a significant delay, causing the question to lose its topicality.65 However, the Principal Clerk of the Table Office stressed to us that the aim of the Office is not to restrict or reject questions, but ‘to help Members to table questions as is their right within the rules that we implement on behalf of Mr Speaker’.66

39. Clearer and more readily available written guidance, especially if it brought together the substance of various Speaker’s rulings on questions, would help to raise awareness and appreciation of the rules enforced by the Table Office, and would improve Members’ understanding of why their questions may have been carded. Improved guidance could also raise the standard of questions brought into the Table Office in the first place, reducing the need for carding and thereby speeding up the tabling process for Members and the Table Office alike.

40. The Table Office have indicated they would be happy to give consideration to providing further guidance to Members,67 and indeed the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office included a possible codification of the rules as an annex to his evidence submitted to us in 2007.68 However, he also noted there were risks involved in producing this codification:

Their effect might well be to import a rigidity into the system which would not benefit Members. Guidelines might also encourage mass production of templated Questions. Furthermore, the nature of disorderly Questions varies over time, and rules which seem useful at one moment may fail to address a novel or reinvented formulation at the next.69

Recognising these risks, the current Principal Clerk of the Table Office stressed the need for any new guidance to have an informal status that could be easily revised and updated without requiring a decision on the floor of the House.70

41. The rules as set out in Erskine May should remain the procedural basis for Table Office decisions. However, Members would benefit from a clearer codification of the rules and additional guidance, especially when drafting questions or dealing with carded questions. We recommend that such codification and guidance be developed by

63 Q156 64 Q87 (Mr Heald, Mr Laws) 65 Q78 (Mr Heald) 66 Q145 67 Q11 68 Ev 49 69 Ev 43-44 70 QQ 114-115

the Table Office and made available to Members, based on the draft codification submitted to the Committee by the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office. This new guidance would explain the rules as set out in Erskine May and in Speaker’s rulings, and would offer general advice on their interpretation. Both the codification and the guidance would remain informal documents to allow them to be regularly revised and updated to reflect changes in interpretation or patterns of answering.

Authentication 42. The 2002 Report of our predecessor Committee recommended that that an e-tabling system be introduced on an experimental basis. However, the Committee remained cautious, and recommended that the House should ‘confer on Mr Speaker by resolution a reserve power, to be exercised on the basis of advice from the Table Office, either to impose quotas on the number of questions Members may table electronically, or to halt the experiment altogether, if in Mr Speaker’s opinion the number of questions increases excessively or other significant abuses are suspected’.71 This condition formed part of the motion agreed to by the House on 29 October 2002, approving the Committee’s Report.

43. The e-tabling system was introduced following the House’s decision. As well as proving a technical success,72 the system has also won over many Members, with e-tabled WPQs now regularly exceeding 50% of all WPQs tabled.73 The then Deputy Leader of the House gave his support to the e-tabling system, describing it as ‘enormously useful to the vast majority of Members’.74 It is true that remote tabling can in some cases complicate and prolong the tabling process, especially when the Table Office has to ‘card’ a question, but on the whole, e-tabling has been successful and should continue.

44. This is not to say that e-tabling is without its challenges. In particular, the remote nature of e-tabling has led to concerns that Members have less involvement in the tabling process, and that some Members have gone too far in delegating the preparation of WPQs to their staff. These concerns are not unique to e-tabling, but the particularly remote and impersonal nature of an electronic tabling system would make it easier for a Member determined to conduct his business this way.

45. There is only anecdotal evidence to support these concerns. The current system relies on passwords for security, and the presumption is that these passwords are not disclosed. However, the then Deputy Leader of the House told us that that ‘is not what we all know is actually happening’.75 The former Leader of the House told us that a Member had admitted to him in conversation that he did not always know what questions his researcher was

71 House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions, Third Report of Session, 2001–02, HC 622, para 90 72 Ev 44 73 Q102 74 Q158 75 Q159

tabling in his name.76 Such cases are very difficult for the Table Office to spot definitively, but some instances have raised suspicions:

the Office has the impression that Members may on occasions countenance the tabling of Questions in their name of whose content they have little or no knowledge, since when asked to discuss Questions about which there is a problem it is evident that they are seeing them for the first time. On other occasions the content is such that it is hard to believe that it could have been seen and approved by a Member.77

46. In 2007 the then Leader of the House told us that cases of this kind were making a significant contribution to the rise in the number of questions.78 David Drew MP also warned of the consequences for individual MPs of delegating responsibility in this way:

Any Member who does that is mad. They will be caught out sometime; it will go wrong. Some researcher will put in a bizarre question that the press will pick up and they will be slain alive. 79

This has not yet come to pass but, crucially, delegation to this extent undermines the principle that the tabling of WPQs is the exclusive right and responsibility of Members of Parliament. The 2002 Report of the our predecessor Committee concluded that ‘Members must take direct responsibility for all questions tabled in their name’.80 It is unrealistic to expect Members not to involve their researchers in the WPQs process. Researchers will inevitably have some involvement in the preparation of questions and the different arrangements between Members and their staff make it difficult to state that Members should have a particular level of involvement in the WPQs process. Some Members may allow researchers to prepare questions independently, but then authorise and table them themselves. Other Members may prepare questions themselves, but then delegate the act of tabling to staff. Oliver Heald MP told us: ‘I draft my own questions but I may well say to my researcher, “Could you table these?” I do not see that the technical aspect of him pressing the button matters much’.81

47. While it would clearly be desirable for Members to be fully involved at all stages of the WPQs process, office arrangements of this kind are at the discretion of individual Members. However, it must be recognised that the researcher’s involvement should only go so far. The then Deputy Leader insisted ‘this is about MPs and not researchers scrutinising Government’.82 What is vital is that Members take responsibility for the questions tabled in their name, whatever arrangements they may have in place.

48. Moreover, in the event that it was decided to police Members’ involvement in preparing and tabling questions, it would not be easy to identify whether an abuse was taking place. The Table Office insisted that it had to work on the basis that if a question

76 Q3 77 Ev 44 78 Q2 79 Q99 (Mr Drew) 80 House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions, Third Report of Session, 2001–02, HC 622, para 79 81 Q100 82 Q148

came from a Member’s e-tabling account, it had been authorised by that Member,83 and there could be an explanation for even apparently suspicious circumstances:

The Office rarely has incontrovertible evidence that an e-tabled question has not been authorised by a Member. Even if the Member is known to be otherwise engaged at the time of receipt, including speaking in the Chamber, it may be that it was authorised in advance and that the Member’s staff are acting on an instruction to send it in.84

49. The Table Office told us that it would appreciate a reiteration of Members’ responsibilities in tabling questions, as a ‘welcome statement of what we hope and understand is the practice’.85 The then Deputy Leader of the House went further and asked for a particular level of involvement in the tabling process to be written into the Code of Conduct for Members.86 We do not wish to restrict Members unnecessarily, and believe that the wide range of valid individual office arrangements for preparing and tabling questions would make it difficult to establish guidance insisting on particular levels of involvement at particular stages in the process, and unfair to impose sanctions if there were deviation from this single model. Instead, we recommend that Members be reminded regularly that WPQs are a proceeding in Parliament and that they are personally and directly responsible for questions tabled in their name. This reiteration should be made to all Members at the beginning of a new Parliament. It should also be made to Members signing up to the e-tabling system; should appear on the e-tabling pages; and should be included in every email acknowledgement of questions tabled.

50. The Committee understands that researchers are likely to have a role in preparing questions, but tabling questions is an exclusive right and responsibility of Members of Parliament. Members must take full responsibility for the questions tabled in their name, and each individual Member must satisfy him or herself that they have had sufficient involvement in the preparation and tabling of their questions to be able to do so. The Table Office should not be expected to make a judgement of the level of Member involvement.

Authentication technology 51. Our predecessor Committee’s 2002 Report recognised that the method of authentication for e-tabling might need strengthening in the future, if Members were found not to have used the system ‘in a responsible manner’. The current password- operated authentication system is a ‘weak’ authentication system. At least one extra factor (for example, recognition of some physical characteristic or token held by an individual Member) would have to be introduced in order to constitute a ‘strong’ authentication scheme.87

83 Q124 84 Ev 44 85 Q125 (Ms Sharpe) 86 Q152 87 Ev 50

52. Both the former Leader of the House and the former Deputy Leader of the House told us that the authentication system needed strengthening in order to reinforce confidence in the system.88 However, it is not certain that stronger authentication would avoid abuse. Firstly, PICT (the Parliamentary ICT service) warned that even the seemingly strongest scheme could be compromised given enough time and effort, or if the Member had a vested interest in handing on the necessary information or tokens.89 Secondly, strong authentication at the point of tabling proves only that a Member has tabled the question, not that the Member has read the question or been involved in its preparation.90 In 2007 the then Leader of the House called for ‘an assurance that the tabling is by the Member and they have applied their brain to it’,91 yet stronger authentication could only guarantee the first part of this requirement.

53. We recognise that a stronger authentication system for e-tabling could assure a guaranteed minimum level of Member involvement at the point of tabling. But, given that any stronger authentication would involve significant cost to the House, such a measure should only be undertaken if there is confidence that it could address a genuine problem of excessive delegation of the preparation of WPQs to researchers. The e-tabling system already assumes that questions received from a Member’s account have been authorised by that Member, and this would remain the assumption under stronger authentication. Imposing a further level of authentication would provide only a superficial solution to the much more complex underlying problem of attitudes to the WPQs process. The challenge is to reform these attitudes by ensuring Members understand their responsibilities, rather than imposing further technical restrictions on the work of Members.

4 Answering Questions

Departmental Resources 54. The consistent and significant rise in the number of questions has also put pressure on government departments. This pressure is not evenly spread. Often questions may be concentrated in only a handful of departments, or on a specific part of a department’s work.92 In 2007 the then Leader of the House noted that: ‘95,000 [questions] over just 200 sitting days is an awful lot of PQs, particularly if they are concentrated in four or five

88 Q5, Q17 (Mr Straw); Q158 (Mr Bryant) 89 Ev 52 90 Ev 44 91 Q39 92 Q162

departments’.93 This can be especially acute when there is a sudden interest in a particular topical issue.94

55. On occasion this pressure on departments can affect the quality of answers. In 2007 the then Leader of the House argued that ‘if we go on like this, with the best will in the world, departments will not be able to cope and you will get mistakes, you will get answers coming back which are not answers at all, and so on’.95 This has been noted at an official level as well. Although the Table Office does not formally monitor the quality of answers, in 2007 the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office noted that answers from some departments may be ‘less helpful than they used to be’.96

56. While the Government does seek to move resources to meet demand, there are some limitations to what this can achieve. Certain questions can only be answered by staff with specialist knowledge, and staff moved in from other areas cannot always usefully contribute to the answering process.97 The then Deputy Leader of the House also warned that ministerial time is an inevitable restriction: ‘if we quadrupled the number of staff the pinch point would still be the ministers because there is a fixed number of them […] however much you increase the number, in the end the problem is ministerial time’.98

57. Whilst we recognise the difficulties in meeting demand, we note that trends indicate that the rise in the number of questions is here to stay, and will need to be properly addressed. Oliver Heald MP told us:

The Government really has to understand that we are living in a much more open democracy, where MPs are more vigorous than perhaps they once were. If that is the case, just as they have had to come to terms with the 24-hour media by having a lot more press officers, they ought to come to terms with the fact that they are being vigorously held to account by having the requisite number of civil servants to do the job properly.99

58. Members also told the Committee that poor answers to questions only encouraged further questions trying to chase up the same point, and that there was nothing to be gained through saving time by giving evasive or limited answers: ‘Those departments that end up with a lot of questions may end up also being the ones which are wilfully trying not to answer them’.100 David Laws MP told us of an instance where a particular department ‘ended up with hundreds and hundreds more questions because we have not been willing to be put off by the original blocking answer’.101 Mike Penning MP told us that fewer

93 Q2 94 For example, a PIMS search on 19/05/09 for Sri Lanka (a topical issue at the time of writing) revealed that of the 229 relevant questions tabled in the previous year, 43 had been tabled in the previous month, and 25 of those in the seven days preceding the search. 95 Q2 96 Ev 46 97 Ev 11 98 Q161 99 Q91 100 Q92 (Mr Laws) 101 Q92

supplementary WPQs would be tabled if government departments were prepared to provide fuller answers to questions in the first place.102

59. It is reasonable that, at times of particular pressure on departments, especially in response to a topical issue, it may take a little longer to provide answers. We also recognise that there may be difficulties in moving resources to meet spikes in demand. However, the volume of questions is unlikely to fall, and Departments need to adjust rather than ‘make do’. The Government must ensure that, in sections where there is constant pressure, departments have the resources they need to respond to questions as efficiently as possible.

60. We recognise that in particularly busy periods the limited number of Ministers available to approve questions may cause some delays. However, we do not believe this should be used as argument against increasing the resources available to departments below ministerial level, especially when better resourced departments should mean Ministers get better answers, and get them more quickly.

61. The then Deputy Leader of the House told us about plans in government to develop an ‘electronic parliamentary community’ that would allow the electronic transmission of questions and answers between government departments and the Houses of Parliament. This mirrors the aspirations set out in the Report of our predecessor Committee, which stated that ‘electronic tabling will be simply the first stage in a longer process of making provision for ‘seamless’ electronic movement of data relating to parliamentary proceedings’.103 However, although the then Deputy Leader suggested that the system may help to speed up the answering process,104 he admitted plans were still in their early stages, with work ongoing to prepare a business case for the project.105

62. We would support the development of an electronic parliamentary community to improve the speed and efficiency of the answering process. We urge the Government to proceed with these plans as quickly as possible.

Guidance for Departments and Ministers when answering questions 63. Witnesses indicated that some departments are more helpful and forthcoming than others, in particular in how they deal with requests for information that is already available.106 Consistency between departments is an important factor in ensuring the confidence of Members in the WPQs system. As answers are provided by a wide variety of departmental staff, some of whom may only rarely be called upon to answer questions, the obvious way to achieve consistency is through universal guidance and a solid review process. An understanding of the guidance provided to departments may also help

102 Ev 74

103 House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions, Third Report of Session, 2001–02, HC 622, paragraph 94. 104 Q164 105 Q187 106 Q81

Members to pitch their questions more accurately, to understand why answers may not be as forthcoming as they had hoped, and to judge more objectively when answers are unsatisfactory.

64. Guidance to officials on drafting answers to parliamentary questions is provided by the Cabinet Office and available online.107 This guidance reminds officials of the need to draft accurate and truthful answers that are open as possible. It also tells them to withhold information only if there is a valid reason to do so (for example, disproportionate cost or if the release of the information would not be in the public interest) and, in the event that information is withheld, tells officials to explain clearly the reasons for this. While we welcome the general principles contained in this guidance, it is brief and difficult to find. The existence of this guidance was not raised by any witnesses.

65. The then Deputy Leader of the House told us that the Leader’s Office performs a general overview function of the questions process and the quality of answers, and has intervened directly to press the importance of timely answers to questions108 and to reiterate the rules for answering questions.109 Officials handling questions in Government departments also receive central advice on how to calculate disproportionate cost.110 Yet not all of this guidance is published and, unfortunately, the government is still reluctant to reveal the full package of advice made available to officials. Oliver Heald MP told us that he had used a WPQ to request sight of one aspect of answering guidance:

I [have asked] the Chancellor of the Duchy if we can see the book of precedents which they have, which shows departments how to answer parliamentary questions. They say it is internal guidance and there are a number of other questions where I get the same answer.111

66. We welcome the fact that the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Leader of the House produce central guidance for officials. However, the widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of answers, and the suggestion of inconsistency between certain departments, indicates that this guidance may often be disregarded or may not have been properly disseminated from these central offices. The Government must take steps to review its guidance structures and instigate a thorough review process across government to ensure that the principles set out in the guidance are adhered to in practice. We urge the Government to publish prominently on a publicly accessible website its full range of guidance to officials for answering written parliamentary questions, and to ensure that this is kept up to date.

The Ministerial Code 67. Witnesses agreed that ministerial sign off of questions is vital, in much the same way as Members of Parliament should approve and take full responsibility for questions tabled in

107 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ethics/civil_service/pq_guidance.aspx 108 Q164 109 Q182 110 Q184 111 Q69

their name.112 Specific ministerial guidance on answering questions (or at least, that which is published) is again limited. The Ministerial Code113 sets out that:

It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity […] Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest.114

68. The Code also proposes a series of ‘Principles of Public Life’ to be adhered to in the exercise of Ministerial duties (including accountability, openness and honesty). The Code does not, however, give any further specific or detailed advice as to how these principles should be applied when answering WPQs. In the same way, it offers little specific advice on other parliamentary duties. The then Deputy Leader of the House told us that the advice set out in the Ministerial Code was suitably clear on how Ministers should act, and that no addition to the code was necessary.115 But, given that answering WPQs can involve difficult compromises and complex trade-offs, the process deserves more specific consideration. In addition, the apparent disconnect between the expectations of Members and Parliament and the quality of some answers suggests that the answering process would benefit from a much stronger and more specific statement of expected duties.

69. We recommend that the Prime Minister undertake a revision of the Ministerial Code to provide a clear and separate statement on the responsibilities of Ministers in answering written parliamentary questions.

Freedom of Information 70. A particular concern of Members is that some departments seem to try to restrict the release of information. Although the then Deputy Leader of the House told us that Ministers should be ‘as helpful as [they] possibly can’ in answering questions116 and the Cabinet Office guidance states that officials should ‘not omit information sought merely because disclosure could lead to political embarrassment or administrative inconvenience’,117 this message does not seem to have filtered through to all Departments. David Laws MP told us ‘there is now a culture of some departments, and particularly, for me, the Treasury, of non answers to questions’ and described the Treasury as having an ‘absolute determination not to give out information’.118 Derek Wyatt MP told us that Government departments provide too many ‘anodyne’ answers because they are taught to reveal as little as possible.119 As noted earlier, evasive responses frustrate Members and

112 Q99 (Mr Heald); Ev 39 113 The latest version of the Ministerial Code (2007) is available on the Cabinet Office website at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ ethics/ministers/ministerial_code.aspx 114 Ministerial Code, 2007 edition, p6. 115 Q176 116 Q154 117 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ethics/civil_service/pq_guidance.aspx 118 Q71 119 Ev 41 (P7)

only increase the number of questions directed to the Department. Oliver Heald MP told us:

If [the guidance was] very much on the basis of, “Look, we have to give the information, as much as we can” and they did not have these constant blocking mechanisms, it would free up the system. They would have more time to find the answers if they spent a bit less time prevaricating.120

Mr Heald went so far as to call on the Committee to consider recommending imposing on Government a duty to provide assistance, equal to that set out in the Freedom of Information Act.121 It is regrettable that the imposition of such a duty is seen by some to be necessary if the Government is to fulfil its obligations to Parliament.

71. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has complicated the question of what information is or is not revealed. The then Deputy Leader of the House told the Committee:

We knew when the Freedom of Information Act came into force that it would pose a challenge to the relationship between that legislation and parliamentary questions and, for that matter, correspondence with MPs and the public, so it is important to get this right.122

72. The Ministerial Code states that Ministers should refuse to provide information ‘only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000’.123 Indeed, Ministers stated to the Committee that no information should be refused under a WPQ that would be released under an FOI request. In 2007 the then Leader of the House said that such a situation would be ‘totally unacceptable’ and would ‘undermine the special privilege that Members of Parliament get along with being an elected representative’.124 The then Deputy Leader of the House told us that ‘if the department has the information and it knows that it will have to give it under a FOI request it should give it in a parliamentary answer. Full stop’.125

73. We commend these strong comments from Ministers. However, evidence to the Committee from other Members suggested that these ministerial commitments were not being carried through in practice. We heard of instances where information was indeed refused under a WPQ, but later released through a Freedom of Information request.126 Oliver Heald MP set out his frustration, referring to the rejection of his WPQ request to see departmental guidance on answering questions:

120 Q92 121 Ev 12, Q84 122 Q181 123 Ministerial Code, 2007 edition, p6. 124 Q57 125 Q171 126 Q74 (Mr Heald), Q72 (Mr Laws), Ev 12

If I were to ask for a Freedom of Information request here, that would not be an exemption. As a Member of Parliament I am asking the question, and I do not get the answer because I am just a Member of Parliament. If as a member of the public I write in to them and ask for this guidance, however, they could not refuse it on these grounds.127

Some evidence even suggested that this inconsistency could occasionally be deliberate. David Laws MP told us that it sometimes seemed as though departments, by making the FOI route the only option for obtaining an item of information, were purposefully trying to delay disclosure or wear down a Member’s resolve. 128

74. No information should be refused under WPQs that would be released under an FOI request. To do so undermines the primacy of Parliament. The Government states its support for this principle, and must enforce it.

‘Unsatisfactory’ answers 75. Members have complained of receiving ‘unsatisfactory’ answers. Our evidence session with Members provided a worrying number of examples, especially of instances where departments failed to engage with a question, referred to previous answers that did not address the question, or provided only very vague answers to highly specific questions.129 We also received many examples from other Members of answers they considered unsatisfactory. The Hansard Society set out one of the dominant complaints:

A common criticism is that replies to PQs tend to be designed to minimise the opportunity for further scrutiny, by being brief, curt and limited to a narrow interpretation of the question.130

76. David Drew MP was stark in his assessment, telling the Committee that many answers are ‘quite simply, dross’.131 David Laws MP gave the following assessment of answers to his questions on tax credit:

Over [the last year or so], I asked 250 questions on tax credit issues, many of which would be pursuing non answers, and, of those, we reckon that only 21% were answered in clear terms; 40% were grouped, and I have some examples where 20 or 5 questions were grouped with one answer or non answer; 2% were disproportionate costed; for 10% the information was not available; 15% were to refer to other MPs’ questions (which sometimes were not the right questions); and 8% were answered, just about, but in a very unhelpful way.132

77. As discussed earlier in this chapter, this can in some cases be attributed to pressure placed on departments by the rise in the number of questions. And some answers which

127 Q69 128 Q71, Q97 129 See, for example, Q69 (Mr Heald) and Q71 (Mr Laws) 130 Ev 42 131 Q70 132 Q71

may seem unsatisfactory to the Member may well be genuine, such as many of those invoking ‘disproportionate cost’; or where information is not collected centrally; or where a holding answer is given that allows time for a question to be answered properly. In addition, there are other areas where the Government reserves the right not to answer, for example where a question asks for details on issues of national security, or individual tax affairs. The Table Office does not record these instances systematically, but tries to monitor them so that Members can be advised where a question is unlikely to receive an answer.133

78. The then Deputy Leader of the House also suggested that some answers may be a reaction against questions perceived as ‘party political’: ‘In those moments when ministers catch a whiff of politics in the air the temptation is to answer with politics’.134 Though we recognise that this may be a temptation for Ministers, such an attitude goes against the principles set out in the Ministerial Code. The Government has an obligation to provide an appropriate answer to a question, irrespective of whether the question seems to have been asked for party political ends.

79. Members have a variety of avenues open to them for following up questions, which may in many cases prove effective. As we saw in the previous section, some Members go down the route of making an FOI request if their initial question is unsuccessful, but this is not a procedure in which Members should need to engage. Members may also contact directly the Minister concerned; seek an adjournment debate on the topic; or raise the matter in oral questions. The Member may also turn to the House of Commons Library research service for help tracking down information in the public domain, or may ask a departmental select committee to investigate unsatisfactory answers.

80. In evidence sessions with the Table Office and the then Deputy Leader of the House we discussed the suggestion of introducing a formal mechanism for registering dissatisfaction with an answer, through the medium of a standard form of question that would be tabled in the Table Office and that would invite the department to comment further on the original exchange. The Table Office did not consider that there would be significant logistical obstacles to establishing such a system,135 but did not see that it would offer any additional benefit to tabling a follow-up question under existing arrangements.136 The value of follow-up questions is, at any rate, variable. In 2007 the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office told us:

it has to be accepted that where a Ministerial Answer has failed to give satisfaction, the chances are not good that a follow-up question, however ingeniously framed, will change matters.137

A standard format for following up unsatisfactory answers is unlikely to improve Members’ success rate in this area.

133 Q117 134 Q179 135 Ev 55 (P 43) 136 Q140 137 Ev 47

81. The then Deputy Leader of the House gave further reasons for being ‘hesitant’ about such a system: ‘I believe every opposition Member will always say that about any answer he or she has ever received because that would be the incentive to do so’.138 There is certainly a risk that such a mechanism could be used as routine by some Members, thereby only exacerbating the problems caused by already high volumes of questions. The Table Office suggested this risk could be reduced either by limiting the number of ‘registration of dissatisfaction’ questions a Member could table in a certain time period, or by giving the Speaker the power to terminate the experiment if it appeared the system was being abused.139 However, we are concerned that the accessibility of the scheme would risk the system being swamped and might prevent genuine cases of dissatisfaction from receiving the attention they deserve.

82. At present there is no formal appeals body with responsibility for pursuing answers considered unsatisfactory. The Committee on Public Administration used to have a role in following up unsatisfactory answers, but has ceased to exercise this function formally. Under that system Members were able to refer unsatisfactory answers to the Chairman of the Committee, who would, where appropriate, take up the issue with the department concerned. David Laws MP noted that the Committee had often been effective in ‘embarrassing’ Ministers into providing information, but that ‘there is only so much a committee like that can do informally’.140 Likewise, the Hansard Society told us:

Although this procedure provides an extra dimension to parliamentary pressure and can on occasions result in more informative answers or an explanation as to why information is not being released, it does little to alter the basic fact that there is not much Parliament can do when faced with executive obstruction.141

83. Members occasionally refer unsatisfactory answers to the appropriate departmental select committee, but these committees have no formal role in evaluating WPQs and are entirely free to dismiss or pursue the matter as they see fit. Although unsatisfactory answers may sometimes be of interest to departmental select committees, their already significant responsibilities mean there is little enthusiasm for a more formal role. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee stressed that the Committee was ‘firmly opposed to any mechanism where departmental select committees would act as a formal postbox for Members dissatisfied with an answer’.142

84. On the whole, witnesses to the Committee were not overly enthusiastic about the potential of an appeals body with formal responsibilities of this kind. David Drew MP told us that he did ‘not think an appeal route would work’, and that Members would be better off using the other avenues already open to them.143 Oliver Heald MP also said he would ‘not be keen’ for a Committee-based appeals mechanism.144 The then Deputy Leader of the

138 Q157 139 Ev 55 (P 43) 140 Q97; Q71 141 Ev 42 142 Ev 53 143 Q97 144 Q97

House insisted that Ministers should be judged on the quality of their work by the electorate, rather than by an appeals committee, and that the Office of the Leader of the House already took on the role of chasing up Ministers for the quality of their answers.145

85. In the light of this evidence, we conclude that there is little support for a formal appeals system. However, given the widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of answers, we do believe that there is a case for formal monitoring of answers that have been deemed unsatisfactory by the Member concerned. This would allow remedial action to be taken in flagrant cases, and would also enable the extent of the problem to be identified and addressed.

86. To make such monitoring effective, the adequacy of the answer would need to be considered by an independent third party, as was the case with referral to the Select Committee on Public Administration. The judgement of whether or not an answer is satisfactory is a difficult one, which can stray into political territory. It would not be appropriate to ask the Table Office clerks to adjudicate on whether or not an answer is satisfactory. This has never been part of their role, and to ask them to undertake this duty could be seen to compromise their impartiality unfairly. It would therefore be best for the judgement to be made by a cross-party group of Members.

87. We propose that, for an experimental one-year period, we take on the role of monitoring unsatisfactory answers referred to us by Members. We do not expect to investigate each individual case, but in cases of particular concern we will refer questions to Ministers for comment and review. We expect the Prime Minister to make clear to Ministers that they should engage fully with the Procedure Committee on the issues referred to them. We will also inform the Leader of the House if we identify broader concerns, in particular weaknesses in answers on a particular topic or from a particular department, and will produce Reports from time to time on trends in unsatisfactory or inadequate written answers and departmental performance. We expect that information on departmental performance will also be used by the relevant departmental select committees in their own analysis and scrutiny.

Late answers 88. A further problem is late answers. At present, no formal monitoring of the timeliness of answers is carried out in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords a list is produced by the Table Office, which records questions still unanswered after the 14 day deadline set by that House. The document, which gives unanswered questions by date and by department, allows unanswered questions to be viewed at a glance and poorly performing departments to be identified. Production of the list also allows an objective assessment of the extent of the problem, whereas the lack of monitoring in the House of Commons means that any evidence in this House is inconclusive and largely anecdotal.

89. There are limits, however, as to how helpful such a list would be for the House of Commons. The most striking difference between the two Houses in this respect is the

145 Q173, Q166

number of questions tabled. For example, in Session 2007–08 73,357 questions were tabled in the Commons, as opposed to 6,350 in the Lords. The significantly higher number in the Commons would make such a list less helpful for identifying problems ‘at a glance’. The sheer scale of the numbers involved would also pose significant logistical challenges for the production of such a list, and would require a more advanced system than that used in the Lords. The existing system for recording questions data, PIMS, is not up to the task, although it may be possible to develop this functionality in future revisions to the system.146 Looking to the future, the then Deputy Leader of the House suggested that this is the sort of function that could be undertaken by the proposed Electronic Parliamentary Community.147

90. The numbers involved also magnify questions of fairness. A list of unanswered questions may not fairly reflect departmental performance. The Table Office told us:

Questions for written answer vary enormously in the quantity and complexity of the information they seek, and often the Table Office as part of its editing process will merge separate but related Questions into a single question. In addition certain Departments and Government agencies, or sections or units within them, have a much heavier load in respect of answering written Questions than others.148

A busy department may answer the vast majority of its questions promptly, but could still figure prominently on a list of unanswered questions.

91. A further obstacle to publishing such a list for Commons questions is the lack of a clear deadline after which questions could be formally designated as ‘late’. Although the Government has given an undertaking to aim to provide answers to ordinary WPQs within one working week, there is no requirement on them to do so. There are good reasons why the House of Commons has not yet established a deadline of this kind. The first is the risk of the concept of an ‘acceptable delay’ taking hold, whereby answers are rarely provided earlier than the deadline because there is no incentive to do so. This could become the case under the suggestion made in 2007 by the then Leader of the House that there should be a ‘longstop’ deadline for ordinary WPQs, of as long as two or three weeks, by which time a question would have to be answered.149 This would be similar to the fourteen day deadline used by the Lords. Under such a long deadline departments could easily fall into the routine of answers being provided close to the cut-off point as a matter of course.

92. The second reason is that a tight deadline could have a detrimental impact on the quality of answers. In 2007, the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office told us that ‘a recording system which provided an incentive to Departments to produce an answer by a certain date might result in less full, accurate or helpful information being provided in Answers by Departments to ensure that they met the date target’.150 There is also a risk of a

146 Ev 53-54 147 Q169 148 Ev 54 149 Q11, Q22 150 Ev 54

greater number of holding answers or answers citing disproportionate cost. Mr Walker of the Table Office told us:

There are two aspects of performance: timeliness and quality of response as perceived by the Member. […] In some circumstances there may be a trade off. If you put pressure on departments to answer within a certain period quality may suffer.151

93. A rigorous deadline could therefore affect the quality of answers; a more generous deadline could engender a concept of acceptable delay. It is hard to see how any deadline could strike the right balance, especially given that variations in departmental workload could mean that the same deadline would have opposite effects in different departments.

94. A system of publishing a regular list of those questions not answered within a particular deadline could have a serious detrimental effect on the quality of answers. Although we strongly encourage the Government to provide answers promptly, we believe that the quality of the answer provided must be the deciding factor. As such, we do not wish to set a strict deadline after which responses to ordinary WPQs will be considered late. However, we firmly believe that ordinary WPQs should receive an answer within five working days, and certainly no later than ten working days. We urge the Government to work to this timetable. We reiterate the current expectation that, other than in exceptional circumstances, named day questions should receive a substantive response on the day set for their answer.

95. In the event that departments need to give holding answers, the holding answer should include a explanation of the reason for the delay, and a fair indication of when an answer will be provided.

96. Members with particular grievances about late answers should refer individual cases to the Procedure Committee as part of the same experiment proposed for pursuing unsatisfactory answers.

97. There are some areas, however, where improved monitoring of late answers could help to assess and improve departmental performance. For example, a list of questions remaining unanswered at the end of each session would highlight instances where questions had been left unanswered for a clearly unacceptable period, without requiring a strict time limit to be set. The Table Office cautioned that such a list would include, unfairly, questions tabled shortly before prorogation or dissolution: ‘the fact that a Question has not been answered before prorogation takes place is not necessarily indicative of a failing on the part of a Minister or Department’.152 This is true, but provided the date of tabling was indicated on the list, it would be obvious which questions were reasonably unanswered, and which were unaccountably late. On prorogation, questions that have not received answers fall. A list of unanswered questions would therefore have the added benefit of alerting Members to the need to retable these questions.

151 Q129 (Mr Walker) 152 Ev 54

98. We recommend that a list be produced by the Table Office of those questions that remain unanswered at the end of each session, arranged by date and department. Although this will include some questions that could not realistically be answered before the end of the session, it will also highlight answers that are unacceptably late, will help to identify the worst offenders, and should ensure departments are accountable for any questions that are simply ignored or ‘lost’. This list should be submitted to the Procedure Committee, and will be evaluated by us.

99. A sessional analysis of departmental answering performance would be useful for assessing broader performance in answering WPQs promptly. Statistics on the time taken to answer questions across a whole session should allow the analysis of departmental performance without affecting the quality of individual answers. The Table Office suggested that departments themselves would be best placed to compile these statistics.153 The then Deputy Leader of the House told us that the Leader’s Office already went some way to collecting data on departmental performance in this area.154

100. We recommend that departments be required to provide the Procedure Committee with sessional statistics in a standard format on the time taken to respond to WPQs, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out any factors affecting their performance. These statistics should also record when holding answers have been given. This would allow departments to be compared and trends to be identified, without compromising the quality of answers to individual questions. These statistics should indicate the number of WPQs answered by the department throughout the session, and show the proportion and number of questions answered within particular periods of time. We intend to evaluate such statistics and report on departmental performance as necessary. As with data on unsatisfactory answers, this information on departmental performance will be sent to the relevant departmental select committees to inform their own scrutiny of departments.

101. Simple and routine production of these assessments will require the use of appropriate electronic information management systems. We urge the Government to ensure that any development of the Electronic Parliamentary Community takes account of the need to record and analyse the timeliness of answers.

153 Q128 154 Q169

5 Conclusion

102. Written Parliamentary Questions remain a unique tool for Members of Parliament and a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny. WPQs allow detailed, targeted and (perhaps most importantly) published scrutiny of government policy and operations. Upholding the efficacy of this system, and ensuring it is respected, will be essential if the House of Commons is to be seen to hold the Government to account.

103. We are concerned that in some areas the Government does not seem to be meeting its responsibilities for answering questions. In the course of our inquiry we have heard of occasions where answers are received inexplicably late, or not at all, and instances where answers fail to address the question or withhold information without due reason. We hope that these cases are rare, but we are determined to ensure that the WPQs system is treated with due respect by Government departments and that the questions asked by the public’s elected representatives receive the answers they deserve.

104. It is in order to uphold this system of WPQs and reiterate the responsibilities of those involved in it that we have put our Committee forward to act as a monitoring body. Not only will this allow us to gauge the extent of any problem, it will also send a clear signal to Government that apparently inadequate answers to questions will not go uninvestigated.

105. Given that many parts of the WPQs system operate well and are valued by Members, we have sought to improve and reform the existing system before considering more radical alternatives. We intend to evaluate progress in the areas covered by this Report, and, if it proves necessary, we will return to the subject to consider further steps. In addition to the Government Response to the Report, we intend to write to the Principal Clerk of the Table Office at the end of the next Session of Parliament, to seek the Office’s views on the operation of the system and the effectiveness of any changes made.

Conclusions and recommendations

Number of Questions 1. The use of WPQs is vital to the scrutiny of Government and, in line with previous recommendations of the Committee, we believe that no restriction should be placed on the number of ordinary written parliamentary questions Members may ask (Paragraph 11) ‘Trivial’ or ‘frivolous’ questions 2. We understand the frustration of departments when dealing with questions that may seem frivolous. However, Members may have serious motives for tabling these questions, and must be allowed to do so. We do not agree with the suggestion of the former Leader of the House that there should be stricter rules against such questions. It is not appropriate to ask the Table Office to judge definitively whether or not a question is trivial, and the benefit of the doubt in these cases must be given to the Member. Departments should aim, as with all questions, to provide a full and accurate answer, even if the question appears trivial. (Paragraph 16) Round robin questions 3. Members should be free to table round robins to all departments, if they wish. The Table Office should try to identify instances where a round robin is not relevant to a particular department, and advise the Member accordingly, but the Member should continue to have the benefit of the doubt. However, Members should be encouraged to consider carefully whether questions are relevant to all departments, and should recognise that a smaller number of carefully focused questions may be more effective (Paragraph 21) Questions where the information is already available to Members 4. Members should not use WPQs as the first resort for obtaining information that could be available elsewhere. We strongly encourage Members to investigate other options before tabling a WPQ. The Table Office should continue to seek to identify, where possible, when information is available elsewhere. However, we recognise that Members may have legitimate reasons for asking such questions, such as wanting to get a Minister’s views on record or wishing to see the information presented in a certain way. (Paragraph 26) Table Office resources 5. The Table Office provides a vital and highly valued service, the quality of which must be maintained. The rise in the volume of question is not a temporary phenomenon and should no longer be handled on an ad-hoc basis. The resources of the Table Office, and other offices involved in the process of handling and printing questions, should be increased wherever necessary to maintain standards and meet demand for the long-term (Paragraph 31)

E-tabled questions 6. Members should be encouraged to submit questions in small batches. Such an encouragement should appear on the e-tabling page, and in confirmation emails for e-tabled questions (Paragraph 33)

7. While we recognise that administrative convenience should not unnecessarily restrict the tabling of questions, we do believe that action must be taken to smooth the workload of the Table Office and ensure that each and every question receives the most thorough consideration. It is clearly undesirable for questions to be processed hurriedly in the early hours of the morning. As such, we recommend introducing a cut-off point for the processing of e-tabled questions. Questions tabled electronically after 7pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, 6pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and 2.30pm on Fridays (or, in each case, the rising of the House, if earlier) would be treated as having been tabled the following day, and processed accordingly. No such cut-off point should be applied to questions tabled in person. (Paragraph 36)

8. On the whole, e-tabling has been successful and should continue. (Paragraph 43) Guidance on tabling questions 9. The rules as set out in Erskine May should remain the procedural basis for Table Office decisions. However, Members would benefit from a clearer codification of the rules and additional guidance, especially when drafting questions or dealing with carded questions. We recommend that such codification and guidance be developed by the Table Office and made available to Members, based on the draft codification submitted to the Committee by the then Principal Clerk of the Table Office. This new guidance would explain the rules as set out in Erskine May and in Speaker’s rulings, and would offer general advice on their interpretation. Both the codification and the guidance would remain informal documents to allow them to be regularly revised and updated to reflect changes in interpretation or patterns of answering (Paragraph 41) Authentication 10. We recommend that Members be reminded regularly that WPQs are a proceeding in Parliament and that they are personally and directly responsible for questions tabled in their name. This reiteration should be made to all Members at the beginning of a new Parliament. It should also be made to Members signing up to the e-tabling system; should appear on the e-tabling pages; and should be included in every email acknowledgement of questions tabled. (Paragraph 49)

11. The Committee understands that researchers are likely to have a role in preparing questions, but tabling questions is an exclusive right and responsibility of Members of Parliament. Members must take full responsibility for the questions tabled in their name, and each individual Member must satisfy him or herself that they have had sufficient involvement in the preparation and tabling of their questions to be able to do so. The Table Office should not be expected to make a judgement of the level of Member involvement. (Paragraph 50)

12. We recognise that a stronger authentication system for e-tabling could assure a guaranteed minimum level of Member involvement at the point of tabling. But, given that any stronger authentication would involve significant cost to the House, such a measure should only be undertaken if there is confidence that it could address a genuine problem of excessive delegation of the preparation of WPQs to researchers. The e-tabling system already assumes that questions received from a Member’s account have been authorised by that Member, and this would remain the assumption under stronger authentication. Imposing a further level of authentication would provide only a superficial solution to the much more complex underlying problem of attitudes to the WPQs process. The challenge is to reform these attitudes by ensuring Members understand their responsibilities, rather than imposing further technical restrictions on the work of Members. (Paragraph 53)

Departmental resources 13. It is reasonable that, at times of particular pressure on departments, especially in response to a topical issue, it may take a little longer to provide answers. We also recognise that there may be difficulties in moving resources to meet spikes in demand. However, the volume of questions is unlikely to fall, and Departments need to adjust rather than ‘make do’. The Government must ensure that, in sections where there is constant pressure, departments have the resources they need to respond to questions as efficiently as possible. (Paragraph 59)

14. We recognise that in particularly busy periods the limited number of Ministers available to approve questions may cause some delays. However, we do not believe this should be used as argument against increasing the resources available to departments below ministerial level, especially when better resourced departments should mean Ministers get better answers, and get them more quickly. (Paragraph 60)

15. We would support the development of an electronic parliamentary community to improve the speed and efficiency of the answering process. We urge the Government to proceed with these plans as quickly as possible. (Paragraph 62)

Guidance for Departments and Ministers when answering questions 16. We welcome the fact that the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Leader of the House produce central guidance for officials. However, the widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of answers, and the suggestion of inconsistency between certain departments, indicates that this guidance may often be disregarded or may not have been properly disseminated from these central offices. The Government must take steps to review its guidance structures and instigate a thorough review process across government to ensure that the principles set out in the guidance are adhered to in practice. We urge the Government to publish prominently on a publicly accessible website its full range of guidance to officials for answering written parliamentary questions, and to ensure that this is kept up to date. (Paragraph 66)

17. We recommend that the Prime Minister undertake a revision of the Ministerial Code to provide a clear and separate statement on the responsibilities of Ministers in answering written parliamentary questions. (Paragraph 69) Freedom of Information 18. No information should be refused under WPQs that would be released under an FOI request. To do so undermines the primacy of Parliament. The Government states its support for this principle, and must enforce it. (Paragraph 74) ‘Unsatisfactory’ answers 19. We propose that, for an experimental one-year period, we take on the role of monitoring unsatisfactory answers referred to us by Members. We do not expect to investigate each individual case, but in cases of particular concern we will refer questions to Ministers for comment and review. We expect the Prime Minister to make clear to Ministers that they should engage fully with the Procedure Committee on the issues referred to them. We will also inform the Leader of the House if we identify broader concerns, in particular weaknesses in answers on a particular topic or from a particular department, and will produce Reports from time to time on trends in unsatisfactory or inadequate written answers and departmental performance. We expect that information on departmental performance will also be used by the relevant departmental select committees in their own analysis and scrutiny. (Paragraph 87) Late answers 20. A system of publishing a regular list of those questions not answered within a particular deadline could have a serious detrimental effect on the quality of answers. Although we strongly encourage the Government to provide answers promptly, we believe that the quality of the answer provided must be the deciding factor. As such, we do not wish to set a strict deadline after which responses to ordinary WPQs will be considered late. However, we firmly believe that ordinary WPQs should receive an answer within five working days, and certainly no later than ten working days. We urge the Government to work to this timetable. We reiterate the current expectation that, other than in exceptional circumstances, named day questions should receive a substantive response on the day set for their answer. (Paragraph 94)

21. In the event that departments need to give holding answers, the holding answer should include a explanation of the reason for the delay, and a fair indication of when an answer will be provided. (Paragraph 95)

22. Members with particular grievances about late answers should refer individual cases to the Procedure Committee as part of the same experiment proposed for pursuing unsatisfactory answers. (Paragraph 96)

23. We recommend that a list be produced by the Table Office of those questions that remain unanswered at the end of each session, arranged by date and department. Although this will include some questions that could not realistically be answered before the end of the session, it will also highlight answers that are unacceptably late,

will help to identify the worst offenders, and should ensure departments are accountable for any questions that are simply ignored or ‘lost’. This list should be submitted to the Procedure Committee, and will be evaluated by us. (Paragraph 98)

24. We recommend that departments be required to provide the Procedure Committee with sessional statistics in a standard format on the time taken to respond to WPQs, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out any factors affecting their performance. These statistics should also record when holding answers have been given. This would allow departments to be compared and trends to be identified, without compromising the quality of answers to individual questions. These statistics should indicate the number of WPQs answered by the department throughout the session, and show the proportion and number of questions answered within particular periods of time. We intend to evaluate such statistics and report on departmental performance as necessary. As with data on unsatisfactory answers, this information on departmental performance will be sent to the relevant departmental select committees to inform their own scrutiny of departments. (Paragraph 100)

25. We urge the Government to ensure that any development of the Electronic Parliamentary Community takes account of the need to record and analyse the timeliness of answers. (Paragraph 101) Conclusion 26. Given that many parts of the WPQs system operate well and are valued by Members, we have sought to improve and reform the existing system before considering more radical alternatives. We intend to evaluate progress in the areas covered by this Report, and, if it proves necessary, we will return to the subject to consider further steps. In addition to the Government Response to the Report, we intend to write to the Principal Clerk of the Table Office at the end of the next Session of Parliament, to seek the Office’s views on the operation of the system and the effectiveness of any changes made. (Paragraph 105)

Formal Minutes relating to the Report

Wednesday 17 June 2009

Members present:

Mr Greg Knight, in the Chair

Mr Christopher Chope John Hemming Mr Mark Field Sir Robert Smith Mr Roger Gale Sir Peter Soulsby

1. Written Parliamentary Questions

The Committee considered this matter.

**********

[Adjourned till Wednesday 1 July at 2.00 pm.

Wednesday 1 July 2009

Members present:

Mr Greg Knight, in the Chair

Mr Christopher Chope John Hemming Mr Roger Gale Sir Robert Smith

Draft Report (Written Parliamentary Questions), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 105 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary Archives.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 15 July at 2.00 pm.

Witnesses

Wednesday 28 February 2007 Page

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House Ev 1

Wednesday 28 March 2007

Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP, and Mr David Laws MP Ev 13

Wednesday 11 March 2009

Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Principal Clerk, Table Office, Mr Nick Walker, Table Office, Ms Karen Saunders, Table Office and Ms Lynn Lewis, Editorial Supervisor of Ev 26 the Vote

Chris Bryant MP, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons Ev 32

List of written evidence

1 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House (2006–07, P25) Ev 11 2 Mr Oliver Heald MP (2006–07, P26) Ev 12 3 Chris Bryant MP, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (2008–09, P61) Ev 39 4 Derek Wyatt MP (2006–07, P7) Ev 41 5 Hansard Society (2006–07, P18) Ev 41 6 Rt Hon Frank Field MP (2006–07, P44) Ev 42 7 David Natzler, Principal Clerk, Table Office (2006–07, P41) Ev 43 8 Joan Miller, Director of Parliamentary Information Computer Technology (PICT) (2006–07, P37) Ev 50 9 John Hemming MP (2007–08, P59) Ev 52 10 Rt Hon Alan Williams MP, Chairman, Liaison Committee (2007–08, P82) Ev 53 11 Jacqy Sharpe, Principal Clerk, Table Office (2008–09, P24 and P43) Ev 53; Ev 55

Responses from Members regarding inadequate answers to Written Parliamentary Questions (2008–09, P59): 12 David Taylor MP Ev 55 13 Richard Ottoway MP Ev 58 14 Derek Wyatt MP Ev 58 15 Mr Robert Goodwill MP Ev 58 16 Paul Farrelly MP Ev 58 17 Mr Roger Williams MP Ev 58 18 Mr David Jones MP/AS Ev 59 19 Hugh Robertson MP Ev 59 20 Mr Mark Oaten MP Ev 59

21 Mr John Leech MP Ev 60 22 Mr Richard Benyon MP Ev 61 23 Mr Oliver Heald MP Ev 61 24 Mr Dai Davies MP Ev 66 25 Mike Penning MP Ev 74

26 Liam Laurence Smyth, Clerk, Overseas Office, House of Commons (2007–08, P61) Ev 74

List of unprinted evidence

The following memoranda have been reported to the House, but to save printing costs they have not been printed and copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be inspected by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives, and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0PW (tel. 020 7219 3074). Opening hours are from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.

Sir Nicholas Winterton DL MP (2007–08, P76) Gregory Campbell MP (2007–08, P67) Dr David Lowry (2006–07, P34) David Natzler, Principal Clerk, Table Office (2006–07, P33)

Reports from the Procedure Committee since 2005

The following reports have been published during this Parliament:

Session 2008–09 First Report Interleaving of Bills and Explanatory Notes HC 377 Second Report e-Petitions: Call for Government action HC 493 Third Report Written Parliamentary Questions HC 859

Session 2007–08 First Report e-Petitions HC 136

Session 2006–07 First Report Public Petitions and Early Day Motions HC 513 Second Report Corrections to the Official Report HC 541

Session 2005–06 First Report Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill HC 894

Second Report Application of the sub judice rule to proceedings in HC 714 coroners’ courts

Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence

Taken before the Procedure Committee

on Wednesday 28 February 2007

Members present:

Mr Greg Knight, in the Chair

Ms Celia Barlow Rosemary McKenna Mr Christopher Chope Sir Robert Smith Andrew Gwynne Mr Rob Wilson John Hemming

Witness: Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon. Thank you for familiar with the figures and I am about to be coming. As I think you know, we are considering the familiar with the figures too. Taking standard procedure, scope and rules governing the tabling of sessions: 32,000, 36,000 1998–99, 1999–2000; 55,000 parliamentary questions for written answer. As part 2002–03; 54,000 2003–04; up to 95,000 this session. of our inquiry, we are looking at the reasons for, and The issue is: what is going on? One of the things I the consequences of, the recent rise in the number of have worried about is whether weak authentication, written questions and we are looking at the as it is called in the trade, both electronic and on procedures for the answering of such questions and paper, may be one of the things that is happening what opportunities are available to Members to and that some Members have got under-employed pursue answers of which they are not satisfied, and researchers who are trying to make a point. One we are at a fairly early stage. You are our first colleague, a colleague on the other side, but still a witness. colleague, who is quite a high tabler, said to me that Mr Straw: Thank you very much, Chairman. this was not a problem for him but he was well aware that some Members have become twitchy about their rankings on “theyworkforyou.com” and other Q2 Chairman: So we are starting with an open mind. sites and wanted to correct the rankings by putting Do you wish to make an opening statement, or do in industrial quantities of PQs. I may say that if you you wish us to go straight to questions? look down at the top 20 for the 2005–06 session or Mr Straw: If I may. You are familiar with the the 2006–07 session, what you notice is it is not increase in the numbers of written questions. As with exclusively opposition Members, but it is part of our the response to the previous inquiry, I have no wish governmental system. It should be the opposition to see the rights of Members restricted, and I have which principally is challenging and holding made that clear, as you know, Chairman, in the course of exchanges in business questions. I also say ministers to account, and I made very great use of that, if you look back at the increase 20, 30 and 40 both written PQs and the Library services when I years ago, there is a very simple explanation for the was in opposition, all those years on the front bench, systemic increase over those four decades, which is but most of the people who are amongst the big that MPs did not do very much four decades ago. questioners are also people who are either on the There was not a golden age; there was a very pretty front bench anyway for either party or who are very slothful age. It was unusual for people to ask active in other ways. It is hard to claim that, as it questions. It got a line in the local paper, the fact that were, the top 20 are people who are otherwise you were asking a question. Oral PQs quite often ran indolent and who are trying to, as it were, unfairly out, and so you used to have two or three make a name for themselves, but there is a serious departments standing by for oral questions, and just problem here. I suspect that weak authentication, look at the size of Hansard. This is because the vast the fact that Members are not taking responsibility majority of Members who were not ministers were for what is one of the fundamental rights of doing other things as well—they were at the Bar, Members of Parliament is part of the problem. If they were trade union oYcials, and so on, or they you look at some of the questions they are really were just sitting around—and, of course, people did silly. The other side of this, which really concerns not have oYces until the late sixties, they did not me, is that there is a point at which quantity aVects have dedicated telephones; they had to pay for their quality. As a minister running two very large own postage. As I say, it was not a golden age, that departments, I placed the highest priority on getting is why the numbers were as low as they were, but PQ answers out, not just by myself but my junior what does concern me, and this has come out, as you ministers, who had a bigger quantity of these, and, in know, in the exchanges across the Chamber, so far as they were delayed, they were almost always Chairman, is the dramatic rise in very recent years. delayed because I demanded more information to It is up now, I think, to something like 56,000. I was give to the Member. I am not sure whether it is an trying to look at the aggregate totals, but you are accolade, but whenever Mr Norman Baker has Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Ev 2 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP criticised answers provided by ministers he has think that is acceptable. So, that is one side, but it always gratuitously exempted me; so I come to this will undermine the reputation of Members of with clean hands, and I have spent a lot of time Parliament if there is an abuse taking place. The trying to educate the department and other ministers other side is that Whitehall has been able to cope about why they have to get on top of this. I spend a with this extraordinary increase, but there comes a lot of my time now calling in ministers who are point where you cannot cope. What are you behind in answering PQs and finding out why they supposed to do? We are getting close to that. are behind. I had a meeting with a Secretary of State, his Permanent Secretary and Principal Private Secretary earlier this week to do just that. I want the Q4 Rosemary McKenna: Before I move on to Committee to know that when complaints are raised another point I was going to raise on that very issue, in the House about aspects of answering PQs and I I think none of the Committee would want to take say I am going to handle them, I handle them and away that right, that is absolutely crucial, but we are take it very seriously indeed, and I raise it with concerned about the growing numbers. It has been Cabinet, and so on; but, if we go on like this, with the suggested that some Members are happy to allow best will in the world, departments will not be able to their researchers the right to do this through cope and you will get mistakes, you will get answers electronic systems. They can do that, but there is concern. For example, on the last day before coming back which are not answers at all, and so on. V We have to try to find a balance. Have a care, 95,000 prorogation, after all the new stu had been out, one over just 200 sitting days is an awful lot of PQs, member tabled 250 questions in one day. particularly if they are concentrated in four or five Mr Straw: Sure. departments. That is really all I am going to say. Q5 Rosemary McKenna: That clearly cannot have Q3 Chairman: So your concerns are principally in been serious. The other side to it is in terms of relation to the burden that this increase is placing on answers. A lot of the time the information is civil servants and ministers and the eVect it is having available in the Library, and the researcher is really on the quality of the answers. not doing the researcher’s job but simply putting Mr Straw: My concern, first of all and down a PQ to obtain the answer. fundamentally, is that there could be a debasing of Mr Straw: You have got straight abuse. I was in the V the coinage. The right to ask a parliamentary Shadow Cabinet for ten years and I had sta , leaving question wider than the Freedom of Information aside the constituency work, which in my case would Act, at much shorter notice, is fundamental to the all have been dealt with quite separately in scrutiny powers of this House. I have not ever Blackburn, I think I had four people altogether forgotten the 18 years I spent in opposition, nor the working for me, and we were very active, but I never fact that this is the right of all Members, and, ever allowed them either to make an inquiry of the Chairman, I have spent 10 years seeing the process Library or to put down a PQ. They could draft them operate from the other side. I used to always read all occasionally, but I had to see each one, sign it and I Y the PQs in Hansard. I used to find out quite a lot of took it into the Table O ce. The value of doing that what was happening in my own departments by is that you can check the wording by taking it to the Y doing so. It was a really important source of Table O ce. Let me say, I asked our people to do information in the department. Both the Home some scratch research about whether or not OYce and the Foreign OYce will tell you that the there was any correlation between the top 20 and Hansards used to come in my box and I used to go e-tabling. I do not think there is one, but I certainly through them. On one occasion there was a whole think making a requirement of hard authentication, data series that I wanted when I got there and they whether it is electronic or paper, is fundamental. It could not provide it, and then, lo and behold, it was has to be that Member agreeing to that PQ after the answered in a PQ. A lot of supplementary questions PQ has been written on the paper. I personally am were asked by me after that, and so on. It is a very, in favour of paper. I say this. I know we live in an very important right, not privilege, of Members of electronic age, I think the Internet is wonderful, it is Parliament, but you could debase it. Some of my a gift from God so far as I am concerned, it is colleagues are putting down these large numbers, fantastic, but when it comes to authentication, if and, let me say, in the last three days I have spoken you think about how the banks operate: I have to four colleagues who are in the top 20. I promised got a telephone bank account, but to check them I was not going to name them. I happen to authentication— know them personally. They are all Conservatives, as is bound to happen. I have to wait and spot the Q6 Rosemary McKenna: Your mother’s maiden Liberal and Labour Members before I talk to them name is the kind of thing! about this. They are all active, hard-working Mr Straw:—the banks do not rely just on electronic Members of Parliament, and they also had communication; they rely on paper. explanations, but in one case a Member said, “I wanted to make a point to two departments” and when pressed him, I said, “Did you sign every one? Q7 John Hemming: That is not true. Did you know what was going down?”, the answer Mr Straw: If you are setting one up, I promise you, was, “No”, he left it to his researcher. As I say, I it is true. I have just done it. If you think of the paper promised him I would not give his name, but I do not that is generated by the Internet. In this particular Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 3

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP sense—after all, people are here, they can stick stuV Mr Straw: I think so. Of course, named day in the post—I think it is very important. You had a questions are dealt with, as far as possible, by the second point? named day, whereas ordinary written questions have got to be answered at some stage after the two days. Q8 Rosemary McKenna: The second point was the The question I raise in my mind is whether we should PQs where the information is readily available in have a longstop on those, namely to be two or three the Library? weeks, and, of course, there are Cabinet OYce rules Mr Straw: I always used to be reluctant when I was about that, or whether we should be more explicit. It in the Home OYce and the Foreign OYce to tell means that there is a hierarchy. Named days are seen people that it was available unless I was absolutely as rather more important. certain that it was: because it may be obviously available to an oYcial in a department and they may Q12 Rosemary McKenna: Have they reduced as a happen to have the statistical volume on their shelf result? or know the web address, but it is not always the case Mr Straw: I do not know. I have not got the figures if you are a Member of Parliament. If you want to for that. know the National Accounts, of course you get the National Accounts; if you want to know what is on Q13 Rosemary McKenna: Have holding answers page 15 of the Red Book, you get page 15 of the Red reduced? Book; but quite a lot of the stuV, Rosemary, is Mr Straw: I do not know, Rosemary. I can find out. sometimes a bit obscure, and, if it was not too long, We can find out. I used to say, “Look, we are here to help the Member of Parliament”, the same as most of my colleagues, Q14 Chairman: Would you write to us on that? “If you guys know where the information is and you Mr Straw: Of course. have had to check where the information is, just put it on the table.” Sometimes it is far too long, and if Q15 Mr Chope: I very much welcome what you have people want 20 pages of tables they cannot have said so far. Can I confirm that you agree with the that, but if it is a page or so, for Pete’s sake, give the report of the Procedure Committee in 2002 where information; and I have been very, very firm with the they concluded, “We do not propose that any limit use of website addresses because, when we did a be placed on the number of ordinary written check, some of the website addresses that were being questions a Member can table and, indeed, believe given in Hansard were not accurate. We are saying that it would be wrong in principle to do so”? care has to be taken, but we need some kind of Mr Straw: Yes, I do, but, Christopher, can I also say understanding. Members of Parliament put down in return, I think that you will agree that we have got PQs. We have to be certain that they have put them to do something about this ballooning of questions, down. Researchers cannot make speeches, they many of which are without serious value. I am trying cannot put down PQs. They can draft them, but the to do this on an all-party basis, because it should not signature has to follow, not precede, the question. be a partisan issue.

Q9 Chairman: I applaud what you have said about Q16 Mr Chope: I very much welcome that, because taking a broad view where information is available it means I do not have to ask questions about how a elsewhere, because I think there can be cases where quota might operate but we can talk about what the Member may know that there is a statement other solutions might be available. You have talked available on a department’s website but he wants the about the need for hard authentication. Do you Minister, on the record, in Hansard, agreeing with want to say anything more about how you would see that statement because he may later wish to that system working? challenge it. Mr Straw: You could move to a straight “paper and Mr Straw: Sure. the Member has got to sign it system”, which, after all, is a requirement if it is paper. I currently use e- Q10 Chairman: So I can envisage cases occurring mail, and once one has one’s remote terminal where the information is available; nevertheless the working under the parliamentary information Member wants the Minister to state this in a computer system, which in my experience, since I written answer? have got one at home, varies—I spent 10 hours on Mr Straw: I agree with you. the phone to the helpline this year—

Q11 Rosemary McKenna: Can we move on to named Q17 Rosemary McKenna: Is that all! day questions. In the previous Committee’s last Mr Straw:—but that is another story. Because report there was implemented a named day question Members work quite quickly these days, I would be limit, ﬁve per day, that Members could table, and the reluctant to see e-mail prohibited altogether, but I then Leader of the House argued for such a am concerned about the very soft authentication you restriction as a necessary measure to avoid the get under e-mail. I think if we are going to keep it, it excessive use of holding answers and to allow the has to be with an electronic signature. We know that Government to answer all written questions where there is industrial production of questions, a appropriately. In your view, has the restriction in the lot is coming from some pressure group that goes to number of named day questions delivered the a researcher or the researcher will sit down, if they beneﬁts that your predecessor expected? have not got much to do, and they will produce these Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Ev 4 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP endless questions, especially round-robins and Mr Straw: I know. Tell me about it. My colleagues things like that; they are churned oV the machine (it hear from me in those circumstances, and it is is much easier to do these days) and then they will go obviously not satisfactory, and then it generates in. The best form of authentication would be ink more PQs. signatures, and then, if people are worried about it, they do what I used to do before IT came along, just Q22 Mr Chope: If you had a longstop, the questions stick them in the post the next day. Otherwise, there would be deemed to be answered or they would have have got to be serious electronic signatures. We need to be answered? to encourage Members, in any case, into the Table Mr Straw: They would have to be answered. It is like Y O ce. If I can add a thought that I have not had you have got to turn up on time if you are minister. Y before, there may be a case for getting a Table O ce It is career stopping if you are not in the Chamber annex in Portcullis House, as a point of reference. when your business comes up. You get your P45 as Often my PQs were not quite in the right order, so it you turn up because you are late, and people never is lot easier if you go in. do it. It is very interesting.

Q18 Mr Chope: Do you have any other proposals Q23 Ms Barlow: You spoke of the ballooning of which you believe would make the system work written questions, being up some 30% in the last more eVectively for Members and for the Executive? session. You mentioned that there is a league table Mr Straw: What I am trying to do is encourage the of MPs, that some table more than others. Has the departments who have got a backlog to get on top of increase been across the board? Is everyone tabling it, because it becomes sort of self-fulfilling. You get more, or is it the responsibility really of a minority a backlog and the system cannot cope. You get cross of MPs? Members phoning up and, amongst, say, the Mr Straw: I do not know. I have not seen the full thousand PQs they have got in their backlog, some statistical analysis of this and what the distribution will be unnecessary and duplicatory but others will curve looks like. What I do know from earlier data be important and they will be caught up, so we are I saw in my brief is that the top 20 account for 30%. trying to get them to get on top of it. The paradox is It would follow from that that a very significant part that if people are answering their PQs on time, they of the increase is accounted for by the questioning of are obviously not going to have follow-ups about, a relatively small proportion of Members, but we “Where is this PQ?” or, “Where is this letter?”, if must let you have the data. I will see if we can do a they just get on top of the administration. I have proper distribution curve. made some suggestions to some colleagues about how they do that. Beyond that it is about getting Q24 Ms Barlow: You have obviously got some ideas colleagues to come to an understanding. I think I of how to deal with this. You mentioned weak have reasonable relations with Members from the authentication. Do you think that any answer other parties. I have said to colleagues that where we perhaps should be aimed at, say, the top 20 or the top have got industrial production taking place, I am 25, if they are really producing 30% of the whole willing to talk to them about this concern, but it is total, or would you feel that any solution should only exhortation talk. Aside from prompter answers apply across the board? and hard authentication rather than soft, we are into Mr Straw: Celia, the problem is that, unless you exhortation. A variant of exhortation could be an have an upper limit, which for reasons I have talked understanding that if people are taking it too far, we about I am reluctant to propose, you are going to get would be able to talk to the whips concerned, which a kind of normal distribution curve of Members. is how the old system of control worked on people’s With a bit of luck it is what you are going to get now. expenses. It did not work too badly, and that might Like that. It is going to be a bell curve, and some will be a way through as well. be down here and some will be up there and most will be around the middle. There you are; diVerent Members do the job diVerently. When I first came in Q19 Mr Chope: You have said that you have got this as a young Member anxious to make a name for idea of a longstop on ordinary questions, which himself, I put down lots of PQs—I wrote them all would obviously reduce the number of repeat myself—and I was very pleased with myself on one questions on the same subject because the first occasion when I put down 20 questions to the then question has not yet been answered. Department of the Environment and thought I had Mr Straw: Yes. caught the Minister out, and then I put down 20 more over another week, did catch the Minister out, Q20 Mr Chope: How would that work? and they got the answer wrong, and then I was able Mr Straw: There would be a final date. I am trying to embarrass the Minister; so much so, I got a nice to remember. The current target for Departments to story on the front page of the Guardian within a year answer ordinary questions is five working days, but of coming in. Anyway, the Government deserved to you might want to consider ten. Do you see what I be pulled up on this, and that is making proper use mean? of the system. I would not have wished to have been constrained from doing my job. The interesting thing is, if you look at the top 20, these are people Q21 Mr Chope: Yes, but at the moment some who you would put in the top 20 anyway for activity. questions are not being answered for months? They are not people you have never heard of, except Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 5

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP that they are putting in loads of questions; they are Mr Straw: I think it is going to try and fulfil that busy, active Members; but I do think there needs to expectation. As far as I know, but you need to ask be some constraint on them. One of the people I the oYcials, say in the Foreign OYce, the questions spoke to yesterday admitted that they had gone in came across electronically and they sometimes went for industrial production because they wanted to round to the departments for draft answers, but they make—their words, not mine—a point in respect of came to ministers in a paper file. How else could one two departments, and they admitted that they had deal with it if you are around the world; but even if told their researcher broadly the area of questions. you were in the Home OYce and they came to you They had not signed the lot, each one of them, and on a paper file, you are doing them on the bench, you that cannot be on. are doing them in the car, you are doing them on the train, and so on, so you had to have them in a paper Q25 Ms Barlow: You also mentioned there was new file and, in any case, just as everybody here finds that and anecdotal evidence of the eVects of websites on paper files are a lot easier to handle, IT has actually this. Have you got any hard evidence? generated more paper rather than less. It is Mr Straw: No, and it does not aVect me, because my wonderful, but it is a supplement, and they are going V tabling of Parliamentary questions is zero, it has to be handled on paper. I perceive no di erence in been for ten years, ditto EDMs. The evening paper process at my end, I still do not, between ten years that circulates in my constituency circulates in six ago when it was all paper based and more recently other constituencies, and all the other colleagues are when it is supposed to be IT. back benchers on both sides, and you can see that some of them are sensitive on this sometimes. Q28 Sir Robert Smith: The original vision of the Actually our local paper is pretty responsible, but Government’s submission was that a more people get sensitive about this and, as you get up to expensive system would be introduced, where the an election and, opposite candidates are selected, electronically tabled ones would stay in an electronic there will be people trying to attack them. I would format through the process. rather have information on their work from Mr Straw: It will not work. Governments rarely get ‘theyworkforyou.com’ about people’s activity levels things wrong, but they got that bit wrong. than not, because there used to be people in the House when I came in who were unbelievably slothful. A busy constituency Member was one who Q29 Andrew Gwynne: The system for e-tabling went to their constituency for one day a month. questions in theory, as we have already discussed, Plenty went to their constituencies every six months relies on Members ensuring that their accounts are and thought they were lucky to see them. There is a not used by unauthorised people on their behalf, but famous story about Sir Hubert Ashton, the Member (and I think you alluded to it in your opening for Chelmsford, who, when asked why they did not comments) there is evidence that e-tabling has made see him very often in Chelmsford (it is not very far), abuse of the system easier. Do you believe, or have said at an election meeting, “Sir, I was elected you got any evidence, that a significant number of to represent Chelmsford in Westminster, not questions are not properly authorised by a Member, Westminster in Chelmsford.” But he was busy on and is this particularly true of e-tabling? other things, and that is how it was. Mr Straw: You need to ask the clerks that, because they are the people who receive questions, not me. Q26 Sir Robert Smith: I think that website, though, My understanding is that it is a mixed picture. As I has made things maybe slightly less target-chasing say, in some cases—. One of the people I spoke to, by removing numbers and putting in below average, who had been a very high tabler, told me (the average and above average groupings, which may Member concerned told me) that they check every have altered people’s perceptions? single question even though they put in many Mr Straw: Yes. hundreds, and I believed him as well. So, as I say, it is a mixed question. On the unauthorised use of the account, my staV in Blackburn are authorised to Q27 Sir Robert Smith: We have touched quite open my e-mails and to deal with them. They have heavily on e-tabling and it is interesting how got their own e-mail accounts, but they can get into governments change their views on new technology my e-mail account. That is the point of having it. over time. In 2002 the Government’s submission to They open my mail, physical mail, and so they are this Committee was quite enthusiastic about e- authorised, but the point is where a system can tabling to the point of finding out how it would distinguish my signature. They are not allowed to actually speed up the whole process and improve forge my signature, my pen signature, ink signature, answers because of the way there would not have to so how does the system distinguish it—it cannot be transposing of bits of paper, and it said, “The at the moment—were they to put in a PQ benefit for parliamentary clerks and indeed electronically? That is the problem. Members would be great. Draft replies could be commissioned more speedily, potentially allowing a higher number of questions to be answered on time.” Q30 Sir Robert Smith: E-tabling is what is in your I am going to just touch again on authentication account name with your password. Your oYce can with another question, but in that aspect, if you have access to your inbox without you giving them could get the hard authentication sorted out, does your password? the Government still support electronic tabling? Mr Straw: I understand that. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Ev 6 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

Q31 Sir Robert Smith: So the authentication of e- yours in Blackburn opening your e-mails, there is no tabling is an electronic password that is only known reason why Members should not equally delegate, to the Member, unless the Member divulges it not just the writing on the parliamentary questions somehow, in the same way as a written signature on but also tabling them? a piece of paper can be signed before or after that Mr Straw: I would answer the question by saying piece of paper is written? this is a personal responsibility and, therefore, Mr Straw: I understand that. personal privilege of Members of Parliament. I would add, Andrew, however good your researcher Q32 Sir Robert Smith: Many Members in historic is, they cannot go into the Chamber in your place, as times anecdotally used to sign the whole question has happened in some systems, let me tell you, and pad and leave it in their oYce? turn up and vote or speak for you. This is a Mr Straw: I understand that, and they did, but it just fundamental right and, let me say, it is a really takes more time. It takes too long physically to sign. important right and means by which Members hold We all know that. I know about these things too, and ministers to account, and by God it works. If you are there is no perfect system unless you insisted that a minister, you would make damn sure that diYcult people turn up in the Table OYce holding it up like questions are answered accurately and on time, for going through Passport Control. very obvious reasons. In the Foreign OYce, more so than in the Home OYce, I got lots of diYcult Q33 Sir Robert Smith: It is important to get on the questions on things like Iraq and rendition, and I record that a member has to divulge these things, was extremely anxious that there was not a dot or a because the e-tabling system requires it to be comma that was inaccurate and to provide as much through the Member’s account? information as possible. That was my responsibility, Mr Straw: I know, and that is what they are doing. but, frankly, the whole system would break down if you moved to the way in which some continental Q34 John Hemming: There is a further point that systems operate where it has become a kind of relates to these widgets here. RSA (which is Rivest, pantomime. It needs to be borne in mind that if you Shamir and Adelman) in fact is a system of digital look at how other parts operate, if you look how the signatures, and if you are not in the parliamentary European Parliament operates, they do not treat network, and, oddly enough, I am one of the few PQs seriously. I have not changed my mind at all MPs in the oYce in the House of Commons who is about the importance of PQs in the ten years I have not on the parliamentary network, I have to go been a minister, except to regard them as even more outside and come back inside, but it is often more important in opposition, but if the system is abused eYcient at home if you are using broadband and do too much it will tip over. not use the parliamentary network. Mr Straw: I agree. Do I not know that! Q38 John Hemming: So you are happy to delegate the job of formally tabling to the Royal Mail but not Q35 John Hemming: Then, when you are using a researcher? one of these physical things as well as the password, Mr Straw: John, if you stick it in the post, on the you have a much, much stronger system of whole, it has been authenticated by an ink signature. authentication. There is a very substantial argument that if you are remote from Parliament, this system Q39 John Hemming: What you are saying is that of dual authentication is very strong, and you might there should be an ink signature, which is fair argue a case, if people continue divulging their enough. The actual process of wandering around the personal password, that they should have a system building is a separate thing. of dual authentication with what is, in eVect, a Mr Straw: I am sure. I think getting tabling digital signature, which is what this is. personally would be a bit over the top. I want to see Mr Straw: John, that may be something the just authentication. I think since the tabling has to be Committee will wish to look at. I think everybody is by the Member, we need an assurance that the agreed: we need something to stop the abuse. tabling is by the Member and they have applied their brain to it. If you can achieve the same with one of Q36 John Hemming: If I can agree to disagree with those little gadgets . . . you cannot achieve it just you on the feasibility of a tracking system for with the passwords because they get passed on. questions. In Birmingham we have forwarded Sir Robert Smith: Yes, but the Member maybe questions to the council, we have got tracking should sign an undertaking in very clear terms that systems, and I am sure that Parliament can follow their access to their electronic question account is on Birmingham. the basis that they, and only they, will make that Mr Straw: They could do, it is just that— tabling?

Q37 Andrew Gwynne: In your opening comments, Q40 Rosemary McKenna: That was a serious you made it very clear. You used the term, “It is not concern of the previous Committee when they made acceptable for researchers and staV to table the recommendation for e-tabling. parliamentary questions”. I would agree with that, Mr Straw: Unless it is a discreet electronic signature but let me play devil’s advocate for a short moment. for these purposes alone, Members will, I am afraid, How would you respond to the argument that if a not follow the undertaking, and what is the penalty? Member has conﬁdence, like you mentioned about Rosemary McKenna: Indeed. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 7

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

Q41 Mr Wilson: I would like to turn to the process on it as well, because they were also more alert to the of handling some of these questions by the sort of things that could crop up. That is basically Government. From what you have said so far, it is how it worked. Then, sometimes you would get clear that answering a large number of some questions which were very, very tricky. The parliamentary questions does impose quite a heavy best example, I think, in the Foreign OYce was in burden on the Civil Service in particular. You have respect of rendition, where I was being asked to got a lot of experience of various departments, prove a negative. I knew what I had done and had including the Home OYce, which does have a large not done, but the questions were what had number of parliamentary questions, as you know. Government done and also what had the United Can you describe for us the procedures within a States done or not done in respect of the United government department for answering PQs and, in Kingdom. There was a series of questions, but they particular, when and how ministers become had to be delayed in order that we got the involved in that process? information and that it was accurate, and it took Mr Straw: Firstly, I can describe it from literally one about three or four weeks to get it. perspective, being the senior minister in two departments. I think you are about to open up for Q42 Mr Wilson: What you have given us there is the evidence, are you not, but you will need to get view from your end of the chain? experienced parliamentary clerks in these big Mr Straw: Yes. departments and to ask them as well, and bear in mind that if you are the Secretary of State, you are Q43 Mr Wilson: What you are suggesting, I think, is answering rather fewer questions than ministers for that we would need to go further back in the chain state and the parliamentary secretaries. In my case, and take more evidence? I would skim the blues every day, you know, the Mr Straw: Yes. I am sure we can do that. questions that were put down the day before for answer, or they would be drawn to my attention by Q44 Mr Wilson: Were there ever occasions when the Y the parliamentary branch if there were some di cult ability of civil servants to eVectively carry out their ones. Let me say, an awful lot of them are routine, job was undermined by the quantity of important information, or they are something local. parliamentary questions that they had to deal with? Then, the next that I would note about a PQ, if it was Mr Straw: Yes. Bear in mind that parliamentary coming up for me to answer, was when the PQ folder questions are not only the questions asked by was in my box, and I would then go through it; and parliamentarians. For example, in the Foreign I would always check the background note, which OYce you had written questions from select often has more information in it than the PQ answer. committees, you had a huge number, going up to Time without number I have put a balloon round the thousands, of questions from the Quad Committee background note, put it in the answer, and you on arms control, for which I was the lead minister, think, “What?” Anyway in the end they get the and we also had questions from the Intelligence and point, because it is kind of clear. As I say, I happen Security Committee, which works in secret but to think, and so do most of my colleagues, you are otherwise in a very similar way to a select committee. there to try and help provide the information, and if I think it was on the area of rendition and associated you do not provide the information, you only get matters that the very good Director General said to more PQs, so why do you not just put down the me that he had two people working full-time on the information there? That is what happens in nine out answers for some weeks. We all just knuckled down of ten cases. There are some cases which are tricky. to that, because people were very concerned about Sometimes I got questions where the advice was rendition, and it was very important that we pinned you could not answer it because it was a down the answers. As I say, it was diYcult, not disproportionate cost, and I would want to be because we had participated in anything unlawful, satisfied that that was the case or the information illegal or immoral, but we were being asked to prove was not otherwise available; and you had to check a negative, and files had to be trawled through in SIS quite carefully. Obviously there were some cases and the Security Service and so on. Yes, sometimes where it was a no-brainer, but a lot of these were people say in the Home OYce, “We are really largely marginal cases. Alongside that, Rob, as I say, pressed here”, and one had to be accommodating. this is what I was handling, and there was a list of the At the same time I used to say, “You have got to questioners whose questions I answered, who were keep on top of it; I am sorry.” Also, just bear in essentially privy councillors, anybody in the Shadow mind, it is a question of making sure that your Cabinet, whether they were a privy councillor or not, ministers kept on top of it. I am afraid to say, I was plus other privy councillors, plus ones that were in notorious in the Home OYce for going round both departments on security or intelligence or ministers’ oYces and pointing out to them I had piles terrorism, and that sort of thing. There is then a need of PQs or piles of private oYce cases, that is to supervise your junior ministers, and the first line ministers’ cases (letters), and that they had better in that was the responsibility of the parliamentary clear them. clerk and the Principal Private Secretary co- ordinating the work of the private secretaries; and Q45 Mr Wilson: Can I move on again. It has been then sometimes ministers would come to me and say, claimed that a number of government departments “What do we do about this PQ?”, and you would have set up a centralised unit for specifically have to make sure that the Press OYce kept an eye answering PQs and that, as a consequence of that, Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Ev 8 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP the answers are now drafted with an eye to the like that. It seems to me that the researcher has been political and media presentation rather than put up to that, probably by the journalist of an answering the question specifically for the Member. equally trivial newspaper, just to try and get Do you know of any departments that have done something silly out. That is not the purpose of the this, and what is your view of such units being set up? system. Mr Straw: Can I say, there is nothing sinister about this. Q47 Mr Wilson: One very quick final question. Do PQs get screened by press oYcers, communication oYcers, before they go back to the Member? Q46 Mr Wilson: I did not suggest there was. Mr Straw: The practice varies very much. There was Mr Straw: I know, but that is the implication. All a lot of suspicion about the DWP traYc-light departments have got centralised units for system, but the press oYcers are involved (a) because answering PQs because the questions go to the these are people who are paid to be reasonably alert parliamentary branch of the department and they to what may cause diYculty and (b) because, if it is are then dished out. There is a long, long running an important issue, they will get questions after they debate in departments, as I dare say there is in big have been published, and that is important. corporations which have a consumer interface, about whether the answers to questions, whether Q48 Mr Wilson: Do they get called in, or is it a they come in question form or in the mail, are dealt routine screen? with by the line department or by the correspondent Mr Straw: They may do, is the answer. May I say part of the PQ unit centrally. The fashion swings this, Chairman, the Secretary of State in the backwards and forwards. There will be a statistical Department for Work and Pensions, John Hutton, section in most departments, there is a big statistical is changing the traYc-light system so that there is a department, say, in the Home OYce, which handles new system, so that so-called traYc-lights will not a lot of the data across the department. The Foreign exist. That was not introduced in any sense for OYce did not do that much by way of numbers, so sinister reasons, it was introduced to try and cope it tended to be handled by individual departments. It with the volume of questions and to diVerentiate is just designed to get through the volume. between those which were routine and could be dealt Obviously departments pay attention to PQs, they with very easily without having to go near the senior want to deal with them properly. One of the things minister, those that were not routine and those that which has also happened, which I was talking to the had a political overtone. This is an ecumenical Secretary of State and his Permanent Secretary gathering and it is the right of Members to ask about, is that you have had a downward grade drift questions, whoever is in Government, whoever is in in terms of who signs the PQs oV. It used to be the opposition, but, of course, there is politics attached case when I worked in the Department of Health and to this as well. That is what I was up to 28 years ago! Social Security, as it then was 30 years ago, that PQs had to be signed oV by a Deputy Secretary, number Q49 Chairman: But we have had a complaint about two in the hierarchy, to ensure that they were this very department from Philip Hammond MP, accurate. What I found in both the Home OYce and who is concerned that on two occasions answers the Foreign OYce was that they were then being have been press-released by the DWP before he has signed oV by people at Grade 7 level, principal level, actually received the answer. So he has seen his name and I insisted in both departments that they had to on the press wire before he has received the answer. be signed oV either by Head of Department, Grade Do you not think, where a department sees value in 5, Assistant Secretary or Grade 3, Director Under press-releasing their answer, that they should at least telephone or e-mail the Member concerned to alert Secretary, the same thing; and there was some him? squealing about this, but I said to them, “I am Mr Straw: I think Mr Hutton regrets that. It was not having to deal with many more of these and you his idea at all, let me say. More than that, I think the have got to keep an eye on them, because if we fall Member should have proper notice of the answer behind it will be worse”, but it is a burden. I have before it is press-released so there will be reasonable been passed a note here. We can give you this. The certainty that it is in the hands of the Member DfES, one of our stats teams, which is seriously because the Member has asked it. At best that is an under pressure with PQs, have had 319 since the start error. I get plenty of PQs in my current role, but they of the session and one part of the stats team has been tend not to be as interesting for the press, though the unable to function normally for over a month due to press secretary still sees them. In the Foreign OYce, the large volume of PQs tabled recently. Treasury: a where some were obviously of huge interest to the very large number of questions about domestic press, the press secretary or his staV would be copied management issues, many of them trivial or in electronically to the draft answer, and sometimes frivolous, eg flushing lavatories, private oYce square they would say, “We need to be careful about footage, wine cellars, flora and fauna, flag-flying, handling the answer once it has been issued. We need staV magazines. People are making a decision about to be alert on this.” On some very big stuV, for whether they think that is serious, because they will example, there were lots of questions on what get answered, but I think it is trivial, and I do not happened at the time of the Tsunami. There was no believe, in most cases, that the Member concerned great politics in this, but people wanted to know, it seriously thought about whether to ask questions was very sensitive, sensitive about the people who Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 9

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP were bereaved, and so on, and the press oYcers were Q55 John Hemming: Talking about improving involved. On rendition, to give another example, government, looking at an example, there were what I think was a PQ, it could have been a questions about the consideration of prisoners for ministerial statement, some years ago about a deportation. The problem was that the database in change in policy on arms control called the Home OYce did not keep track of all the incorporation policy, the press oYcer and my press information, so you had to look through all the files. secretary round the table, we discussed the nature of What had happened was that certain questions the answer, because it was highly political and had not been answered, giving the excuse of potentially contentious. disproportionate cost, and what perhaps should have happened there is a review of why the question has not been answered and do we not have Q50 Mr Chope: Would you deprecate any systematic problems in the system. The question, department that held up the answers for news therefore, is should we not have an appeals process management reasons? As soon as these answers have for unsatisfactory answers but potentially also been approved by the Minister, should they not be reviews whether the disproportionate costs limit is issued in a routine way? appropriate in the circumstances or whether the Mr Straw: Occasionally, yes, is the answer. I would answer of, “It is too expensive”, is an insuYcient sometimes say the most important thing is to get the answer and needs more explanation, so that perhaps thing out. My long experience in politics is that, on you go back to the department and say, “You need the whole, fancy tactics do not work. Do not sit there to change the systems, because your management calculating, “It is better if you do it on Tuesday systems are no good”? rather than Monday”—just clear it up. There are Mr Straw: You do have a kind of appeal system at times, Christopher, when you need to delay. If it is a the moment, which is called “points of order”, to big issue and you are not around, I had to think in the Speaker. the Foreign OYce, “Am I going to be here or am I going to be halfway round the world and when this hits the press I will be asleep or I will be the wrong Q56 John Hemming: It does not work. It may have side of the news cycle?” Those are quite legitimate worked under your leadership of the House, but it questions. Or in the Home OYce, and we are only was previously futile? talking about one in a hundred answers, “When this Mr Straw: Let me say with the Speaker, when people comes out, should I be around the House rather than raise points of order with the Speaker, when the 100 miles away visiting a prison on a Friday?” Do Speaker says he will follow it up, he does follow it up. you see what I mean? That seems to be legitimate, It is never a wise move to cross the Speaker because it but, generally, my view is just get them out. will warm up the margin and, when there is an urgent question put into your department, he will not take your calls or he will not give you the benefit of the Q51 Chairman: We are grateful for your earlier doubt, he will admonish you from the Chair, and statement that you believe a Member asking a none of these things are good if you are a minister. It question should get proper notice of the answer. is diYcult to work out how an appeal system would Mr Straw: Of course. operate, and I certainly would not recommend the equivalent of the FOI Tribunal. One of the Q52 Chairman: I hope you will use your best important aspects of PQs is they can range much endeavours to see that departments follow that? wider FOI requests, and so they should, because we Mr Straw: Can I tell you that my colleagues know are elected Members of Parliament, and they have to that I use my best endeavours. be handled much more quickly. It is 20 working days, as a minimum, with an FOI request, and we do not want to get into that, and, of course, months can Q53 John Hemming: Correct me if I am wrong, but go past before you get a tribunal decision. John, I think you accept Peter LuV’s thesis that, in part, the obviously if there was a recommendation by the cause of the deterioration in the quality of answers is Committee for an appeal system, I would look at it, an increase in the quantity of questions? I would not rule it out. Equally, you may want to say Mr Straw: Yes. something about whether there should be a tighter Standing Order against trivial questions, like the flora and fauna or the other nonsense that went to Q54 John Hemming: And that, in part, having a lot the Treasury, and lavatory rolls in Downing Street! of silly questions does not actually help the system? This is ridiculous. It debases the system. It would Mr Straw: I do, and I am very grateful to Peter for have to be, I think, the clerks and the Speaker, or that. This is hard, because we do not want this to be some all-party select committee, because I do not a partisan thing, it is about the rights of Members, think it should be the Minister who says, “This is and that is why I say we have got to do this on an all- trivial.” party basis, but it is true that if you get people asking really silly questions, like lavatories, flora and fauna and all this stuV, you debase the currency, and then Q57 Sir Robert Smith: You mentioned how freedom oYcials will start thinking, “What is this about?” It of information has a longer time period than is not schoolboy debating; it is about the British conventional PQs and yet there is a perception, and Government. the Hansard Society in their evidence say, that Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Ev 10 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 February 2007 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

Members are increasingly seeing freedom of Mr Straw: Sure. information as a better way of trying to get something from a department than a PQ. Q61 Sir Robert Smith: Is the increase in the number Mr Straw: It is not true, by the way, but departments of questions, in part, really a reflection of that have got to be alert to the fact that they should greater interest? always provide in a PQ that which they would have Mr Straw: I think so, Robert. I cannot be absolutely provided in an FOI request. It has to be an absolute certain, but we live in a much more open society, a minimum. We cannot have a situation where less deferential society. It was not apocryphal. It members of the public or, more particularly, used to be the case that when a Member of journalists can get better information, even if they Parliament turned up at the railway station of their have to wait for it, than Members of Parliament. constituency the station master would be on the That would be totally unacceptable, and it station to greet them. That is how it was. Times have undermines the special privilege that Members of moved on. Even in Blackburn, I am not greeted on Parliament get along with being an elected the station by the station master! representative, and departments know that, but I Q62 Chairman: Members have never had the power would hope, if you look through Hansard, you will of Max Miller. They used to hold the train back see much more information provided by PQs. For for him. example, almost one of the first questions I was Mr Straw: I think this is the case, and it is certainly asked, Chairman, was is it all right for departments the case that Members of Parliament are much more just to say, “The information is already available?” active now. There is no question about that. You can do that under one of the earlier sections in the FOI Act. If it is available, just say, “It is already Q63 Rosemary McKenna: There is one point that we available”, that is it, that is how the system works. have not covered. When ministers refuse to answer But that is not acceptable in the majority of these questions on a specific matter, the Table OYce will cases because one is trying to provide a service to not accept further questions during the rest of that Members of Parliament. I think what is interesting, session. It has been argued that this allows ministers I do not know how many FOI requests have been to duck the proper scrutiny on particular issues. Do made by Members of Parliament, but certainly it you agree with that or do you believe that there are only came into force at the beginning of 2005, so I good reasons for it? had no experience of it in the Home OYce, but in the Mr Straw: Ministers sometimes block questions. It Foreign OYce I cannot think of one FOI request is very rare, I think. I do not recall in the nearly ten which came in, not even one from Mr Norman months that I have been Leader having one Baker. complaint about a blocker.

Q64 Rosemary McKenna: It is most unusual then? Q58 Mr Wilson: The current consultation on Mr Straw: It is unusual actually. Let me say, when I Freedom of Information requests also covers a worked in the old Department of Health and Social proposal to “aggregate all requests made by a person Security blockers were quite often put on, and there or persons who appear to be acting in concert or was no FOI. pursuance of a campaign” within a certain timescale, which is 60 days. Can you assure us that you will not Q65 Sir Robert Smith: Having agreed that there are be proposing anything comparable in respect of harder working MPs subjecting Government to written PQs? more scrutiny and having raised the problem that Mr Straw: Yes. this is causing, is maybe the solution for the Government to devote additional resources to ensuring that the questions can be dealt with? Q59 Chairman: What assessment have you made of Mr Straw: Obviously up to a point, and I think you the procedure that you introduced last year for will ﬁnd (although this is straight oV the top of my recess questions, and do you have any plans to make head) that the resources devoted in parliamentary this permanent? branches have had to increase, it must have done to Mr Straw: First of all, it seemed to be successful. cope with the phenomenal increase in the volume of People welcomed it. Yes, is the answer. I think I have written PQs, but there are limits. Chairman, I think already said we are going to make it permanent. I I gave you misinformation earlier, because I think I have been ventriloquised! We are bringing forward referred to the number of written questions in the a motion shortly. I think everybody else thought it 2006–2007 session. I was meaning to refer to was quite a good idea as well. 2005–2006—95,000—which is a long session. 95,000 for the whole session.

Q60 Sir Robert Smith: Finally, you have said that Q66 Chairman: Thank you for that clariﬁcation, the level of scrutiny to which ministers are now neatly done just before the bell. On behalf of the properly subject is much greater than it was 20 or 30 Committee can I thank you for your time and for years ago. Similarly, Members of Parliament are your invaluable evidence which has given us much to more subject to scrutiny and also there are more think about. organisations out there taking an active interest. Mr Straw: Thank you very much indeed. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:39:33 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG1

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 11

Memorandum submitted by Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House (Session 2006–07, P 25) Might I take this opportunity to develop a point which was implicit in my remarks but was not explored at great length, about the direction of increased resources to the answering of Written Questions? We discussed at various stages of the evidence session the impact on departments, and particular units, of very heavy numbers of questions. Resources within departments have to be managed very carefully. It is often not easy, given the high numbers of questions tabled, for departments to respond eVectively to the very high demand placed on them by some Members. But I hope that answering rates achieved, while by no means perfect, in response to the increased numbers of questions have shown that Government does re- direct resources at oYcial level where it is necessary. But the position in respect of Ministers’ contributions is more complicated. It is of fundamental importance that—as I hope I made clear—Ministers consider draft answers and devote a great deal of attention to them. Indeed, it is a priority to ensure that Ministers respond to questions within the period allotted by the House. But as the number of questions continues to increase, the amount of time Ministers devote to them must therefore also increase in order to maintain an acceptable quality. Because Ministers must ensure they consider each answer fully, there is also an increased risk that answers may be delayed due to the sheer volume of questions put to them. I have pleasure in enclosing the information I said I would pass to you on departments’ experiences with coping with large amounts of questions. March 2007

Annex

Examples from Departments on the Increase in the Volume of Parliamentary Questions “Although our department has seen an increase in the amount of PQ’s that it receives, I do not think this has put an unnecessary strain on individual policy areas. There was an occasion recently where an MP tabled 15 or so questions all on the same issue on the same day. This put pressure on the department resulting in late draft responses being returned and in turn the question not being answered by the Minister within the five day target.” “One of our Stats teams is seriously under pressure with PQs. They have had 319 in since the start of the session. The next Division down has 123 PQs. The Director General, Director and Divisional Managers are all aware and are all rallying to get things sorted. Only problem is they can’t get rid of the PQs as quick as they receive them eg if we get 50 PQs in on any given day I can guarantee 30 plus will be for them.” “[Another unit] have been unable to function normally for over a month due to the large volume of PQs tabled recently. Other Departmental projects are being put at risk because of this. It is not a question of shifting people from other areas onto the PQs as their detailed nature means that only certain team members with specialist knowledge of the relevant data can contribute. Our ability to hit deadlines has been seriously reduced.” “Not the increase in volume per se, but yes to mass tabling of PQs on a given subject.”“No parts of our department report that they are struggling to cope with volumes of PQs. Questions relating to one policy area in 2006 were almost twice the average of the previous four years.” “Catch-all PQs invite, and will probably receive, the ‘disproportionate cost?’ answer. Such a ‘corporate PQ’ arguably should be raised in a Select Committee. Such PQs result in a lot of work because they involve several internal units, all of which have to contribute to the final reply. PQs like this are becoming increasingly common.” “My impression is that PQs per se do not add greatly to most policy teams’ burdens. However, the sheer volume of questions sometimes makes it diYcult to answer on time. In the 2005–06 session, we had a particular problem with questions relating to tax credits, which accounted for fully 20% of all our Commons written questions (1,301 out of 6,437).” “Since shortly before the 2006 Summer recess, we have been plagued with questions from Ministers’ Conservative shadows about domestic management issues, many of them trivial or frivolous (eg flushing lavatories, Private oYce square footage, wine cellars, flora and fauna, flag flying, staV magazines, etc). I thought at first that these questions were intended to identify waste and extravagance, but I’m coming round to the view that they are designed simply to cause maximum inconvenience to us.” “Our lead branches manage to provide PQ answers generally on time, but the Parliamentary Branch which collates them all and the Ministers who have to sign them oV are struggling to answer PQs on time at the moment.” “There has been a strain on Parliamentary Section resources in order to cope with an increase in PQs of over 1,000 in year 2000 to well over 5,000 in year 2006.” Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [SE] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Ev 12 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 28 March 2007

Members present

Mr Greg Knight, in the Chair

Ms Celia Barlow Rosemary McKenna Mr Christopher Chope Sir Robert Smith John Hemming

Memorandum submitted by Mr Oliver Heald MP (Session 2006–07, P 26) I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the Procedure Committee in relation to its latest inquiry. Changing role of Members of Parliament: The role of MPs has changed and continues to change, reflecting the decline in “deference”, modern technology and more tightly contested election campaigns. MPs are under greater pressure from press and public to illustrate to their constituents that they are serving the local community. Just as this will be mirrored in increasing casework, so it will also be mirrored in Parliamentary Questions that are tabled. I sense there is also a trend for MPs to use PQs to raise local constituency issues, rather than just via correspondence alone; this is not a negative trend—as it is a very transparent manner of championing constituency interests. Moreover, as the Cheadle by-election showed, candidates who had a record of not tabling PQs were criticised for not being an eVective constituency MP. Long-term trends: I disagree with the comments of the Leader of the House who in his evidence to the Committee in February attacked the “industrial quantities of PQs” being tabled.1 Last year, he actually pointed out that this was a sign of healthy scrutiny of government, and that recent increases were merely a long-term trend from the 1960s. “. . .The scrutiny of government is far more substantial than it was back in the mid-seventies when I was working as a special adviser. . . Written questions. The number of those tabled has been on an inexorable rise. In 1964–65, there were 8,270, rising to 17,468 in 1971–72. By 1985–86 that had risen to 31,808. The latest figures for this session—to the end of April—show that more than 66,000 have been tabled already.”2 The role of Her Majesty’s Opposition: I would expect the number of PQs tabled by Conservative MPs has increased year on year since 1997. This reflects the fact that, when in Government, it was less appropriate for MPs to table questions to Ministers—correspondence would have been more eVective. Combined with being in government since 1979, this meant that when Conservatives entered Opposition in 1997, there was a less strong culture or tradition of using WPQs to hold the Government to account. By virtue of the 2001 and 2005 general election results, Conservatives have remained in Opposition. Unsurprisingly, we have learnt the lessons of eVective Opposition, and the wide use of Parliamentary Questions is part of that. As a member of the Shadow Cabinet, I find WPQs invaluable in performing my duties as an opposition frontbencher. Cost of Questions: The Government when they receive diYcult questions often complain that the cost of a Question is £140. This is a disingenuous response. The true test should be the marginal cost of tabling a question (near £40) rather than the average cost; this is since there are certain unavoidable fixed costs of providing a facility to handle PQs by virtue of our Parliamentary system. Holding the Government to account: Parliamentary Questions are a vital part of the Parliamentary process and help facilitate eVective scrutiny of the prevailing government of the day. Any attempt to curtail their use—in a similar manner to the way that the Labour Government is clamping down on Freedom of Information requests—would be viewed as a partisan move by Her Majesty’s Opposition and strongly resisted. I believe that vigorous use of WPQs is a sign of a healthy democracy. Role of technology: Modern computers, especially the internet, have had a significant and ongoing eVect. The public are able to read Hansard online—and see what questions are asked, and which MPs do not ask questions. Electronic tabling and mail-merging certainly make it easier to table questions physically, by removing the mundane administrative barriers. This will inevitable encourage more questions to be tabled, in the same manner that email has increased casework; but the march of technology is not, in itself, a trend to be resisted. From the other side, technology has made it easier for Questions to be answered. Freedom of Information Act: My frontbench colleagues and I are concerned that there is a trend for Ministers to refuse to answer PQs properly by releasing documents or information which is requested; but in turn, such information is subsequently released under Freedom of Information Act requests. The practical eVect of such avoidance measures by Ministers is to undermine the primacy of Parliament in holding the Government of the day to account, and raises questions on whether Ministers are being entirely genuine in the reasons they give to Parliament for refusing to disclose such documents. I would note that under Section

1 Uncorrected transcript, HC 336-i, 28 February 2007. 2 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, LSE and Fabian Society Public Lecture, “The Future for Democracy—Politics in a Spectator Society”, 28 June 2006. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 13

16 of the Act, public authorities have a duty to provide assistance; this does not apply to requests made in Parliamentary Questions. I would like to ask the Committee to consider whether it should be appropriate for such a duty also to apply to requests for information made through the Parliamentary process. Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional AVairs, and Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster March 2007

Witnesses: Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP, and Mr David Laws MP, gave evidence.

Q67 Chairman: Thank you for coming. As I am sure of tremendous advantage. It is very diVerent, for you know, we are considering the procedures, scope example, from making a written inquiry to a and rules governing questions tabled for written minister, where all colleagues do not have the answer. One of the things on which we are focusing opportunity to see it. Under section 16 of the is to examine the reasons for and the consequences Freedom of Information Act, if you make a request, of the recent rise in the number of written questions. the Government has a duty to assist in providing We are grateful to you all for giving up your time to information. That is very diVerent from what seems be here today. Before we start with the questions, do to happen with some written parliamentary any of you want to make an opening statement? questions. I have put in a list of answers which I feel Mr Laws: Thank you, Chairman. I am delighted highlight some of the ways in which ministers go on that this Committee is taking up this particular issue which leads to more questions being asked than because I think there are two sets of concerns. One, might otherwise be the case. I do not know if it perhaps, is the Government’s concern that there has would be possible at this stage to point out one or been a massive increase in the number of two of these examples or whether it would be better parliamentary questions. The other concern is about to do it later. the increasing diYculty in getting serious answers to parliamentary questions, particularly from some Q69 Chairman: Why not do it now. departments. I would want to argue later on that the Mr Heald: The first one is about ministerial two things are interconnected because, in my case, residences. We are trying to find out how much each some of my very high tabling of questions has been Government department is paying to the Cabinet related to a frustration about getting straight OYce, which is in charge of ministerial residences, answers out of departments and, particularly, the owns them and so on. The Cabinet OYce bills each Treasury. From my perspective, it is worth putting department for each residence. You ask the question on the record at the beginning of this that the written and the answer you get is “The responsibility for the parliamentary question system is one of the Rolls costs of individual ministerial residences is the Royce elements of parliamentary accountability responsibility of the relevant Department.” here in Westminster. Although there are many Immediately, I am forced to ask every department criticisms that can be made by opposition Members how much they are spending on a ministerial and by backbench MPs, on the whole we do get very residence. The people who are billing them are high quality answers from many departments and refusing to tell me and so I am asking eight questions that helps tremendously in holding the Government or 10 questions, or whatever it is, in order to get an to account and flushing out information which often answer which the Cabinet OYce could give me. The simply cannot be obtained by the process of oral second is about magistrates courts. There have been questions. I think it is a Rolls Royce system. I think some administrative changes in the way in which it needs some tweaking rather than fundamental business is conducted in magistrates courts, sending overhaul and we must be careful not to compromise great parcels of work to one court in an area rather the powers that the system gives to backbenchers than doing everything in each court. I want to know and opposition MPs. In looking at the demands on what the response of magistrates has been—and we the Government, I hope you will also look at those know they are not happy—so I ask a question about extra demands that result as a consequence of some representations. The answer you get is: “I regularly departments seeking not to provide helpful meet magistrates to discuss a broad range of information. criminal, civil and family justice issues”—so just failing to tell me what the complaints have been from Q68 Chairman: Thank you. Could I remind the the magistrates. I then have to ask a lot more Committee that Oliver has prepared a written questions to pursue this—which of course I have submission which you should all have. Would you done—and go to outside third parties. It is just like to add anything to that? deliberately making life diYcult. When the DWP Mr Heald: Just that this is one of the most important admitted they were running a traYc light system for tools which an opposition has. If you want to pursue written parliamentary questions, I started asking matters of detail with the Government this is other departments if they were doing the same thing. absolutely vital. I also think it is a very transparent I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy whether they way of doing it, which is something that is very have such a system. “The Department aims useful. It means, for example, that if David were to wherever possible to answer all parliamentary ask a question and I were to see the response, I might questions within parliamentary deadlines”—so just well want to ask a pursuant question. The fact that not prepared to engage with the question. I go on to it is all so obviously there on the face of Hansard is some of these other points. The next one is about Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Ev 14 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP parliamentary questions. I am asking the Chancellor advisers, we were just told: No, it is “in accordance of the Duchy if we can see the book of precedents with the provisions of the ‘Code of Conduct for which they have, which shows departments how to Special Advisers’.” I think they are typical examples answer parliamentary questions. They say it is of why we end up asking quite a lot of questions. internal guidance and there are a number of questions where I get the same answer. If I were to Q70 Chairman: Thank you. David Drew. ask for a Freedom of Information request here, that Mr Drew: I would like to add just a couple of things would not be an exemption. As a Member of because I do not want to demur in any way from Parliament I am asking the question, and I do not get what my two colleagues have said. For a the answer because I am just a Member of backbencher on the Government side, written Parliament. If as a member of the public I write in to parliamentary questions are very important. If you them and ask for this guidance, however, they could believe, as I do, that it is our duty across the parties not refuse it on these grounds. Annual reports: it is to hold the Executive to account, then written two years since the reports on the Intelligence parliamentary questions are one way in which that Service Commissioners and the Communications can be done. Of course the alternative way, which I Commissioner have not been produced. You ask for also feel is very important, is via the select committee the reason why it has taken this time to publish the system, but I do not think they are necessarily reports. Answer: “I have nothing further to add to disconnected. If you read the parliamentary the answer I gave the hon. Member” on a certain material—and I try to read Hansard every day— date. What was that answer? “The reports will be then you find that the views of select committees are published in due course”—so they are not prepared represented through some of the questions that come to give you much fettle. Dorneywood: after the forward. Maybe better use could be made of that by croquet incident, we wanted to know what was to Members but there is a link there. The point about happen to Dorneywood for the future. I ask and I the answers is that they are good, bad, indiVerent am told that the guidance will not be put in the and delayed. You are amongst a lot of dross— Library. I ask if a senior minister will be allowed to because many of the answers are, quite simply,dross: have Dorneywood. Answer: “I refer the hon. they are just pushing you awaybut you do find the Member to the answer I gave...tothehon. Member odd nugget through which you can do some for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).” I look at the interesting work. No doubt you are going to ask us answer to Michael Gove. “I refer the hon. Member where the questions come from, whether we ask too to the press briefing given by my OYcial Spokesman many, whether they should be more focused and, on 20 September.” Then you look at that letter and indeed, whether we should be limiting the number it just said that there has been no decision made. You that individual Members can ask, but I think we are are being taken around the houses: prevarication looking to put on the public record something which and yet no real answer. 10 Downing Street: a whole is useful, which hopefully can inform the debates in series of questions about how they use it, the cost of this Place and, indeed, can hold the Executive to it and so on, and you will see the answers. OYcial account, and maybe that is helpful to the Executive. residences: I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign I would not say on a regular basis but before now I and Commonwealth AVairs of which oYcial have talked to people who answer these questions residences she has use. Answer: “It has not proved and there are occasions where they have welcomed possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time the material being put in the public domain because available to Prorogation.” That one was just out of it is quite important that somebody knows what is time although it had been asked a considerable time going on. I will not say they told me to ask a slightly before that—so just blocking answers with: diVerent question, which may mean you get to the everything is done “in accordance with the real reason why that information should be ‘Ministerial Code’.” John Prescott went to a hotel forthcoming, but it is useful to know that when he was attending a conference in the South of government is not only working but is being made to France and we wanted to know the details and the work, is being seen to work, and I think the written cost. The answer was: “All travel is undertaken in parliamentary question is a very important part of accordance with guidance laid down in the that process. ‘Ministerial Code’.” The IPPR are being paid money Chairman: Thank you. by the Government and we wanted to know how much on each occasion. We tried asking a central Q71 John Hemming: You all make extensive use of question and were told we had to ask every questions. Do you ask them only to obtain department. I have put in GeoV Hoon’s answer, in information or do you believe they have other which he is saying that the 10 payments “range in purposes? What use do you make of the answers value from £9.49 and £40,000. It is not possible to you receive? establish the precise details . . . ” If they have looked Mr Laws: On the whole, I am trying to obtain up to the detail of finding that one of them cost information often about the success or failure of £9.49, you think they could have given us a list government policies, and that is particularly in my explaining what these items were, which is what the capacity as a spokesman for my party. Digging out other departments did. Then special advisers: on the information about what is going wrong in issue of helping the Labour Party with the funding government which highlights, perhaps, contrasting of financing of political parties through the policies that we may have as a party, is probably the Chairman of the Labour Party, who has special overwhelming reason to use them. Clarifying Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 15

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP government policy, so getting statements of policies predisposed to give relevant information as fully and on issues that may be uncertain or where there is as concisely as possible. On 26 June 2006 there was confusion in the Government or splits between an email backing up a parliamentary question which departments, I think is important. Sometimes it may I think highlights my concern about the culture in be an attempt to pursue constituency issues. the Treasury.It says this about an answer to a written Sometimes, I suppose, MPs use them as a sort of question. “Mr Laws’s question gives us licence not bludgeon to pursue the Government where they to provide staYng numbers in (a) as he asks about appear to be reticent about answering through other HMRC staV not TCO staV but I cannot see a way means, particularly through correspondence, but around us giving the latest helpline staYng figures, obviously those are quite rare examples. The which update information in an answer he only got overwhelming volume for me is of things that are on Monday” and then it goes on. That typifies for related to my portfolio. For the purposes of this me what has almost become a war with the Treasury session I looked at questions I had tabled over the over tax credits and their absolute determination not last five, six or seven years and the volume is very up to give out information, even information which I and down. They range from only 120 in 2004-05 to know to be available by asking questions about the almost 2,000 in 2005-06, but, of those, the vast information that is collected in the management majority, something like 1500/1600, were related to accounts. That has caused an enormous ballooning my portfolio, which is DWP and tax credit issues. in my parliamentary questions because each Coming back to the point I made earlier on, one of question that I table has to be followed up by a series the things which has inflated my number of of further questions. Those normally run into the questions tremendously over the last couple of years problem eventually that the Table OYce loses has been the resistance of the Treasury to answer patience and thinks I have explored every avenue. I questions that it thinks will be embarrassing about have referred to Tony Wright’s committee, the government policy, particularly on tax credits. I Public Administration Committee, which has been think there was a cultural change in the Treasury the most eVective way of giving ministers a kick and after 1997 in the willingness to be open about has even, on occasions, flushed out an answer, but if information. I remember, as a researcher when the you do not have that route—and I think there is only new government came in, re-tabling a question that so much a committee like that can do informally— had been asked for many years of the Treasury by then you are back to the FOI route, and the problem Labour politicians in opposition about the tax with that, in my experience, is that it takes an awfully burden on diVerent income groups. I was long time potentially to get nowhere. Of course encouraged by a journalist to put it down. After a many of these things are very time specific and they long period of time of not receiving the answer, I re- also require enormous organisational powers to tabled the question and I had a phone call from a keep an eye on all of these issues which people are special adviser at the Treasury to say that they had determined not to answer, so you can spend months decided to abolish this series (which had actually trying to track down a request under FOI, been in operation for a number of decades and had sometimes getting somewhere and sometimes been used extremely eVectively to embarrass the running into more quite ludicrous techniques to stop Government when the Government party was in giving answers. I have brought along four or five opposition). My researcher checked for me before particularly dreadful examples. I can either submit today’s session, taking a sample of questions on tax those to you in writing, mention them now or credits over the last year or so, to see the problems mention them at a later stage in the proceedings. we had encountered in statistical terms. Over that period of time, I asked 250 questions on tax credit Q72 Chairman: Do you have them with you in a issues, many of which would be pursuing non written format? answers, and, of those, we reckon that only 21% Mr Laws: For each one of them I have what the were answered in clear terms; 40% were grouped, original PQ was and what happened afterwards. To and I have some examples where 20 or 15 questions me these are major policy issues. For example, on were grouped with one answer or non answer; two% one I was asking the Government simply to tell us were not answered at all; two% were what recommendations of an Ombudsman’s report disproportionate costed; for 10% the information on tax credits had been accepted and I had to go was not available; 15% were to refer to other MPs through an FOI route to get an answer. On another, questions (which sometimes were not the right the Treasury refused to give information about child questions); and eight% were answered, just about, benefit payments and eventually said that the but in a very unhelpful way. The other thing which is information was publicly available, so I should not behind this, if you will allow me, is that I have a table the question, and then referred me to a Child concern that there now is a culture of some Poverty Action Group website where the Child departments, and particularly, for me, the Treasury, Poverty Action Group were giving out information of non answers to questions. We also put in a subject on this particular issue. This problem in the Treasury access request, to flush out the e-mails that are going is almost endless. The fear is that this might at some on in government departments which often sit stage infect another department. I think you have behind parliamentary questions, to see what sort of taken evidence already on the traYc light system in correspondence is going on. You will recall that the the DWP and you have been given some reasons why Civil Service Code in terms of answering PQs says that was introduced. We were telephoned when this that they should approach every question change was introduced—as I believe my Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Ev 16 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP

Conservative counterpart was—by a staV member in on some economic evidence which was done by the the DWP from a public telephone box, to tell us that Otterburn Consultancy. That evidence was available it was being introduced and that his belief was that in the autumn to the Government, it underpins the it was to close down the giving out of embarrassing decisions which they are making and yet it has taken information from the department. On the whole, the months to extract that. I have asked parliamentary standards in the DWP are very high in terms of questions about it and in the end it was only very accountability through written questions, and I vigorous questioning by the Constitutional AVairs think he was expressing a concern to us that those Select Committee that persuaded the Lord very high standards were going to be compromised Chancellor to agree to publish that document, but it by this new policy. was the subject of written questions. Just to back up the point David is making about the Treasury, I do not think it is just the Treasury. They are obviously Q73 Chairman: Are you saying that the change of V culture has been so great that this must have been the serious o enders but recently we were trying to find decision at ministerial level or at least a deliberate out how much the cost of Number 10 had increased acquiescence by ministers? since 1997. Eventually we found out it had trebled, Mr Laws: My suspicion is that it must come down but my recollection was that the press release, when from ministers and special advisers. I do not want to I put it out, had 20 to 30 parliamentary questions, get too political, obviously, but in the run up to 1997 not all by me, which had been necessary in order to you had a party which had been in opposition for a extract that information. When they advertised for a long period of time, had become highly eVective in butler, we wanted to know in which particular part using parliamentary questions and other techniques of Whitehall the butler was going to be working, and to embarrass the government of the day, and then we asked parliamentary questions. In the end, we came to power knowing how eVectively those just had to do a Freedom of Information request just techniques could be used. Others have speculated on to find that out. These are not matters to do with tax how determined the Treasury, in particular, is to credits and so on, but waste and extravagance in deny information, to use information as a source of government is something for which ministers should power. I have found the Treasury worse than any be accountable and it is something which we should other department and notably worse since 1997 than be asking questions about. Particularly in the areas before. The abolition of an entire series on the tax that I deal with, we always are. We are always burden, which is an example I gave from some looking to see how much they are spending on considerable time ago, is probably one of the most advertising, consultants, travel, premises, those sorts striking examples, when a piece of information that of things, and I think it would be wrong if we did not. has been given year after year, often to the great Certainly when we were in government we used to be embarrassment of the government of the day, was asked about these things by Labour frontbenchers. suddenly simply abolished on fairly spurious Spin doctors (how many there are, the cost), legal aid grounds. Some of the issues that we are not allowed reform, the courts, databases, privacy, Freedom of to get to the heart of are things that the Government Information, the Civil Service, charities are all areas does not want to tell us about because they are where we are constantly prompting them and asking embarrassing— about hotel bills, or whatever—and questions and it is hard going. I think the sort of there are issues about how much of that we should percentages that have been described are very much be able to pursue, but some of this goes to the most what we find. serious issue of big government policies that are going wrong and the accountability of the Q75 Chairman: Thank you. David Drew. Government on really big issues and for giving Mr Drew: In my own case, it is almost entirely based information that they are collecting. around trying to obtain information. It is slightly diVerent when you are a Government MP because Q74 Chairman: Thank you. That is a very useful you do see people in the lobbies—usually when you answer. Oliver. vote with them!—so there are opportunities to Mr Heald: I shadow Constitutional AVairs, the follow up on something you might have put in as a Cabinet OYce, and I also do the written questions to question which is running as an issue. There are three the Deputy Prime Minister—mostly for my party, sources from which I draw my questions. In Oliver’s although it is true that Caroline Spelman also asks paper, he talks about constituency pressures, which some. The questions are not always just about are very diVerent now from those of our extracting information. For example, if I see that a predecessors, and many of my questions do come report which we were expecting to be published has through not necessarily as “pure constituent” but not been, I will ask written parliamentary questions from what I would call constituency-based meetings about that. That is more about when things will which we all attend. That may be a collection of happen and trying to encourage the Government to health professionals who will put things to us, and I publish evidence, reports and so on. I think the think it is useful to try to generalise what they are general heading for what I am trying to do is “Hold saying to see if it is more applicable to the national the Government to Account”, so it is not just about scene or whether there are some local factors which information, it is also about prompting them and we can then go back to try to deal with. Secondly, highlighting issues. A recent example would be that there are areas of particular interest. Sitting on the the legal aid changes which are coming in, which are Defra Select Committee, I am interested in very controversial with solicitors, are based, in part, agriculture and rural aVairs, and that will take a Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 17

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP great deal of the time and eVort that I put in. I am what they are doing. I was one of the first MPs to also interested in some of the human rights stuV, have a website and use email and I do use a lot of which is why I would ask a lot of FCO and DFID. parliamentary questions and I think that is a good The other area, which has already been alluded to, is thing. that I like to think I learn from colleagues. I find very Mr Laws: Can I put a slightly diVerent view, often that there are questions which colleagues have Chairman. I do not rule out, because I cannot be in asked—which are usually applicable to constituency the minds of all colleagues, the extent to which but sometimes slightly wider than that—on which it people table questions simply to get their numbers is quite useful to ask a similar question, to extract up. I am not entirely convinced by that explanation. that information so that I can use it. I do not use it I do not know any of my colleagues who are regular in a party political way; I use it so that when I go out tablers who are simply filling up the Order Paper in and talk to people I have some specific knowledge of order to make sure they get up some kind of league what is happening that I hope will inform them if it table. But I think there have been other much bigger has informed me. I think that is quite a useful way of changes which have meant that people are much gauging what is going on. It does surprise me to more inclined to use parliamentary questions. My some extent how little people do look at Hansard, predecessor in Yeovil, when he first arrived here, had which is a wealth of information. Non answers can virtually no resourcing. He had to stamp his own sometimes say more than an answer, but, where you letters, had to write them all by hand, had no do get an answer, that can then lead you towards research backup. My predecessor seemed to regard some quite interesting further lines of inquiry. parliamentary questions as something very special and for written parliamentary questions to be used Q76 Sir Robert Smith: Obviously this inquiry has almost as a threat and with great delicacy and care. partly been prompted by the rise in the number of Now we have much more support for opposition questions. You have dealt to a certain extent with parties. The number of researchers available to where you think that is coming from. Oliver, in your opposition parties has grown enormously. We have submission you made the point that, in the transition more Members of Parliament, for good or ill, who to opposition, it took time for the new intake to get have had previous experience of parliamentary up to speed on using questions. That may be one research—I have, after doing other work outside factor, but, even more recently, since the last Parliament. We have an increasingly expanding Parliament, there has been a 30% increase in media with demands for the sorts of information, questions. Do you see any other factors behind the which is constantly on the look-out for things that increase? will embarrass the Government—in fact, the things Mr Heald: I do. If you think about the way in which which Oliver was mentioning earlier that he politics is conducted now, with websites, email, we struggles to get answers on, you know that are all trying to show accountability to our journalists will pick up very quickly. Better electorate in a very obvious way. I think that is a resourced, more alert MPs with big media demands change of culture. When I got in in 1992, I would are exploiting a very eVective way of holding the often take up constituency cases or issues just by Government to account and flushing information speaking to the minister or in correspondence. Even out. I think most of that is a healthy thing and it is after the 1997 election when we were no longer in using one of the parts of our parliamentary government, because I knew quite a lot of ministers democracy that works, because, if I wanted a I would correspond with them and speak to them in question answered on some serious issue of policy, I the lobby. That is not enough now. The public want would much rather use a written parliamentary to see what you are doing the whole time and written question where the information, at least in theory, parliamentary questions are a good way of showing had to be provided and thought through, than ask an that. I remember the Cheadle by-election. Our oral question, where (a) I have to stand up in the former colleague, Stephen Day, I knew very well. House for an hour and might not get called, but (b) Because he had a very good network here, he would I might just get some silly answer about the last time go to a minister and ask for something or he would the Liberals were in power they did nothing about write to the minister but he was not a great one for this particular issue. You can get a lot more, putting down lots of written parliamentary potentially, out of a written question and I think questions. When it came to the by-election in MPs are. Maybe the fact that the Government has Cheadle, where he was standing again and the now been in for a long time means there are more Liberal Democrats were putting their literature out, issues that people want to pick at. The main this was a subject in the campaign. It was a particular opposition party, the largest opposition party, has criticism that was made: He does not ask written had an influx of new MPs who are keen to use these questions. That is the modern way of thinking. devices, who have had longer in opposition to get experience of how opposition works. It is those big Q77 Sir Robert Smith: The target culture has trends that have made a diVerence and I doubt that reached. there has suddenly, in a couple of years, been a huge Mr Heald: In a way.Of course there are websites, like increase in questioning by people simply trying to theyworkforyou.com, where this is all part of the push themselves up a league table. performance indications for Members of Mr Heald: I was not trying to suggest that they were Parliament. I think there is a desire amongst MPs— pushing themselves up a league table. The point I certainly I feel this—to be transparent and open in was trying to make is that the reason we have Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Ev 18 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP websites and we use something like written that vast numbers were going in which were going parliamentary questions is that it is a transparent direct from researchers, partly because they were a medium that people in the public can follow. It is bit bored, then I would be very reticent to go for a very good in terms of access to this Place and quota because I would have exhausted my quota on connecting with the public. tax credits with non answers and be sitting for half a Mr Drew: Could I make a brief point which has not year waiting for the next year to start. I am much been picked up yet, the issue of correspondence with more willing to be backward by asking us all to sign ministers. One of the reasons I use written them in with quill pens. parliamentary questions is that it is a much quicker Mr Heald: Personally I am very keen on e-tabling. I method of getting the information we need. It is a do e-table. It is slightly diVerent from the paper more transparent method. If you have several system. If you do e-tabling you quite often need to constituents who write to you on a similar issue, put a note with your question explaining the basis of which is such that you can simplify it in the form of it. When I first started e-tabling I remember putting a question, you can get that back to them much down about 30 questions and I got my card and I quicker than if you went through the written went into the Table OYce and I was shocked that correspondence route, plus I find that sometimes they had blocked 20 of them. When I went through you get a better answer. Notwithstanding what my them with the clerk, I think 17 were fine and for three colleagues have been talking about, you do get a of them I needed to jig the language a bit. The point better answer from the written parliamentary about it was that they wanted to know the basis of question than you do from a piece of those 17. It was at the time when the correspondence, which can be, dare I say, evasive Transformational Government White Paper came out and telling you lots of things you do not want to and I had some quite detailed questions on it. Of know rather than the thing you do want to know. course, when you went through, you could explain: “Look, in this document, they are saying this and we want to know that” so in my e-tabling I now put in Q78 Sir Robert Smith: On the whole, most of you notes with the questions, just explaining the basis, seem to think that most of these questions are there and I find I do not get a problem any more. It is a with a value. The Government’s side of the V Y slightly di erent system but the advantage is that it argument is that they are getting more di cult to is so easy, straightforward, modern and I do think it answer because of the volume, so there is this talk of is the way ahead. I think the Table OYce should not trying to make sure there are not too many think of itself as a gateway designed to reduce the questions. If quotas are ruled out, one of the other number of questions going in; I think they should things we have been asked to look at is ways of retain their traditional role of trying to help maybe making sure the questions are not just being Members to ask the questions in the right way. I tabled because the researcher wants them or because hope they are not moving to a more restrictive they are just making up the numbers, but maybe approach. I think that would be quite damaging. involving the Member more transparently and The Table OYce need to bear in mind if they are tabling them. One suggestion on the written paper looking at this, that, if you delay an opposition questions—and we will do e-tabling later—is that question for a week or even a couple of days, often the signature should come at the end of the you really help the Government and it is very questions, so that it is clear it has been signed after it important that this hugely important tool should not has been written, rather than as may have happened be interfered with. When you look at Freedom of before, where a book of questions could be signed Information, that has been terribly helpful to the and then filled in by a researcher. Opposition. Now, they are trying, through changes Mr Laws: I am slightly backward in terms of to the rules, to make it much more diYcult to use technology, so I have never written a parliamentary Freedom of Information. That is something which I question using e-mail. I have checked to make sure am very worried about. I would not want to see the none have been tabled around me and they have not, same thing happening with written parliamentary V so every one of mine is signed o . I am a little questions. Really the Opposition needs to be able to reticent, as Oliver’s note indicates, to get back to a do its work. paper-based system, because it sounds rather backward and environmentally unsustainable, but I do take the point that parliamentary questions do Q79 Sir Robert Smith: David, do you have a view involve a vast amount of work for the Civil Service, on signing? sometimes individually and certainly collectively. To Mr Drew: I would just make the point that I think use them in an utterly frivolous way, because you Members take a huge risk if they become a cipher have a bored researcher or whatever, would run the either for their researcher or, more particularly, for risk of bringing the system into disrepute, I think. I outside organisations. I can honestly say, although I personally,because I already do it, have no objection have and do put questions in on behalf of outside to signing oV every one and I would most definitely organisations, that I know very clearly why I am want to see every one. I feel I need to see them putting them in. I know on whose behalf I am doing anyway because the Table OYce is rigorous about it and I would be very clear why I am doing it and the way it allows things to be in order and quite what information I would expect to get back from often, unless you have a highly trained researcher, that. I think there is a real danger, if it is a race to get they will draft things that are out of order. So I will as many questions in as possible, that you do not read every single one of mine but if there was a sense really care where they are coming from. That will Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 19

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP expose a Member sooner rather than later, because a question to have the minister place it on record that clever Government minister will know exactly where he accepts that information is the answer to the that question has come from and will bide their time question? and wait until they are on the Floor of the House to Mr Heald: Yes, that is absolutely right. I remember say,“If you weren’t asking questions on behalf of So- recently that there was a pilot scheme in one of the and-so, you might understand this issue a bit better Exeter courts and I asked a question about it. The than you appear to have.” That is not necessarily a minister put something on the record which was go at the Opposition; that could easily be a go at the confirming other information that was available, but backbencher. So there are other issues there, but I it was actually a very useful answer because it expect MPs to be savvy to that. If they are being explained how the whole thing fitted together. used, then they ought to realise that sooner rather Mr Laws: It is an interesting question because, at the than later they will be caught out. moment, government departments are not consistent in the way in which they apply the rule that they do not have to produce lots of tables if they Q80 Mr Chope: Many questions ask for information are in the public domain. The Treasury are most which is available, although one does not always assiduous in saying this is available somewhere else, know that at the time the person asks the question. even if it is not. On one occasion, on a PQ here, they Do you think we could reduce the number of said that what I was after was available. When I questions if we made it a pre-condition of asking a discovered how—you basically had to take three or question that it could not be a question on four separate tables from diVerent government something where the information was already sources, deflate various things by various GDP publicly available? If so, do you think that deflators and multiply them by all sorts of other information should be checked out with the Library estimates—you would have needed a doctorate in beforehand by the Member concerned, or do you economics to come up with it. That is not my think it should be for the Clerk’s Department, no definition of publicly available. And, of course, we doubt with extra resources, to try to organise that? had this ludicrous thing on child benefit, where Mr Heald: I think it is important to bear in mind publicly available meant that there was a Child that, if you ask a question, often the answer does Poverty Action Group website on which the come back, “Oh, this is in the public domain” and information could be found, and as far as the when you look at when it went into the public Treasury was concerned they referred me to that. domain you discover it was that morning. It is often The Department for Work and Pensions seems to be the case that your question prompts the item to be far more willing to produce information which, if I published by the Government and that is, of course, had asked the Library or researchers to do quite a lot a good thing. Certainly I use the Library a lot, but of work, maybe would have existed somewhere. The sometimes you can ask a question just not realising problem with that is that there are occasions when the information is in the public domain. you want it on the record, because it may be semi Y Y Mr Drew: The Library refer you to written answers, o cial and you want it o cial, but also you do not perhaps. Often the stuV you get back is a written know whether the series has been updated. I had a answer that would crystallise what you would have PQ back yesterday from the Economics Secretary asked but in a slightly diVerent form. asking about the cost of tax relief on pensions. The answer simply referred me back to a figure that was Mr Heald: There are all sorts of faults in the system available in the Budget Report. My question asked which I think are quite hard to remedy. I think I for an estimate for a year beyond the year that was prefer to leave it as a tool which is available and not available in the Budget document and I had no way to restrict it, rather than trying to button it down too of knowing whether there was a Treasury estimate much. All sorts of things happen. Often you are for the cost in that year. If there is—and I think there asking the same question that some other Member is might be—it has not been given to me because the asking at the same time and when you get your Treasury has simply referred me back to the publicly V answer there are four or five di erent questions available information. I do fear that if we use that as grouped. But I do not think that is a bad thing. Quite a route to try to cut out some of the questions where often you can pick up on other Members’ questions. we might be able to get the information from Quite often you do not realise something is in the elsewhere, then it would reinforce the powers of public domain but the written question prompts the some departments who want to close down fact that it is and a lot of people become aware of this information sources for their own more political who had not realised. I think the current system is reasons. It would reinforce their power and make quite good. our job much more diYcult.

Q81 Chairman: Could I ask both Oliver and David Q82 Chairman: David Drew, would you like to add Laws, as you are spokesmen for your party: is it not anything? sometimes the case, though, even if the information Mr Drew: I think it is the way and it should be the is on a website, that there is a value in having the way that ministers actually read their written minister validate that information by giving a answers. It is a good way of focusing their attention written answer where he supports a particular on an issue about which you might subsequently be answer. Even if the information is readily available, able to talk to them informally. Let us take the FCO, do you see a value in still being able to ask the for example: you can pick out a particular event, Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Ev 20 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP maybe some far distant event, and begin to focus Mr Heald: I do not. I think we have all seen examples with them on why they should be paying some of backbenchers who have taken issues and really attention to that, and it then gets picked up in pursued them vigorously and put matters into the adjournment debates and obviously in main debates public domain which would probably never have in the House. But they do read them, or they should come to light. There are notable examples. Just do, and if they do not read them then they are recently, Grant Shapps, the Member for Welwyn making a mistake. Hatfield, did a great amount of work looking at temporary workers and how they were being used in filling gaps in the Civil Service. He has pursued it Q83 Mr Chope: I would like to ask you about the 30- tenaciously and we discovered that it is a rather year rule. I do not know if you have this in your important point he has uncovered. So I would not experience of asking questions: you can do so want to see any restrictions on backbenchers. I covering any period up to 30 years ago but quite personally do not think it is a bad thing that we are often departments do not have information going seeing a big increase in the number of written back that far. Do you think there is any case for parliamentary questions. Last year Jack Straw said reviewing that 30-year rule in relation to questions? it was a sign of healthy scrutiny. Obviously I would Mr Heald: I do not have any strong thoughts on like all colleagues to ask sensible questions but I that. It obviously is the case that it is quite a long would not want to see this restricted too much. The period in terms of government records, but of course other point is that I do think the Government should it also ties in with some of the rules about Cabinet have a duty to assist, as they do with Freedom of documents and so it probably is quite sensible to Information, and stop a lot of these foolish answers have it at 30 years. In one sense it is a figure totally which are costing the country money. If they make plucked from the air, but it is the figure we have us ask 10 questions instead of one, they are costing plucked. It is the one that applies to Cabinet us all whatever they say a parliamentary question documents and so on and I think it is probably as costs. good as any other. I have not really thought it Mr Laws: I am very worried by the idea that through. departments should flag up particularly risky MPs Mr Laws: I have not found it a huge problem getting or spokesmen and deal with their answers in a at things that I have wanted to get at. Sometimes the diVerent way. We received e-mails from a Subject information clearly is available earlier and you Access Request when we were putting lots of tax would have liked to get it but you are not allowed to credit parliamentary questions into the Treasury and table for it. I suppose there would be a possibility on 12 June 2006 there is a reference in an email: “As that you could be allowed to table for something you are aware, the Paymaster General has asked the which, if it was available very easily, might be Chairman of HMRC to clear all the Laws’ easement supplied, but I guess that the Table OYce and others PQs and the Chairman now wants to clear all the would be worried about trying to police that. All I PQs to Laws for the time being personally before can say is that it has not been an enormous problem. they go to the Paymaster General.” I do not like that Mr Drew: I cannot find any reason why it should be amount of interference. You will guess that I have changed but I find some of the weakest answers asked questions about why and how many that has come when you are seeking historical information. been done to and they have all been blocked. On the When you want to do comparisons, they very often DWP, where we have this traYc light system, it was argue that this can only be supplied at inappropriate being implied to us by the oYcial who phoned us cost, so they either kill it stone dead or they give you from a call box, very worried about this system, that a much shorter period of time, over which the if there was an embarrassing question asked by, say, comparisons that you were seeking are pretty Philip Hammond for the Tories or myself then there meaningless. would be a traYc light system that would pick this up and ministers and advisers would look at the Q84 Mr Chope: Do you think frontbench people question. The oYcial line is that they would look at should have their questions dealt with on a separate the question so that, when the information was basis, with perhaps a diVerent priority system, with released, they were aware of it and the Press OYce more latitude in relation to the use of researchers and would be able to rebut any story or distortion or signing them oV or perhaps even identifying/flagging whatever line was put out about it. I think that is the question as being asked in the capacity as a quite fair. If I were the minister, I should most shadow minister rather than as an ordinary definitely want to know what was going out in my Member? Asking that last part of the question, I name, when and what the underlying government have in mind a colleague who was the Shadow position was on it. But my concern is whether that Minister for Wales. In the general election, he was traYc light system, by flagging up embarrassing taken to task by his political opponents for having answers, means that they get amended by special asked more questions about Wales than about his adviser interference or by pressure on civil servants constituency, which was of course wholly unfair, but to deny information in a way that other parts of the this was the way in which it was exploited and it was Subject Access Request suggested, and whether impossible for him to demonstrate that he was the there is therefore a pressure to distort the answer or shadow minister. Do you think there should be any limit the information. I do not know whether you diVerentiation between shadow ministers or will have a chance as a Committee to find out how frontbench spokesmen and the rest of us? these traYc light systems are working and to find out Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 21

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP whether any of the answers are being amended as a using as an opposition spokesman to embarrass the consequence of the process, but that I would worry Government. Unless they did that in a formalised about that a lot, and that is what we were initially way which also went to the minister, I think they told. If the traYc light system is a way of flagging up would very quickly end up in a real old mess as well dangerous MPs and changing answers, it would be and either would bring the shutters down or, very dangerous; if it is just a way of making sure potentially, you would leave them in a very ministers are aware of sensitive information when it embarrassing position with the minister due to their is released, then that is certainly what I would want naı£vety. That underlies my nervousness about if I were in their shoes. engaging in that type of relationship, which would Mr Drew: I think it is very dangerous. We have those be either sterile from my perspective or extremely in the Government and they are a very clear group, embarrassing and diYcult from their perspective. but once you start having segregation between Mr Heald: Of course one of the things which is opposition spokespeople and a category of question important is to have the information in the public they can ask, and then you have backbench MPs to domain so that you can hold the Government to the Government and backbench MPs of the account publicly. Meetings to have a good Opposition, then you will have so many diVerent discussion about background and the general thrust systems. At the end of the day, it is not up to civil of the Government’s approach to something is a servants to decide how they answer, who they answer useful thing to do, but it is not really a substitute for and the way in which they answer. Clearly you get your written parliamentary question which gets the answers that are not good enough. If a minister has answer on the record, where you can then have some told a civil servant to write a bland answer, that says oral questions and in a debate you can really get the something about the Minister; but if the civil servant minister answering the point. decides oV their own bat that this is a troublesome MP and they are going to give as little information as possible then that civil servant should be dealt Q86 Chairman: This Committee, in 2002, with by the Minister. That is not the way this should recommended that we had a quota on Named Day be working. Questions which was subsequently implemented at five a day. The reason for that was to reduce the number of holding answers being given. Do you Q85 Mr Chope: Traditionally some departments think that has been a success? Has it largely achieved have said to opposition spokesmen, “You go and what it was set out to do? Are you happy with that talk to the relevant oYcial or the agency chief remaining in force or would you wish to go back to executive and sort this out because that is going to be the situation before the quota? David Laws and able to cut through the need for a lot of questions.” Oliver, do you, as frontbench spokesmen, feel you Do you find that sort of meeting is still being should have a higher quote on Named Day volunteered or do you think that, because of the Questions? restrictions on that sort of meeting, more questions Mr Laws: No. I would be very nervous about are being asked as a result? treating these diVerently because there are some very Mr Heald: I have a good relationship with active non party spokesmen who are very eVective in departments. For example, recently I wanted to talk using PQs and I do not think it would be very about the Transformational Government White popular to do that. I confess that when we had them Paper and had a meeting with Gus O’Donnell and at the open Named Day thing, I was in the habit of we went through a range of issues for an hour. I do automatically ticking that on the basis that I wanted not think I could really complain about that. But, of my answer as quickly as possible, but since the course, there are areas where it is not that sort of change has come about it has not made any issue, where you do seem to find it quite hard to get measurable diVerence to the speed at which the the information that you want. questions are answered and so it seems to have been Mr Laws: This has been oVered to us as well by the quite successful. DWP. They, on the whole, are quite cooperative as a Mr Heald: I was never a great one for using Named department. They are quite open, as far as one can Days because I felt that we tended not to get much establish, or were quite open, in their parliamentary out of it. If they wanted to answer it, they did; if they questions. When we tabled quite a lot of questions did not, they just gave you a holding reply. I think on things like the Child Support Agency, both the five is fine. I do not see it as a problem. Y ministers and o cials said to us, “For God’s sake, if Mr Drew: I have no problem with it as it is working. we can help, tell us and we will not have to answer The only interesting thing would be how many all your wretched PQs.” The problem is that works questions are answered on the Named Day. I do not if you are asking for fairly bog standard information know if you have done any research to find out how that they are quite happy to give you. However, if many questions subsequently have been further you want to table a question on how many bonus V delayed. There may be good reasons why there is payments there were to CSA sta in a particular year no answer. where they were making a real mess of the system, then not only might you not get the information, it would not be published, it would not have an oYcial Q87 Chairman: The Table OYce was mentioned status, but also I would then be nervous and earlier, really in passing, that you felt it should be uncomfortable with a relationship where I was there to be helpful to the Member and not as a gate expecting them to give me information that I am which is trying to filter things on behalf of ministers. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Ev 22 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP

Do you have any other comment or criticism about Q89 Mr Chope: At the moment, all written questions how the Table OYce operates? Are you generally are dealt with on the day of their receipt, regardless happy with their system? of the number received or the time of day. One way Mr Heald: I would say that I have had a lot of help of coping with this very large number currently being over the years from the clerks there. Many a time tabled might be to allow the Table OYce to hold over they have found a way through for me, when I was all new written questions which arrive late in the day slightly in doubt as to how to approach a particular until the next day. How would you respond to such topic, so I would pay a great tribute to them. But a proposal? from discussions one has when one is in there, I do Mr Heald: Personally, I would not be in favour of it. think they have become concerned at the volume of I think the Table OYce should be geared up to meet questions and their ability to cope with it. I know on the needs of Members because this is such a vital occasions I have had the comment that it is very tool. It is one of these things where the House just helpful to put a smallish number down each day needs to get focused. Our job is to hold the rather than a great lump of questions and so on, and Government to account. This is a key way of doing I do get the impression that they feel under a bit of it. If we need to have a few more clerks, let us have pressure of numbers and maybe that has slightly them, but let us not give up on something as aVected their attitude. I do get the feeling that it is a important as this. bit more restrictive than it used to be. That may just Mr Laws: I am conscious that, particularly as an be totally unfair but I do feel it is. I would like to see opposition spokesman, you can occasionally have them geared up so that they can allow this very periods where you do not have loads of PQs and then healthy thing for our democracy, this rise in suddenly you want to put in a lot on some issue. You questions, so that they can cope with it. set to work, or your researcher goes on to produce a Mr Laws: They have always been, it seems to me, lot, and it is quite possible that you might turn up at pretty rigorous and sometimes a bit pedantic. If I am the Table OYce rather late in the day and lob in 50 in the habit of asking lots of PQs, I tend to get lots or 100 questions. It is not totally unknown for that of cards, which I allow to build up for a couple of to happen. Given that now the time sensitivity of weeks, and then I go to see them for 10 minutes and dealing with these is slightly less and there are less usually get about 80 or 90% of them through. Named Day Questions, it is not usually vital to me Occasionally they can be a little bit diYcult about that they should be in that particular day rather than questions which they could tweak if they wanted to the next morning. If there was a cut-oV that was or they could allow through, and I worry a bit that decided upon at nine o’clock or eight o’clock, it MPs who do not table as much or who have just would not be the end of the world to me, but, like arrived may end up giving up, when, with a slight Oliver, I would not want the system to be designed tweak of words, they could be in order. However, a too much around administrative convenience rather few years ago I saw some of the questions that go than accountability to the Government. If there were through in the European Union Parliament, which some slightly earlier deadline, it would not are very loose, open-ended and unclear. If I had to undermine our ability to hold the Government to choose between having that and our system, where account. what you are asking for has to be very clear, it has to be something for which the Government is accountable, the information has to be available, Q90 Mr Chope: An hour? A couple of hours? there has to be some basis for it—which does serve Mr Laws: Yes, an hour or two would leave me very to filter out some sort of silly questions or questions relaxed, particularly if it were 10 o’clock/10.30 that might be unclear—I would much rather have finishes, and maybe slightly less if it were seven/7.30. our system than the EU system but I think they Mr Drew: I have no problem with cut-oVs because I could be just a little bit less pedantic occasionally. think that makes a lot of sense. The most important thing is that the Member has faith that if an answer is either going through or not going through it is being Q88 Chairman: Thank you. David Drew, would you dealt with properly by the clerks. I do not want to like to add to that? think in terms of the clerks being so overwhelmed Mr Drew: They are generally very helpful and try to that they would let daft questions get through, get the questions through. The only area I have some because that reflects obviously on the Member as concern with is this notion of what the Government well as the system. It is important they do their job is responsible for. The one I tend to fall down on is, properly. If there is something wrong with it, I would if you have an interesting report of which you think rather they had the time to think carefully about it is particularly relevant for a department to have what they want to say to the Member rather than it some knowledge, you are not allowed to ask the being just submitted because it comes in a hoard of question: “Has the Government seen this report and other questions. does it have a view on what the report is saying?” Chairman: We have been going an hour. I am going because if it is not a Government report, the to try to finish this session by five o’clock, if it is all Government does not have a view. I think that is right for you to hang on a little bit longer. quite restrictive. Even to the extent that you have a non answer saying “No, we have not seen this report” that says something. That is the area I feel is Q91 Ms Barlow: We have talked about the demands quite restrictive. Also, devolution has some of the Civil Service by the big increase in the number interesting imperfections. of written questions. Would you accept that the Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 23

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP increase in the number of written questions into the as well as they possibly can; and they should not Civil Service would lead to a reduction in the quality have the view that they are there to block the of the answers? information. Mr Heald: No, I do not think it should. The Chairman: Could we leave the FOI point until John Government really has to understand that we are Hemming has asked a couple of questions, because living in a much more open democracy, where MPs he wants to talk about what is contained in answers. are more vigorous than perhaps they once were. If that is the case, just as they have had to come to Q94 Ms Barlow: You have mentioned some very terms with the 24-hour media by having a lot more Y specific instances of very serious questions which press o cers, they ought to come to terms with the you feel did not get serious answers. But another fact that they are being vigorously held to account by point made by Jack Straw, which is a counterbalance having the requisite number of civil servants to do to that and by no means detracts from what you were the job properly. saying, is that if you get people asking really silly questions about lavatories or flora and fauna you Q92 Ms Barlow: Would you support an increase in debase the currency, and oYcials start thinking, the number of civil servants to deal with this? “What’s this about? It’s not schoolboy debate; it’s Mr Heald: I was suggesting there is a duty to assist. about the British Government.” In other words, do Obviously I have not seen their Precedent Book on you accept that in some cases the quality of the how parliamentary questions are to be answered, answer may be a reflection of the quality of the which is a Cabinet OYce document, and I do not question? know if the Committee will get to see it, but that Mr Heald: I do not think it is for ministers to judge would be very interesting reading. If they were very that. Let me give you an example. I asked a lot of much on the basis of, “Look, we have to give the questions about John Prescott and one of them was information, as much as we can” and they did not about the replacing of a sign which said “OYce of have these constant blocking mechanisms, it would the Deputy Prime Minister”: it was changed to free up the system. They would have more time to “Deputy Prime Minister’s OYce” and it cost £640. I find the answers if they spent a bit less time am sure John Prescott thought that was an prevaricating. Really it is what Jack Straw said when absolutely disgraceful, insulting question that he gave evidence to you: if you do not answer the should never have been asked, but, from my point of question, you get a lot more questions. That is true, view, it illustrated a waste of money on a department so one answer might be to answer the question in the that does not really involve a job. It is a matter of first place. political debate. Certainly in terms of the public and Mr Laws: I agree with that. Issues of quality in terms the media that highlighted an important issue. It is of the response are far more for me about willingness quite hard and it is very much in the eye of the to respond than they are about time pressures. Those beholder as to what is a ridiculous question and what departments that may end up with a lot of questions is not. may end up also being the ones which are wilfully Mr Laws: I think there are some silly questions but it trying not to answer them. In the cases I gave, in is terribly diYcult to know how to stop them without particular, on tax credits they have ended up with closing down access to information which might be hundreds and hundreds more questions because we important for the public to have. We all know that have not been willing to be put oV by the original the parliamentary answers that are easiest for the blocking answers. I think that can make a big press to grab and turn into a simple headline tend to diVerence. I know this is not answering your be to do with expenditure of sometimes quite small question—which is a danger, given the subject!—but amounts of public money but on things that sound could I say something maybe at the end of this terribly wasteful and so there is quite an incentive for question, 30 seconds about one issue which I do lots of MPs to table those types of questions. The think is important, about the FOI process for problem is that, whilst some of them might be and challenging non answers and whether that is a might seem totally trivial, others might be quite problem or not? important questions about the waste of public funds. I do not know how, without self-policing, we can Q93 Ms Barlow: I do have a couple of really strike the right balance without denying access supplementaries and I would like to hear from Mr to things for which the Government wants to cover Drew. We only have 10 minutes more. up the boundaries. Mr Drew: I think it is a very important skill for the Mr Drew: I think silly questions reflect as badly on civil servants and also non civil servants, because the questioner as they do on whoever answers the obviously some questions are answered by executive question. We have all seen press copy where someone agencies where they are technically not civil servants. is asking for some ridiculously small sum of money You know that because sometimes these people ring to be exposed and then the press find out what it cost you up and say, “What are you trying to get at in this to find out that answer. So I do not think it is terribly question?” I think that is something this clever and, again, Members may wish to learn Government, to be fair, has been very good at. There from that. has been much more open access to the people who hold that knowledge and I congratulate them for Q95 Ms Barlow: I would like to go back to that. It is just something that civil servants have to something you said earlier, which was that ministers do: they should be trained to do it; they should do it have a duty to look at written answers. This was also Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Ev 24 Procedure Committee: Evidence

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP brought up by Jack Straw. He wrote to us after would be another way in which ministers could giving his evidence to this Committee that “It is of prevaricate by not answering the question properly, fundamental importance that...Ministers consider knowing it is going to appeal, it takes ages and we draft answers and devote a great deal of attention to end up not knowing. Personally, if they do not reply, them. . . . as the number of questions increase, the I ask another question and another question and I amount of time Ministers devote to them must do pursue it. That may be one of the reasons why we therefore also increase in order to maintain an have more questions. If you, as a Committee, were acceptable quality. Because Ministers must ensure to take a strong line that ministers should have a they consider each answer fully, there is also an duty to assist Members in answering these questions, increased risk that answers may be delayed due to I think that would be very helpful. the sheer volume of questions put to them.” Would Mr Laws: I am quite worried about the existing you agree with Jack Straw that ministerial system. If you do not get an answer, you table a involvement in the answers is fundamental to the couple of further parliamentary questions, and you parliamentary question system? are likely, if it is the Treasury or a rogue department Mr Heald: Yes, I think it is very important. I think or perhaps most departments and they do not want ministers need to give enough time to do it. I to answer, to be blocked. So you put in an FOI remember, when I was a junior minister, I was doing request, and that is almost always blocked the first pensions and benefit fraud and we used to get a lot time, and then you have to go through an appeal. All of questions. It really was quite busy and you just of this takes a long time. It is designed to wear you had to set aside the time to answer those questions. down. FOI means that they have to give information I think ministers should be prepared to do that. I that is available, but they are not required to do any know it is time consuming but it is important. work that might create a data series that is not already there, so it is not quite policing exactly what Q96 Ms Barlow: Would you agree, then, that the a parliamentary question is asking for. I have an increased number of questions would inevitably lead example here where I have got to the end of this to reduced ministerial involvement. There is only a appeal route on a matter where I am only asking certain number of ministers and a certain amount them to give me information on tax credit payments of time. against Budget profiles—so how much they are Mr Heald: I do not think that is the way it should paying out in benefits, versus the Budget figures. happen. I have noticed quite a lot of ministers now This is a series that is already published internally to do not sign their own letters. Quite a lot of letters the department. Having finally got through to the now responding to Members of Parliament are not end of the process, they have given me some signed by a minister at all—you know, it is not even information but denied the rest on the basis that the minister’s letter. I think all that is very bad and “revealing some of their forecasts could generate that the House should deplore that. I think ministers false assumptions about the economy and should treat MPs’ correspondence and questions compromise their ability to run the economy”. That very seriously indeed, make the time for it and not is utterly ludicrous. I have had to resort to using the expect to be able to treat MPs in a disrespectful way. Public Administration Select Committee to try Mr Drew: For any minister who does not read those occasionally to police ministers’ unwillingness to answers, there will come a time when they will pay release information which is clearly there. Tony for that. In a debate, somebody will read back an Wright, who has taken this up with ministers, has answer that a minister has given which they have then quite frequently embarrassed them into completely contradicted in a subsequent debate and providing very quickly, by return, the answers that I it will look not terribly clever. was seeking. The existing system is not working for Chairman: Again, I think this is an example of a me. It takes too long. It relies upon wearing you change of culture. down. It can take four/five/six months to get through. By that time, maybe the data you are seeking has been published anyway, the issue has Q97 John Hemming: Perhaps the key question is gone away. It is not easy,for reasons that are obvious how you make the ministers answer the questions to you, to produce a magical alternative, but I am properly. I tried judicial review; I tried going to the pretty sure that the existing system is failing and I Information Commissioner saying, “Can you have a would prefer an appeal route that did not take us fast-track scheme for MPs?” and they said no. One through a very long, prolonged FOI process. other option is to have an appeals process in Mr Drew: I do not think an appeal route would Parliament, perhaps to have a committee which goes work. I think it is up to the individual Member to through them; the point being to make sure the pursue it through the means that are available to initial question is answered correctly, because they them, which is at least to get the Speaker involved. know it will be a real trouble if the minister is called to give evidence on why they did not answer the question. What are your views on that? Q98 John Hemming: And ask it again. Mr Heald: Personally, I would not be keen on that. Mr Drew: And the question must be necessarily If you look at what has happened with FOI, a lot of answered. You have business questions where you those have gone on appeal and by the time it gets to can at least get Jack Straw to have to respond to it the point where the Information Commissioner is and subsequently go for an adjournment debate. going to be dealing with it the point has been lost. In That will put the minister under pressure, because fact a lot of the appeals are abandoned. I think it you can then use that period of time. It is more Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:05 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG2

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 25

28 March 2007 Mr David Drew MP, Mr Oliver Heald MP and Mr David Laws MP diYcult obviously with oYcial spokespeople, but Mr Laws: I am not aware of it. I do not know my they come in on the back of another Member’s password so I have not given it out to anybody. I dissatisfaction, and that is what we should be doing cannot speak for others. as MPs. Mr Drew: I have tried it and it did not work for me, Mr Laws: I think you could shorten the FOI process so I thought I had better have another go and do it so that you do not need to make the second appeal, more successfully. Any Member who does that is because that is where you really get bogged down. If mad. They will be caught out sometime; it will go you gave them a chance, with some appeal route or wrong. Some researcher will put in a bizarre question FOI, to produce the answer, and then after that you that the press will pick up and they will be slain alive. could go to an independent policeman of some type, Mr Heald: I think it is important to write your own I think it would be a much better system. But the questions, to take responsibility for them. Equally, I double FOI request I think is a real killer. think ministers do need to take responsibility for the Mr Heald: One of the things I find quite odd is that answers they give. you can get an answer on 15 January this year saying there are 369 magistrates’ courts in the country, but Q100 Sir Robert Smith: You do not think there is any by 30 January you can get an answer saying there are argument that, for a trusted researcher who is very 344—quite a substantial fall. Often you have to ask capable and has been drafting the questions in the quite regularly to get at what is happening. We had first place, if a Member wants to trust them, then the some information that the number of magistrates’ system should allow the Member to trust their courts had been cut back and we wanted to follow it researcher? Or is it, as Jack Straw put it, the right of up. We were told there were 369, the same number as the Member to ask the question that needs to be before, and yet two weeks later it had fallen by protected? over 20. Mr Heald: I draft my own questions but I may well John Hemming: Everyone is saying the system is say to my researcher, “Could you table these?” I do broken, it is not working properly. The question not see that the technical aspect of him pressing the therefore is how you go about it. Everyone has button matters much. It is only like somebody responded on that specific point. People have said writing a speech for you, is it not? If somebody writes that you get more information through the Freedom great chunks of your speech for you, you would not of Information at times than by parliamentary just accept—or at least you should not accept!—that questions. In terms of the other questions, there has that is your speech, without reading it through been a deterioration in the answers to questions. carefully and making sure you are happy with it. You That deals with all three questions. take responsibility. Chairman: Thank you. The final question is for Robert Smith. Q101 Chairman: This has been a very helpful session. Is there anything any of you want to raise which we have not covered in questions? Q99 Sir Robert Smith: We have touched on people Mr Heald: No. signing books of questions and so on, but there is Mr Drew: No. circumstantial evidence that some Members seem to Mr Laws: No. have given their passwords for their parliamentary Chairman: On behalf of the Committee, I would like accounts to their researchers and that possibly e- to thank you for your evidence. The detail and the tabling has made even easier for researchers to go scope is most useful and will certainly help us with straight to the tabling without using the Member. our deliberations. Thank you very much for your Do you think that is going on? time and for attending. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [SE] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 26 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Wednesday 11 March 2009

Members present

Mr Greg Knight, in the Chair

Ms Katy Clark Mrs Siaˆn C James Mr Roger Gale Sir Robert Smith John Hemming Sir Peter Soulsby

Witnesses: Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Principal Clerk, Table OYce, Mr Nick Walker, Table OYce, Ms Karen Saunders, Table OYce, and Ms Lynn Lewis, Editorial Supervisor of the Vote, gave evidence.

Q102 Chairman: Welcome and thank you for Ms Sharpe: We certainly hope that we are handling coming along. We are quite a way through our report them properly. At the moment we have ﬁve clerks in into written questions. Although we have already the lower oYce dealing with questions on a rota had some evidence from the former Principal Clerk, basis. If we continue at this level we may need to David Natzler, we thought we would like to update consider whether it would be necessary to have a ourselves about the present position as you see it. sixth clerk to help us with the questions. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is to ask you a question en bloc and you can choose who would like Q105 Chairman: David Natzler identiﬁed a problem to answer it. One of the reasons we started the when late in the day a large number of questions was inquiry was the substantial rise in the number of brought in. If we were to recommend that for written questions since 2005. What is the current example any written questions brought to you after trend? Is it still going up or has it plateaued? the moment of interruption could be left over to the Mr Walker: I can update the statistics with which next day would that be of any help to you? you have already been supplied. The overall position Mr Walker: At the moment we have a cut-oV of half is that there has been a continued and steady an hour after the moment of interruption, so it is increase in the number of written parliamentary 10.30 on Mondays and Tuesdays, 7.30 on questions with quite a marked jump round the Wednesdays and 6.30 on Thursdays. One beginning of the current session last autumn. There phenomenon we have noticed which we believe is has also been an increase in the number of e-tabled associated with e-tabling is that large numbers of WPQs in both absolute and proportional terms. The questions arrive through the e-tabling system in the main statistic we keep is of the number of questions late afternoon/early evening. It seems to me that which appear on the following day’s notice paper— perhaps after a Member or his research assistant has the blues—which is almost never the same as those spent the day preparing questions they come at the actually tabled by Members the previous day. The end of his working day but in the evening for us. average number appearing on the blues per sitting Sometimes it can be quite diYcult for us to digest day in calendar year 2007 was 414; in calendar year that number of questions in the evening. One 2008 it was 434; and in 2009 up to last Friday the possibility is to make an earlier cut-oV time for e- number was 514. In terms of e-tabled questions, the tabled questions. Another possibility that we are average number of WPQs received by the oYce, not looking at, which would in no way aVect Members’ necessarily appearing on the paper, was 183 in right to e-table questions, would be to place a limit calendar year 2007; in 2008 it was 206; and in 2009 on the number each could have in his or her basket to date—it is a short period and maybe not wholly before sending them oV to the Table OYce. representative—the number is 320. In the past few Therefore, after a Member had drafted 30 questions months the proportion of WPQs e-tabled has the system would not allow him or her to draft any regularly exceeded 50% of all WPQs tabled. We have more until those had been sent oV to the Table OYce. noticed that trend since October of last year. It The Member could then start a new basket. It would reached a peak proportion of 69% in January. That not aVect the total number; it would just mean that may or may not be a blip; we do not know. questions would have to be sent in regularly to the Table OYce rather than arrive in a huge pile at the Q103 Chairman: Do you have any theory as to why end of the day. That is one possibility we have been there was an increase in the autumn? considering. Mr Walker: I do not believe we have any particular Ms Sharpe: We would not wish in any sense to limit theory as to why there was a jump. There always the time at which Members can themselves bring in tends to be an increase at the start of a session with questions. If a Member wished to come in with a Members tabling questions that perhaps did not get question at the moment of interruption certainly we an answer in the previous one. That is a regular would wish to deal with it. Mr Natzler did not phenomenon, but the increase at the start of the suggest that an earlier cut-oV should apply to those current session seems to be slightly more marked. questions that Members brought in personally.

Q104 Chairman: Do you believe you have suYcient Q106 Sir Robert Smith: In previous evidence resources properly to handle the current level of reference was made to the rising number of round questions? robin and identical questions to all departments and Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 27

11 March 2009 Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Mr Nick Walker, Ms Karen Saunders and Ms Lynn Lewis a lot of questions being tabled by opposition front them because questions are part of parliamentary bench Members. Have you noticed any recent trends proceedings and FOI requests are not. I have not in the types of questions? Do you have any further been aware of a great impact. I do not know whether evidence on that? Mr Walker is aware of it. Ms Sharpe: There are certainly a number of round Mr Walker: I am not aware of an impact on the robins. I have been back in this oYce only since the nature or number of questions we receive. Members beginning of November. I have not noticed the will sometimes make observations to us in the oYce number being larger than the last time I was there at about the use to which they put the Freedom of the end of the 1980s. Information Act or parliamentary questions, but Mr Walker: I do not think there has been any there is nothing in terms of the contents of the significant change in round robins in the past year or questions tabled. so. We receive a lot of round robins. Sometimes the question asked in a round robin is patently inappropriate to a particular department or Q111 Ms Clark: How well do you think Members minister. We try to weed them out but we know that understand the existing rules on tabling? sometimes such inappropriate round robin Ms Sharpe: Some of the rules are probably quite questions are asked of departments. diYcult to understand. Obviously, we are always very happy to discuss with Members how a rule Q107 Sir Robert Smith: Do you mean that because might apply to their questions and how they might of the volume it is diYcult to spot that a particular be reworded to enable them to ask an orderly question is inappropriate? question. We would certainly give consideration, if Mr Walker: That is exactly right; it is to do with you thought it helpful, to the provision of some volume. In terms of the Members who are tabling, guidance to Members on the rules and how they we still have highly prolific Members most of whom apply in particular cases so that Members have a are on the Opposition or Liberal Democrat Front clearer idea of what the rules are and how they Bench, but some backbenchers table a lot of aVect them. questions and a high proportion of WPQs are still attributable to the top 20, as you would expect in any kind of statistical distribution. Q112 Ms Clark: Do you get the impression that there are particular rules Members find frustrating? Q108 Sir Robert Smith: Nowadays, how easy is it to Ms Sharpe: I think questions relating to matters spot whether a question has already been answered which have been devolved are frustrating to or the information is already in the public domain? Members. That is one of those instances where it is Ms Sharpe: The oYce tries to identify any questions very diYcult to think of an alternative way to frame which have been answered. We read the answers the question. Some Members also find the rule about each day in Hansard and then rely on our upper basis quite frustrating. Obviously,we take their word oYce to do a search on PIMS to see whether they can if they say there is a basis for a particular question, identify answers. We would mark them “last asked” but usually it means that the Member needs to come and try to get the information that way. We identify and talk to somebody in the oYce to establish that a lot of questions where the answer is already there is a basis. available. Mr Walker: Quite understandably, Members often think that under the basis rule they are in a Catch 22 Q109 Sir Robert Smith: This inquiry has been going situation. They are asking a question to find out on for a while. In February 2007 the then Leader of information and we are asking what basis they have the House expressed concern that many questions for thinking that such information exists, but there seemed to be “without serious value” and were is nearly always a way of getting round that rule “trivial or frivolous”. Is that a judgment you can except in cases where the question seems to imply make? some kind of misdemeanour or misbehaviour on the Ms Sharpe: It is a judgment we would make very part of a Minister. reluctantly. We may very occasionally card a question on the grounds of being trivial. Members have reasons to ask questions that we do not know Q113 Chairman: Further to that, approximately and we would do it very rarely and with extreme what percentage of questions where the Member has reluctance. not brought them in personally do you have to card? Mr Walker: The overall number of questions that Q110 Sir Peter Soulsby: It was suggested at one stage are carded wholly or in part is between 10 and 15%. that the Freedom of Information Act might make a That is the best estimate we can make; we do not diVerence to the volume or nature of questions and have precise figures. It is likely, though we have not provide a more productive alternative to certain made the calculation, that that figure is higher in types of questions. Have you detected any impact of respect of questions that the Member has not the Act on the volume of questions which is clearly handed in personally and have come through the growing or their nature? post, been e-tabled or have been brought in by Ms Sharpe: I am not aware of any. Obviously, the somebody else, simply because at the moment of reasons for questions are diVerent from freedom of tabling there is no opportunity to discuss, if the information requests. One never wants to confuse Member wishes, any issues which might arise. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 28 Procedure Committee: Evidence

11 March 2009 Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Mr Nick Walker, Ms Karen Saunders and Ms Lynn Lewis

Q114 Ms Clark: You will be aware it has been Q118 Ms Clark: You will be aware that previously suggested that there could be a codification of the the Select Committee on Public Administration rules. Do you think that would be useful? monitored “blocked” questions. Do you think there Ms Sharpe: Obviously, that is a matter for the is still a need for parliamentary monitoring of Committee. If it was codified it would probably need “blocked” questions? If so, who do you think should to be informal because if it became too formal it carry it out and how do you think it can be done in would in a sense be like a standing order and any the most eVective way? change in the codification might have to go to the Ms Sharpe: It may be a matter for another floor of the House to be considered. I think guidance committee. Obviously, this Committee would be one that was authoritative but not binding in the same possibility. The Liaison Committee which way as a standing order or formal codification would establishes core tasks for committees might be probably be more helpful. another way of doing it. However, I noted that in its report published today the Liaison Committee warns that committees’ much prized autonomy and Q115 Ms Clark: Do you see any other risks or quality of scrutiny may be reduced if they are negative aspects of codification? Y overloaded with demands. I have not read the report Ms Sharpe: It might be di cult to ensure that it was because it has just come out but that point is always topical. Sometimes the pattern of answering emphasised in its press notice. Whether they would might change the way one approaches or be receptive to that is obviously a matter for them. implements the rules. If it is formally codified there may be a delay in reflecting that in any new codification. Q119 Mr Gale: I take you back to the issue of authenticity and the involvement of Members in questions. First, how valuable is face-to-face contact Q116 Ms Clark: Are you aware of any disparities with individual Members when questions are being between the rules used by your oYce when deciding tabled? whether to allow a question to be tabled and the Ms Sharpe: I think it is valuable because it means guidance given to government departments for that Members usually have the opportunity to table answering questions, for example in deciding a question which, if it is not brought in by hand, may whether a question is sub judice? have to be carded and the process may be delayed. Ms Sharpe: I think that for something like sub judice About 90% of problems with questions could be we would be working to the same rules because solved by discussing them with the Member. obviously it is quite clear where a matter is before the Assuming as we do that the Member wishes the courts. I am not aware of what guidance government question to be tabled as soon as possible, obviously departments would be given in respect of other that would remove some of the delay and ensure that matters. We are entrusted by Mr Speaker with the the question was as near as possible what the job of looking at questions and making sure the rules Member wanted. Sometimes the problems are small. are followed and that is our prime responsibility. It may be that perhaps we cannot read something Mr Walker: We apply the House’s sub judice and therefore the question is delayed unnecessarily resolution which may mean that on occasions whereas if we can see the Member it can be sorted Members are able to raise matters, for example the out very quickly. judicial review of a ministerial decision, on which a department might not particularly wish to comment Q120 Mr Gale: To reduce delay have you ever either on the floor of the House or elsewhere, but considered electronic carding and just sending the within the rules of the House that is permissible. Member an email? What Ministers say is then a matter for them to Mr Walker: We do that at the request of Members. account for. Q121 Mr Gale: The Member must request it and Q117 Ms Clark: Do you monitor questions where then you will do it? the government refuses to provide an answer? Have Mr Walker: That is right. you noted any particular areas where the Ms Saunders: Perhaps I may say that I automatically government refuses to answer? Are any themes email Members when it is short notice. coming through? Ms Sharpe: We certainly keep note of questions Q122 Mr Gale: The former Leader of the House where the government has declined to answer, for expressed concern that electronic tabling had example in areas like national security and removed the Members’ imprint from some individual tax aVairs. There may be some others. questions. Do you think there is merit in that Mr Walker: Probably the two main reasons are argument? disproportionate cost and the fact that the Ms Sharpe: We assume that questions come from the information is not collected centrally. We do not Members. have a systematic means of recording answers. We try to read Hansard and see where the government is Q123 Mr Gale: If that is so let us come to the not answering or the types of questions that it says it authentication process. Clearly, it is important that is unable to answer. We would do that purely for the you and the House are satisfied it is the Member and purposes of advising Members who wished to table not somebody else who tables the question. If we are similar questions in future. to go on down this road and face-to-face contact Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 29

11 March 2009 Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Mr Nick Walker, Ms Karen Saunders and Ms Lynn Lewis with Members is to diminish are you satisfied that preprinted questions, so anything arriving by post is the authentication process is strong enough, or is susceptible to the same question mark as something there a better or diVerent way to ensure that it is the that arrives electronically, except that electronically Member who is tabling the question? there may be a temptation to increase the volume Ms Sharpe: I think that at the moment we are because the workload is easier. operating on a weak authentication process. Ms Sharpe: Yes, I take that point. Obviously, it could be made stronger by the use of a thumbprint, pass or some other mechanism. It is Q127 Mrs James: The next series of questions is really a question of whether this Committee thinks related to the tabling of questions and their number, that is justified. I do not think we have a personal in particular late answers et cetera. What do you view on it. consider to be a fair interval for an answer to be Mr Walker: It might be helpful to us in the Table considered “late”? What impact would a definite Y O ce if we had some guidance from the Procedure deadline for answering have on the tabling of Committee as to exactly what level of authentication questions and the quality and timeliness of answers is acceptable. At the moment despite what my to questions? colleague says we have no way of knowing in some Ms Sharpe: Obviously, it is a matter for your circumstances whether a Member has seen an e- Committee and the House to decide definitively tabled question. We think that in most cases the what a late answer would be. The government has Member will have authorised the question however, said that normally it aims for a week, but in general directly or indirectly. In many cases the Member it would be regarded as a little diYcult to insist that himself or herself will compose and send in the all questions should be answered within a week question. One phenomenon that causes us some because some may demand a lot of extra work and Y di culty is when a lot of e-tabled questions arrive. cover a large number of issues to be considered. The We have a problem with a proportion of them which problem with any limited number is that one might we send back to the letterboard. The Member’s encourage an answer to be given so that the date is Y o ce rings us up and asks us to send them back to met but it is less substantive and helpful than would the letterboard, which is fine. They go back to the be possible if there was slightly more time to answer Member by that means and then another batch of and the department was not viewed as being late. I question comes in and we cannot be certain in those also wonder whether one might encounter a greater circumstances that the Member is aware of the number of “disproportionate cost” answers if there problems we have experienced and taken them into was a date by which it had to be answered and account in redrafting the new questions. therefore more oYcials and greater expense would be involved in trying to get the information, but Q124 Mr Gale: Those of us who habitually table obviously that is a matter for government to work questions only on a face-to-face basis value the input out. of the clerks of the Table OYce because not infrequently, unfortunately, your phraseology is Q128 Mrs James: On the back of that, do you see better than ours but also because it enables us to benefit in producing a regular list of questions, argue the toss with you if you think something is out perhaps quarterly, which at the time have not of order and we do not. It places a considerable onus received an answer? Do you think that is achievable? upon you, but how would you feel about being given Ms Sharpe: There might well be a benefit. You will the power to card electronically-tabled questions be aware that the House of Lords has a system for where you were in any doubt as to their provenance? identifying late answers, but its scale of questions is Would you welcome that or consider it to be beyond much smaller. At the moment it is quite diYcult to your remit? identify late answers through PIMS and to be Ms Sharpe: I think it would be impossible for us to absolutely certain that the information is correct. It judge. Personally, I would not welcome it. If may be possible to interrogate Hansard to get the something comes from a Member’s account we data required, and we would certainly be happy to accept that it is authorised by that Member. look into that if the Committee thought it useful. When PIMS gets its replacement system—my Q125 Mr Gale: Would it help you if, as a committee, colleague is more expert on it than I—it may be we recommended a strengthening of the guidelines possible to get it through that. The other possibility to Members and the understanding that individual is to ask departments to make reports to their Members are required to take personal and departmental committees or this Committee or particular responsibility for every question tabled in perhaps to put the information in the Library on a their name? regular basis. One assumes that for its internal Ms Sharpe: I think that would be a welcome processes a department will have a record of when a statement of what we hope and understand is the question comes in and when it is answered and that practice. might be able to be transmitted. Mr Walker: I agree that there could be more clarity. Q129 Mrs James: Do you think there would be Q126 Sir Robert Smith: Despite having quite strong benefit in producing a sessional assessment of Luddite tendencies, is not the historical perception departmental performance in answering questions? that even before the advent of computers there was Do you think that is possible given your resources a rumour that Members signed a whole batch of and the pressure of the number of questions? Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 30 Procedure Committee: Evidence

11 March 2009 Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Mr Nick Walker, Ms Karen Saunders and Ms Lynn Lewis

Ms Sharpe: One could produce a list of questions Parliament and Whitehall in terms of, first, which had not been answered. It would not gathering statistics and, second, perhaps the necessarily reflect departmental performance processing of questions? because some departments may have a huge Ms Sharpe: This is the electronic parliamentary number of questions and others very few. That is community as I think it is called. If government an issue that needs to be taken into account. In departments and the House use the same electronic addition it would not necessarily reflect when the system it may become easier to identify questions, questions emerged. If a department suddenly but as far as I understand this has not yet been received a lot of questions a week before finalised and there is no firm business case to take Prorogation it might be almost impossible to it forward. answer all of them and therefore that would be Mr Walker: At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, reflected in the statistics and skew them. to use your earlier expression, at the moment we in Mr Walker: There are two aspects of performance: the Table OYce see no way round the need to edit timeliness and quality of response as perceived by questions in pencil so we have a clear audit trail of the Member. We cannot get involved in fairly what the Member originally drafted, any changes subjective and political discussions about whether we have made to it, any suggested changes and any or not answers are adequate in terms of quality. In reasons we think it needs to be carded so that on some circumstances there may be a trade-oV.Ifyou the face of each question everything can be seen. It put pressure on departments to answer within a is much more diYcult to do that in electronic terms. certain period quality may suVer. Obviously, that is Although it may be puzzling to Members the e- a judgment for others to make. tabling system in eVect is simply a means of transmitting information to us in a diVerent form Q130 Mrs James: You talk about the timeliness and those questions are then printed out and and quality of the answers. I find it a little diYcult treated in exactly the same way as any other to imagine. Unless we put pressure on departments questions received in hard copy. Clearly, there is by setting deadlines and evaluating performance scope particularly within government for greater what else are we left with? electronic co-ordination of the questions system Mr Walker: It used to be the case that Members and we are prepared to play our full part in that along with other parts of the House service which had an unlimited number of so-called named day Y questions and could insist on departments have an interest and role, including the O cial answering them within a certain number of days. Report. That was eventually rationed because it was thought that Members were tabling questions Q134 John Hemming: You may be aware of my which really did not require urgent answers. The interest in unsatisfactory answers provided by Committee on Procedure looked at it and the departments. There is no formal appeals House agreed to ration the number of named day mechanism. Obviously, you can table a pursuant questions. I am not saying it is inevitable, but if you question. Do you think there is a need for a more increase the pressure in one way the question is formal appeals mechanism if a Member receives an whether it will aVect the quality of answers that answer that he or she considers unsatisfactory? emerge. What do you see as the risks of such a mechanism? Ms Sharpe: As my colleague said, the diYculty is Q131 Mrs James: Do you think it would be useful identifying what is an unsatisfactory answer. if we went back to a similar system? Mr Walker: I do not have any comment on that. Q135 John Hemming: If the Member considers it to be unsatisfactory? Q132 Chairman: We appreciate Jacqy’s point about Ms Sharpe: If the Member considers it to be the seven days, but I would have thought that in unsatisfactory he or she has the opportunity to these days of electronic communication within pursue the matter, perhaps raising the matter in a departments a period of 14 days would be seen by pursuant question or seeking an adjournment many people to be a reasonable time beyond which debate on the issue. an answer is deemed to be late. Do you agree with that? Q136 John Hemming: Or seeking to raise it in Ms Sharpe: It is very much a matter for you, but business questions? I certainly understand the point behind it. Ms Sharpe: You are quite right to correct me. It is very diYcult to think of the operation of some other formal appeals system other than perhaps Q133 Sir Robert Smith: When we went down the going to another committee to adjudicate upon it. road of electronic questions one of the naı¨ve Mr Walker: It is a political matter and will have to thoughts was that there would be a seamless flow be dealt with at that level. The Committee on as information went whizzing round by electronic Public Administration used to do it. means to government departments which they handled electronically and it came whizzing back. None of that has happened yet, but there is talk in Q137 John Hemming: But it did not look at government of some kind of electronic handling of adequacy, did it? It looked at whether it was questions. Will that alter the interface between adequate at all. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 31

11 March 2009 Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Mr Nick Walker, Ms Karen Saunders and Ms Lynn Lewis

Mr Walker: It looked at various aspects of the approaching for information. Logically, the ﬁrst whole system. The Committee on Communities step following an unsatisfactory answer is to go and Local Government looked at the adequacy of back to the department and say that in your view some answers or the government’s practice in it is not satisfactory and ask for its response to that. answering questions. On the other hand, these are That could elicit a response. At a later stage it could normally matters of interest to the individual go to the departmental select committee or Member who is frustrated because he or she feels whatever, but from your point of view you would that the question has not been properly answered. be entirely happy to have a process where you It seems to me that normally it is the Member who record and ask another question pursuant to a looks for ways to follow it up. I believe that previous one which the Member thinks has been ultimately political pressure is the only route. answered unsatisfactorily.

Q138 John Hemming: Do you have any rough idea Q142 Chairman: It would have to be more of how many questions are inadequately answered sophisticated than just a straightforward pursuant according to Members? question. Some pursuant questions arise out of the Ms Sharpe: I do not think we keep a list of information that is revealed in the answer about pursuants. which the Member does not know. I think Mr Mr Walker: Purely anecdotally, occasionally a Y Hemming is talking about the situation where a Member will come into the o ce and say to us Member wishes to table a pursuant question which directly that he or she feels an answer is relates only to the unsatisfactory nature of the unsatisfactory and asks us how best to frame a initial answer. follow-up question to try to get further Mr Walker: The ability to table a pursuant information. Apart from that, I do not believe there question depends to some extent on the nature of is any way to gauge the extent of dissatisfaction of the original question. If the government responds Members as a whole. to a question by saying that it cannot answer it on Chairman: I think that is fair comment because for grounds of national security for us that is a clear every one Member who comes to you unhappy block, but a Member may well come in and say he there may be another half-dozen who are unhappy or she thinks that is unsatisfactory. I can well but just look for other ways to pursue it without imagine circumstances in which that would happen. notifying you. The Member would claim that it was not a matter of national security and would like it recorded that Q139 John Hemming: In a sense it raises another he or she felt it unsatisfactory and the government question: would the Table OYce be willing to have was refusing to answer it. Without an actual a role in recording when Members consider an procedure to follow the registration of answer unsatisfactory? dissatisfaction, if one wants to call it that, I am not Ms Sharpe: If the Committee recommended it and completely persuaded of the value of the procedure. there was a formal record of a Member being I believe that at the time of the introduction of the unhappy about an answer, as opposed to anecdotal Freedom of Information Act the government said evidence, it could be done. it was possible for Members to submit a freedom of information request as a kind of appeal. Q140 John Hemming: The Member would have to ﬁll in a standard form and turn up with it personally, not do it by e-tabling, and ask for a Q143 John Hemming: But that is really an pursuant question. The form would say, “Member undermining of democracy. The theory is that x considered the answer inadequate and, pursuant parliamentary questions should elicit as much to this, could the department do any better?” Do information as possible and more quickly than the you see a problem with that? Freedom of Information Act and to resort to the Mr Walker: Are you not saying that in eVect that latter as an appeals mechanism is not very good at would be the same procedure as a Member tabling all. What you are saying is that as long as there is a question pursuant to an answer in which for a procedure whereby one can go somewhere else whatever reason the information was not provided? afterwards you are entirely happy to have a form for unsatisfactory answers and pursuant questions because at some point the fact that it is considered Q141 John Hemming: If you look at the question an unsatisfactory answer is recorded? of process I think it would be wrong for the Table Y Ms Sharpe: If the Committee and House think it O ce to be put into a position where it had to is a good idea we can certainly give thought to how exercise judgment as to whether a question had or it can be achieved. We can certainly give some had not been adequately answered. The question thought to it this week and see if we can provide on the paper here is whether you would be willing you with a supplementary note. to have a role in judging it. I do not think you do want such a role? Ms Sharpe: No. Q144 John Hemming: What I read into what you John Hemming: I do not think that is appropriate. are saying is that if there was no further procedure It is similar to the position under freedom of you would see it as relatively futile but if there was information where the ﬁrst step is to ask for a a next step after it and a process that a Member review within the public authority that you are could follow it would have merit? Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 32 Procedure Committee: Evidence

11 March 2009 Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Mr Nick Walker, Ms Karen Saunders and Ms Lynn Lewis

Ms Sharpe: We would certainly look at it. If you Ms Sharpe: I should emphasise that the would like us to give it some thought and provide fundamental aim of our oYce is to be helpful to a paper on it with our views we would do so. Members who wish to table questions. I noted that Mr Walker: That would be my initial reaction. I in one evidence session a Member thought that just want to make clear that I do not advocate use sometimes we might act as gate-keepers to keep of the Freedom of Information Act as an appeal down the numbers. That is not our aim. Our aim is mechanism for unsatisfactory answers to to help Members to table questions as is their right parliamentary questions. within the rules that we implement on behalf of Mr Speaker. Chairman: I thank you all on behalf of the Q145 Chairman: We may write to you further. Is Committee for giving us your time and sharing with there anything that you wish to add or place on us your expertise and knowledge. It has been very record? helpful to us.

Witness: Chris Bryant MP, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, gave evidence.

Q146 Chairman: Do you wish to make an opening theoretically it is possible at the moment for a statement or shall we just kick oV with questions? Member and several members of staV to log on at the Chris Bryant: I believe that you had an opening same time and write and table questions. I suppose it statement from the former Leader of the House is therefore theoretically possible that questions may when he appeared before you in this inquiry. I am have been tabled in the name of hon Members happy to answer questions. without their speciﬁc involvement. I think that is wrong. This is about MPs and not researchers Q147 Chairman: Do you share the view of some scrutinising government. people that there is a need to try to bring under control the volume of written questions being Q149 John Hemming: On the question of eYciency, tabled? I see written parliamentary questions and oral Chris Bryant: No. Questions are a vital part of how questions as a process beyond asking for we do our business and hold the government to information in a letter or email. Perhaps there is account. Not many months ago I was a some merit in trying to introduce a departmental backbencher, so I know how important questions email address to which questions can be addressed are. Some Members use written parliamentary within the department that does not have all the questions; others use the Chamber for oral questions processes involved in a written parliamentary far more than they table WPQs. I think it is question. Therefore, those people who want to ask important that we support Members in whichever lots of detailed statistical questions can get them way they wish to transact that piece of business. It is without all the overhead. There is a lot of overhead absolutely essential to the process of government. to a parliamentary question. Is there any merit in having enhanced freedom of information for Q148 Chairman: There has been some suggestion Members that obviates the overhead of a written that Members table questions not in a search for parliamentary question? knowledge or to pursue a particular grievance but Chris Bryant: Sometimes people ask questions because these days their performance is rated on a where the information is clearly available from number of websites. Do you think there is anything another source. I know that sometimes departments in that? get a little fed up with it, but they have just got to Chris Bryant: I am sure that all of politics is about bear with it. The truth is that an hon Member may the pursuit of truth and nothing else, but I am aware want to table a question through this system that the numbers have dramatically increased over precisely so that the minister is putting his or her the years. You have already had the statistics, so I answer on record. I think that is a perfectly will not bore you with them again. I was looking at legitimate thing for an hon Member to do. One of the tabling of questions just last week. Last the values of having a system of voting in this House Thursday one Member tabled 163 questions of where we have to walk through lobbies is that which 138 were to the department of which he is ministers are there and you can ask questions. You shadow minister. I make no criticism of that but cannot ask these kinds of factual questions but you merely make the point that it is an awful lot of can ﬁnd out the direction of travel or who is the right questions. At the other end, somebody has to answer person to ask about something, or whether he is all of those questions. I am interested in whether minded to do something. I think that happens a lot there are means by which we can improve the process across party boundaries. so Members get more adequately answered questions more swiftly. One particular matter to which you may wish to return is whether there is Q150 Chairman: If we recommended that, for another way to deal with round robins questions. example, electronic questions coming in after the Another question raised by others is to do with moment of interruption could be carried over to the authentication. I am not a Luddite at all. When I was next day to reduce pressure on the Table OYce a backbencher I always tabled online, but would you have a view on that? Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 33

11 March 2009 Chris Bryant MP

Chris Bryant: I am very happy to listen to the Q153 Sir Robert Smith: From the answers you have recommendations of the Committee. For that given so far it appears that you do not share the same matter, you might want to think about an earlier view as Jack Straw. time, for example that it should be five o’clock every Chris Bryant: There has been a dramatic increase in day of the week or something like that. Both myself questions. I think that one of the questions put to the and the Leader of the House would be very happy to previous witnesses was why such a dramatic increase listen to the Committee’s suggestions about that. had taken place. I think that broadly there are two Certainly, for private oYces and parliamentary reasons. First, the internet era has now spread out to clerks in each of the departments there is an issue the vast majority of MPs. Originally, some 45 about when they get questions, because if it is five Members did it; now 330, more than half of the o’clock they will have all of them by the end of the Members of the House, e-table. That makes it much day and will be able to start work on finding the easier, not least because once you have typed in your appropriate information perhaps more swiftly. That first question you are asked whether you want to put might provide an inconvenience to Members. An the same question to another department. It may be urgent question might arrive at 10.15 at night and a we should at least insist on the individual typing in Member would want to ensure it was on the order the question each time to each department. A question arises about round robins. The second paper next morning. It may be one would then need reason is that the statistics provided by some an urgent version of a question. websites have tended to encourage people to accrue vast numbers of parliamentary questions as proof of their eVectiveness as MPs. Q151 Chairman: The Table OYce told us that it would not want that rule to be imposed on Members who came in personally, so I suppose that in answer Q154 Sir Robert Smith: He was trying to push the to that last scenario a Member could be encouraged rule about not asking for information already in the to go into the Table OYce in person? public domain, but you make the point that people Chris Bryant: That is one option. There is a question may want to get ministers’ endorsement of that as to how one authenticates a question as having had agreed information? the imprimatur of the individual Member. For Chris Bryant: I think there is a matter of common example, people have talked about only one courtesy here. If either a researcher or Member computer at a time being allowed to log on to e- wants to find something out sometimes there is a swifter and more eVective means of doing that than tabling. That might be a solution. Another solution tabling a written question. I know from my own might be that Members had a toggle and could use oYce that when we have parliamentary questions that to authenticate a question as coming from them, often staV ring up the Library to find out the answer. or the versions you heard about earlier from the Y It is quite clear that the Member could have Table O ce so it does not suddenly have 153 contacted the Library in the first place, but the whole questions dumped on it at the end of the day but point of ministerial oYce in regard to questions is batches of 15 at a time. They can be trundled that you should be as helpful as you possibly can V through the system and sent o to departments so because that is how we make sure we have a strong they can get working on the answers. parliament and better government.

Q152 Sir Robert Smith: On the question of Q155 Sir Robert Smith: You referred to round authentication, should it also be the case that a robins. Do you think that there might be a clearing written posted question has a signature at the house in government rather than each department bottom of the question, not at the bottom of the being swamped with the same thing? Chris Bryant: It is quite easy to spot round robins. paper, so it is clear that the Member has signed it They come to the Leader of the House and nearly after the question has been written rather than always they are completely inappropriate. I am before? always answering “nil”, “none” or “not applicable”. Chris Bryant: I have not seen any examples myself Government as a whole will decide what attitude to and what I say is really third hand. I have heard of take towards these round robins but it may take questions that have been written very carefully all some time for that attitude to be developed because V the way round the Member’s signature in di erent some departments may be rather more directly handwriting. It might well be helpful if the code of aVected than others. Consequently,that slows up the conduct for hon Members made it clearer precisely process. We might just be better oV saying to what the expectation is of Members’ involvement in Members—I would be interested to hear the questions tabled in their name. It may be that when Committee’s view on it—“Own up to the fact that you are e-tabling you have to sign a more categorical you are asking a round robin question that you want statement as to your involvement in drafting the to go to all departments and then we will provide an question. I do not say that every question must be answer. We will not be able to provide that with the physically written by an hon Member because same degree of swiftness as we would for other research staV play an important part in supporting questions but, let us say,in two to three weeks we will Members, but an hon Member should be aware of all be able to provide an answer and you might get a the questions he or she has tabled or have been better answer across the whole of government, tabled in his or her name. which is really the point of the question.” One of the Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 34 Procedure Committee: Evidence

11 March 2009 Chris Bryant MP

163 questions tabled the other day was about where that is so you will tell us in a moment. You also furniture was sourced and what the contract was in expressed concern, as has the Committee, about the a particular department. I am sure that that will necessity to have the Member’s imprimatur on the appear in lots of other departments as well in the question. The question is how we achieve that. If this next few days. The question is: “To ask the Secretary Committee comes forward with proposals for some of State for Communities and Local Government, form of additional verification on the part of a pursuant to an answer on departmental furniture, if Member to say in terms that he or she has seen and she will list each of the suppliers who provided is responsible for a particular question will the furniture and fitting services to her department in government be willing to go along with that? 2007–08.” There may be lots of perfectly legitimate Chris Bryant: I certainly would. I think it would be reasons for asking that question, for instance to find very diYcult for us to retreat on e-tabling because it out from what country the furniture was sourced and is enormously useful to the vast majority of all the rest of it, but it might be more sensible to own Members. It means that if you are doing work in up to it as a round robin question and ask the your constituency but nonetheless you want to table question of the whole of government. some questions you can do so. You are absolutely right about the value of conversations with people in Y Q156 Ms Clark: From your perspective in general the Table O ce. In particular, anybody who how well do you believe Members understand the represents a seat in Scotland, Wales or Northern rules on the tabling of questions? Ireland is painfully aware of the discussions you Chris Bryant: I can only assume that most Members must have around questions to do with devolved are like me and therefore have a broad responsibilities. There are also various other areas Y understanding of the rules but sometimes need to where the Table O ce can correct our grammar— have it cleared up. Unfortunately, in my job I get to certainly not yours, Mr Gale—but it would be Y clear up my understanding of these things on a di cult for us to retreat on the basic principle of e- regular basis. tabling. However, there is a need for a system of better authentication of a Member’s involvement. I believe that researchers play an important role in Q157 Ms Clark: You will be aware of suggestions being able to scout out issues for an hon Member but that there should be a codification of the rules on in the end it must be a question tabled by that hon tabling. Do you have a view on that? Do you think Member. It is an irony that you cannot add your there would be advantages or risks involved in name to an EDM electronically but you can table a setting up that kind of system? question on the order paper by that means. Chris Bryant: I think we could clear up the code of conduct for Members just to make it clear that there is an expectation on behalf of the House that all hon Q159 Mr Gale: To take this a stage further, if we say Members have a direct involvement in any questions that there shall be on every question a statement that that are tabled in their name. After all, you would the Member has seen and personally approved the not expect a researcher to stand up in the Chamber question and there is a code which only the Member to ask an oral question. My worry about extensive of Parliament can use—so you cannot give a codification of rules on questions is that there is a researcher your code to use—and it is understood as delicate balancing act between freedom of part of the code of practice that only the Member is information requests and written parliamentary allowed to use that code would you go that far? questions. I am also very hesitant about the Chris Bryant: I think that is what the present system suggestion that there should be a system whereby an presumes, although from the direction of travel of hon Member can say whether he or she is dissatisfied the questions that I heard this afternoon and what with an answer. I believe every opposition Member was said by the earlier witnesses in “clerkese” it is not will always say that about any answer he or she has what we all know is actually happening. I think that ever received because that would be the incentive to if the Committee came up with recommendations do so. I think that in the end politics comes into it. about strong authentication we would not want to Ministers are accountable for the answers that they stand in the way of the House coming to a firm provide and if Members are not happy they have decision on it. In the end it must be a matter for many other ways to express their unhappiness. the House.

Q158 Mr Gale: When the clerks gave evidence Q160 Mr Gale: If you believe that—for the record, I earlier this afternoon they said there was certainly do—do we go to the stage of saying that considerable merit in face-to-face contact with there will be sanctions against a Member who abuses Members who table questions. I would go along that system? We can talk about what those sanctions with that from personal experience. The opportunity are in due course. to take advice and, if necessary, challenge decisions Chris Bryant: I am not so sure about sanctions. If by the Table OYce is immediate and solves problems one writes something into the code of conduct for very fast. As the resident Luddite on this Committee hon Members the moment they break that code it I am therefore not entirely happy with electronic can be reported to the Committee on Standards and tabling at all. I think it diminishes the value of the Privileges which will decide that matter. For that process. You indicated a few moments ago that it matter, at one point I raised the question of how an was acceptable for researchers to have a hand in the hon Member who was in the Big Brother house preparation of questions. No doubt to what extent could have signed up to an EDM whilst he was not Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 35

11 March 2009 Chris Bryant MP at liberty to attend the House. The Speaker The Committee suspended from 4.03 pm to 4.17 pm conducted a short investigation into that. It had all for a division in the House been done before he went into the Big Brother house, but I think that if in those or any other circumstances Q164 Sir Peter Soulsby: I want to ask about the it seems that the hon Member prima facie had eVect on the quality of questions and put to you absolutely no involvement whatsoever then other what the former Principal Clerk said to us. It is not hon Members would be irate about it. just Members who perceive that the quality has deteriorated. We were told that since the rise in the The Committee suspended from 3.47 pm to 4 pm for volume of written questions “answers from some a division in the House departments may be less helpful than they used to be”. Therefore, not just those who receive the Q161 Sir Peter Soulsby: When the then Leader gave answers have the impression that the quality has evidence to the Committee in 2007 he spoke quite declined; those who process them also have that powerfully about the impact on departments who belief. Is that accurate? If so, is it something that is had to answer the increasing volume of questions. happening within the departments, or perhaps is it Obviously, those questions are not evenly spread the nature of the questions? between departments and there is a particular Chris Bryant: I do not think draftsmanship has impact on parts of particular departments. To what become more slapdash and there are more extent do you think departments are geared up inappropriate commas and too many inaccuracies adequately to respond to the number of questions because there are too many questions and not they get and to respond in ways that are meaningful enough staV to draft decent answers. I believe that to the questioner? ministers feel somewhat under the cosh because of Chris Bryant: If we quadrupled the number of staV the number of questions they have to answer. It the pinch point would still be the ministers because stands to reason that if the number of ministers there is a fixed number of them. If 300 questions to remains the same but there are more questions you the local government minister are tabled he has to have to spend more time during the day which still provide answers to them whoever has drafted them has the same number of hours to deal with them than for him or her. Each department has a parliamentary you did in the past. I have never managed to find a clerk and each will have between two and six staV way to evaluate across the House whether or not the working with them. By my reckoning there are 20 quality of questions is improving. What we try to do parliamentary clerks and 56 other dedicated is ensure that answers are timely. The Leader of the parliamentary question staV in departments. House regularly writes to the whole ministerial team However much you increase the number, in the end to say how important that is. I meet parliamentary the problem is ministerial time. clerks to emphasise how important all of this is. We are trying to find whether there are ways to improve Q162 Sir Robert Smith: To reinforce that point, is it the service that ends up going to Members, hence the your impression at least that the pinch point is not discussion you had earlier about the electronic the absence of clerks to deal with it but the fact that parliamentary community. I hope that in the end all of them have to be filtered through the minister? that may be able to deliver a swifter answer. I am Chris Bryant: The number of ministers has not gone conscious of the fact that the PIMS system is not up but the number of questions to certain very good at providing accurate figures and so on. departments and elements within them has increased dramatically. The Department of Health has far Q165 Sir Peter Soulsby: Obviously, the number of more questions than other departments and of late named day questions that Members can ask is now DCLG has had a very large number of questions. limited, but even with its limited availability there is Quite often it is opposition spokespeople who ask a perception that Members get a disproportionate the questions. For instance, on the list of questions number of holding answers as a result. I suppose that last Friday there were 110 ordinary questions tabled in a sense that is related to the point you have just of which 72 came from three Members: Philip been talking about. Do you think there is any way in Hammond, Mark Hoban and Rob Wilson. I have which that can be improved? already referred to the fact that last Thursday there Chris Bryant: There is a diYculty in that sometimes were 163 questions tabled by one Member, Stewart there is a question that is capable of being read in Jackson, of which 138 were to his opposite number perhaps four diVerent ways. Normally, one would in the department. ring up the Member and ask what he or she is trying to get at and find the answer, but that process tends Q163 Sir Peter Soulsby: In that sense it cannot really not to happen because you would end up ringing up be said that it is the volume of questions and the fact hundreds of Members all the time. Questions are there is not a suYcient number of clerks to process designed as a means to provide information to them that prevents departments from giving what is Members and as a way to scrutinise government, but sometimes seen as less than helpful answers? when they are used merely as a party-political tool Chris Bryant: No. What is a satisfactory or politicians become nervous about how to answer unsatisfactory answer is a moot point. I know of questions. I think that that may end up being questions which, if the Member had gone to see the reflected in the quality of the answer. But the Table OYce, would probably have been tabled in a ministerial code is clear about how helpful ministers more readily understandable way. should be. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 36 Procedure Committee: Evidence

11 March 2009 Chris Bryant MP

Q166 Mr Gale: Some ministers are extremely good temporary diYculty, but if there are longer-term and bust a gut to provide the answer. If it is a issues the Leader of the House will speak to the straightforward question that warrants a secretary of state. straightforward answer you get it. Other departments and ministers seem to have the Q169 Mrs James: I go back to questions I asked absolutely standard practice of saying, “I will reply earlier about late answers to questions. Would you to the hon gentleman as soon as possible”, and that welcome a sessional assessment of departmental is all a Member gets within the two days. A week or performance to ensure questions were answered 10 days later you get a substantive answer. I just promptly? What do you think would be the impact wonder whether you can look at custom and practice of such a document? within departments, because it seem to be the culture Chris Bryant: We pretty much do that now. There is in some departments to say that is what they do with just one diYculty which I think the EPC system will questions irrespective of their quality or detail. ease for us. PIMS is not very accurate. For example, Chris Bryant: There may be cases where that is true, PIMS came up with a number for the questions though it is a simple fact that some departments have before Prorogation that lapsed which was much many more questions per minister; in particular, larger than the figure I believe to be accurate. I am some parts of departments have many more slightly hesitant about the figures. Whether or not a multiples of questions per ministers than others. I question has been answered is not readily end up answering five or 10 a week, whereas others identifiable through PIMS. will answer more than that per day. I think that produces a diVerent mindset. I am always happy to Q170 Mrs James: Are you confident that the quality follow up. Quite a few hon Members have come to of answers would be maintained if the speed of reply me. Somebody asked whether there should be an became a department’s priority? adjudication system. I think that, broadly speaking, Chris Bryant: The concern of a minister is whether it it is the oYce of the Leader of the House. It is our job answers the question and is accurate, whether it tells to make sure that ministers give faithful, honest and not just the truth but the whole truth and nothing appropriate answers and that anything that needs to but the truth and whether in any sense it could be be chased up can be chased up. The most recent misleading because it points in a wrong direction. example I had involved Bernard Jenkin. It was There was one question that I answered inaccurately slightly complicated because the information was and had to be corrected. Often ministers are entirely not held by the Department for Health but by the reliant on the facts that are put in front of them by local ambulance trust. Understandably, the Member their civil servants. felt that if he could issue an FOI request to the ambulance trust the Department of Health could get Q171 John Hemming: I think it is known that I am the information for him even though there is an concerned about the issue of unsatisfactory answers. arm’s length between the two. In the end we Generally this means the occasions when people do managed to sort out the information for him. I think not answer the question. I did a round robin test of that is the kind of role that the oYce of the Leader diVerent departments by asking them about red of the House should play. boxes. In itself it was a relatively trivial question, but it identified that some departments answered the Q167 Chairman: You will know that the House of question and others avoided it. When you compare Lords regularly publishes a list of those questions and contrast that with freedom of information there that have not been answered. Although I do not is an appeals process under that mechanism but no formal appeals process for written parliamentary think we would want to implement an identical questions. If you really want to get an answer and practice because of the volume of questions in the people will try to resist it the trick is to ask a written Commons, if we considered some sort of parliamentary question and a freedom of publication, maybe on a quarterly basis, would you information question. If the WPQ does not provide welcome it? the information you can take the freedom of Chris Bryant: I am agnostic about it. If hon information through the appeals process which is Members think it would be helpful it might be subject to deadlines and timing. What would you possible to do it, perhaps not in written form but regard as an unsatisfactory answer to a question? online. Chris Bryant: To make the position clear in relation to freedom of information, if the department has the Q168 Chairman: Why not in written form? information and it knows that it will have to give it Chris Bryant: Only because of the volume of under a FOI request it should give it in a paperwork that we already publish. The House parliamentary answer—full stop. publishes a great deal of paperwork. That might lead to some Luddism, without meaning it in a pejorative Q172 John Hemming: But they do not. sense. I am not entirely sure what the real value Chris Bryant: They should. would be. Ministers know the position. We monitor pretty closely each department to see where there are Q173 John Hemming: How do you make them do it? real problems. If there are lots of questions on Africa Chris Bryant: But there is a diVerence between that in a particular week and the responsible minister is and the situation where they do not hold it but other not able to answer those questions there may be a agencies do. I have written FOI requests to my local Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:39 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 37

11 March 2009 Chris Bryant MP police force since I have been a minister to find out conduct from which I shall be able to provide a statistics, facts and figures and so on, so I am quite complete and adequate answer in a timely fashion, conscious that there is a sharp distinction. I am but I do not think I am in that position. I will just closer to being atheistic than agnostic on the issue of have to busk it by giving my understanding of the having an adjudication process to decide whether or position. If I am incorrect I shall write to you. My not a question has been adequately answered. I think understanding is that there is an expectation written that in the end ministers and the government are into the code. The ministerial code refers to “all accountable to the electorate when it comes to a dealings with Parliament”, so it does not general election. diVerentiate between one form of dealing and another. If you are asked a question in the House in the middle of a debate you should be helpful, honest Q174 John Hemming: You are quite happy to have a and accurate, just as you should be in answering a system where if you are a citizen you can appeal written parliamentary question. through freedom of information for a failure to answer a question but basically if they do not answer a written parliamentary question that is just tough? Q177 John Hemming: How do you enforce that? Chris Bryant: An MP also has the same right as a Chris Bryant: There is an assumption that we are all member of the public. On top of that, the MP has the honest. I think that in politics that is a good premise opportunity orally to question a minister in the from which to start. As to whether or not ministers Chamber and try to get an adjournment debate on have been adequate, enforcement is through the an individual issue. I have already answered three electoral system, that is, the ballot box. adjournment debates on parliamentary matters to do with correspondence with ministers, questions Q178 John Hemming: In essence, you are saying that and so on. if departments through their ministers refuse to answer written questions it is up to the electorate to Q175 John Hemming: You say you can try to get an chuck them out at the next election? adjournment debate but you do not necessarily get Chris Bryant: If a minister has misled the House it. You can try to raise business questions and there either in a written question or in any other way— is a higher probability that you will be called. But you feel that it is entirely reasonable to have a system Q179 John Hemming: I am not talking about of government where the powers of members of the misleading the House but just not answering legislature to obtain factual information from the questions. Refusing to answer a question is not executive are weaker than those of an ordinary misleading; it is just saying, “I am not going to tell citizen? you.” Chris Bryant: They are not weaker because they Chris Bryant: I look through the answer book every have exactly the same powers as an ordinary citizen. day. An awful lot of answers are provided. I know On top of that they can exercise a series of other that we are focusing on those areas where Members powers. What I am hesitant about is that even if that are not satisfied with the answers they have received is not the best of all possible worlds I do not see how and that sometimes a question is worded in a way you can create a better one because I am not sure that seeks to trip up a minister rather than what adjudication system you have. Even if you had necessarily to elucidate the world. In those moments a system whereby a Member could say he was when ministers catch a whiV of politics in the air the unhappy with a previous answer and therefore he temptation is to answer with politics. would ask another question the enticement would be for every single question should end up becoming that kind of question. I do not think that would Q180 John Hemming: To take the example of tax provide greater truth for Members. credits, if people’s annual returns are lost in the post they have to pay back all of those tax credits. Your boss accepted at business questions that that is the Q176 Chairman: You made a very interesting case, but the department steadfastly refused to give statement a moment ago on which we would all any indication about how many people are aVected agree. You said that if ministers held the information by it or how much the government saved by asking they should always give the same information in people to repay money merely because their annual answer to a question as they would to a freedom of returns were lost in the post. That is the sort of information request. I think there is evidence that scrutiny of the executive that a written or oral that is not happening. The ministerial guidance or question is in place to achieve. Yet the failure to have code refers to the key elements in a minister’s job of any system of appeals means that basically openness and accountability. I think that it refers to Parliament is powerless compared with the debate but not written questions. Do you think there executive. is a case for putting this beyond doubt by having a Chris Bryant: But I am not sure to whom you would reference to written questions and saying that appeal. Do you appeal to the Speaker, in which case ministers should always give whatever information you put him in a completely invidious position? is in their possession? John Hemming: You appeal to a departmental Select Chris Bryant: I have a desperate hope that I am Committee. You can do that now but codifying it about to be handed a copy of the ministerial code of has merit. You can say that the first step is a pursuant Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:40 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 38 Procedure Committee: Evidence

11 March 2009 Chris Bryant MP question to say you do not like the absence of an Chris Bryant: I must write to the hon Member on answer; the second step is to go to the departmental that one; I do not know the answer. As I said earlier, Select Committee. You can do all of this at the when round robins appear there will be an attempt moment. There is merit in saying: why not do this? made to provide a co-ordinated response so that it When you have a point of order the Speaker allows looks a bit more joined up. you to ask the question again, which is futile. It is really a matter of having a system that guides you Q184 Sir Peter Soulsby: It is quite important to potentially towards an adjournment debate. That is understand whether there is clear guidance on what delivered on the basis of a select committee will be blocked, whether it is applied fairly and considering that a particular question has not been whether there is widespread understanding amongst suYciently answered and there should be an Members as to what the categories of questions are likely to be blocked. adjournment debate on it. Chris Bryant: It is a fairly limited category. As to disproportionate cost, there is a very clear Q181 Chairman: If we can provide you with understanding of it; it is now £750. The way that is examples of where ministers have given away less in worked out is pretty clear. That guidance is sent answer to a parliamentary question than they have round to all parliamentary clerks whenever we in answer to a FIO request would you be prepared change it. to write to them pointing out that they are not really Q185 Mr Gale: The Committee understands that following the spirit of the ministerial guidance? there is a government proposal for creating a co- Chris Bryant: It would be helpful to see instances. ordinated electronic system for handling written Quite often I hear people talk of instances and then parliamentary questions and answers across I never see them. We knew when the Freedom of departments so that they are co-ordinated with the Information Act came into force that it would pose a Table OYce. Can you shed any light on how much challenge to the relationship between that legislation progress has been made on that? and parliamentary questions and, for that matter, Chris Bryant: Some. correspondence with MPs and the public, so it is important to get this right. Q186 Mr Gale: That is not a full parliamentary answer. Chris Bryant: No, but I knew you would ask a Q182 Ms Clark: What guidance is available to supplementary because you would not be satisfied departments on answering questions, for instance on with it. The truth is that we are building towards timeliness, content and how questions should be having a full business case. We want to do it. We have handled? Would it be possible for the government to been consulting each department and the House publish that guidance? authorities to see how it would be most eVective, but Chris Bryant: We do several things. First, the Leader in essence we want to make sure that we save money, of the House regularly writes to ministers to impress are able to provide a more eYcient service and that on them what the rules are and how they should the end result for individual Members is more answer questions. I think that on each occasion we eVective, but at the moment we have not finalised the have done it we have placed that in the Library of the business case for it. House. Similarly, before Prorogation last year either I or the Leader of the House—it was one or other of Q187 Mr Gale: Do you have any sort of timescale us—wrote to ministers again. We said it was in mind? important that they did not use Prorogation just as Chris Bryant: No, because we have not finished the business case. a means of letting questions fall oV the Order Paper. I do have one question. An ordinary member of the Q188 Chairman: Minister, thank you for your time. public would not understand why a question is put I am sorry it has been a long day due to divisions in on the Order Paper and disappears at Prorogation. the House, but we appreciate hearing your views on We understand about parliamentary sessions and all issues which very much touch the heart of our the rest of it, but I just wonder whether there is a report. When we come to make a decision in due more rational system we can develop to deal with course you will have helped us to arrive at a position that. On top of that, I meet parliamentary clerks— which we hope will be more enlightened than it I have met them once and will meet them again—to would have been without your contribution. make sure they have a real understanding of how Chris Bryant: I am not quite happy with that answer. important questions are to Members and that the People have raised the issue of timeliness of ministerial code itself is pretty clear. ministers’ answers, and it would be quite nice to have a timely report. Chairman: We have been waylaid in our Q183 Sir Peter Soulsby: Does the guidance include deliberations, but I can assure you that it is now the a description of what categories of questions will be second item on our agenda after looking at the automatically blocked? Is there clear guidance on interleaving of Bills which I believe you asked us to that? do. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:40 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 39

Memorandum submitted by Chris Bryant MP, Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Session 2008–09, P 61)

Written Answers I wanted to follow up a few points I made when I gave evidence to the Committee on 11 March.

1. Earlier cut-oV for e-tabled questions (QQ 49 & 50) You asked me about the possibility of introducing an earlier cut-oV for e-tabled questions so that questions received after the moment of interruption (or even earlier) would be held over for processing the following day. I am, as I said, very happy to hear the Committee’s recommendations on this point, thought I think it is important that Members who go to the Table OYce in person should still have their questions processed the same day, up to the existing deadline. My answer might have given the impression that questions are sent from the Table OYce to answering departments throughout the day, as they are processed. I understand that this is not the case and that questions are not available to departments until they appear on the blues the day after they are handed in. The Committee will obviously want to take this into account when considering any recommendations in this area.

2. Guidance to Departments and Freedom of Information (QQ 70–83) The Committee asked what guidance is available to departments on answering questions. I attach a copy of the Guidance issued by the Cabinet OYce, which is also published on the Cabinet OYce website. Other answering departments will have their own internal guidance. The Guidance makes it clear that the general duties on Ministers under the Ministerial Code apply equally to all dealings with Parliament. Paragraph 1.2 of the Code states that: (b) Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies; (c) It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to oVer their resignation to the Prime Minister; (d) Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have yet to see an example of a situation in which a department has volunteered more information in response to a Freedom of Information request than in response to a Parliamentary Question. I would of course be willing to consider any speciﬁc instances to which the Committee were able to draw my attention. March 2009

Annex

MINISTERS’ CORRESPONDENCE WITH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT Handling correspondence from Members of Parliament: Guidance on drafting answers to parliamentary questions This guidance gives a list of points to be aware of when drafting answers to parliamentary questions. 1. Never forget Ministers’ obligations to Parliament which are set out in the Ministerial Code. “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to oVer their resignation to the Prime Minister. Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest.” 2. It is a civil servant’s responsibility to Ministers to help them fulﬁl those obligations. It is the Minister’s right and responsibility to decide how to do so. Ministers want to explain and present Government policy and actions in a positive light. Ministers will rightly expect a draft answer that does full justice to the Government’s position. 3. Approach every question predisposed to give relevant information fully, as concisely as possible and in accordance with guidance on disproportionate cost. If there appears to be a conﬂict between the requirement to be as open as possible and the requirement to protect information whose disclosure would not be in the public interest, you should consult your FOI liaison oYcer if necessary. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:40:40 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG3

Ev 40 Procedure Committee: Evidence

4. Where information is being refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost, there should be a presumption that any of the requested information which is readily available should be provided. 5. Do not omit information sought merely because disclosure could lead to political embarrassment or administrative inconvenience. 6. Where there is a particularly ﬁne balance between openness and non-disclosure, and when the draft answer takes the latter course, this should be explicitly drawn to the Minister’s attention. Similarly, if it is proposed to reveal information of a sort which is not normally disclosed, this should be explicitly drawn to Ministers’ attention. The Minister should also be advised of any relevant FOI cases which are under consideration which could impact on the way the PQ should be answered. 7. If you conclude that material information must be withheld and the PQ cannot be fully answered as a result, draft an answer which makes this clear and explains the reasons, such as disproportionate cost or the information not being available, or explains in terms similar to those in the Freedom of Information Act (without resorting to explicit reference to the Act itself or to section numbers) the reason for the refusal. For example, “The release of this information would prejudice commercial interests”. Take care to avoid draft answers which are literally true but likely to give rise to misleading inferences. 8. Where an MP/Peer tables a question and has also submitted a separate request to the department under FOI, it is reasonable to reply in terms that the issue is currently under consideration. Once a decision has been reached, the MP/Peer should be informed of the answer and a copy of the letter placed in the Libraries of the House. Consideration should also be given to a written ministerial statement in both Houses. 9. Where a decision on an FOI case results in a change of policy and that information which was previously withheld is now being released, consideration should be given to informing both Houses, for example, through written ministerial statement. 10. PQs should be answered within the normal deadlines. In the House of Commons, a Named Day question should receive a substantive response on the day named and an Ordinary Written question should receive a substantive response within a working week of it being tabled. In the House of Lords, questions for Written Answer are expected to be answered within 14 days. Consideration of a parallel FOI request is not a reason to delay an answer to a Parliamentary Question. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 41 Written evidence

Memorandum submitted by Derek Wyatt MP (Session 2006–07, P 7) 1. It is boring that we passed the Electronic Signature Act in 2002 but still we cannot sign EDMs electronically. Why not? 2. MPs should be restricted to six named day and six anyday within reason Questions a day. MPs just use their researchers to ﬁle 50 or more Questions a week as though you cannot ﬁnd this information out either by asking the Library or using the Freedom of Information Act. 3. Sadly too many Answers are anodyne—that’s how the Researchers in Government Departments are taught (based on the principle of the “Admit Nothing Protocol”) February 2007

Memorandum submitted by Hansard Society (Session 2006–07, P 18)

1. Introduction The Hansard Society, an independent, non-partisan organisation, works to promote eVective parliamentary democracy and provides a forum for views and discussion on parliamentary reform. We welcome the Procedure Committee’s decision to conduct an inquiry into the arrangements concerning Written Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and are very pleased to be able to contribute to it.

2. The Importance of Written PQs Written PQs provide one of the key means by which Members of Parliament can scrutinise the actions of the Government. As the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny (The Newton Commission) noted in 2001, they allow Members to “obtain information which they may use as the basis for a campaign, for further inquiries, or for exposing errors or inconsistencies in the actions of the executive.”3 Despite their importance, Written PQs can be subject to abuse by both members of the executive and parliamentarians. Any reforms to the current system should endeavour to curtail such abuse, which diminishes parliamentary and governmental accountability. The eVectiveness of Written PQs is dependent upon both the quality of departmental replies and the Questions themselves.

3. The Quality of the Written PQs It is essential that the quality of the written PQs is high; that they are genuine and responsible and not motivated solely by self-promotion or political point-scoring. While conducting research for a 12-month study on ﬁrst-time MPs,4 the Hansard Society found that tabling written PQs is an easy and eVective way for MPs to improve their “ratings” on websites such as theyworkforyou.com. There is little doubt that the majority of new MPs (as well as a signiﬁcant number of their longer-serving colleagues) monitor their ratings on such sites. They are aware that any “poor” ratings will be pounced upon by political opponents and the media and used against them at the next election. The Hansard Society believes this to be one reason behind the recent rise in Written PQs. Yet PQs tabled simply in an eVort to improve ratings are more likely to be of a poor and/or frivolous quality.

4. The Quality of Departmental Replies It is equally vital that government departments endeavour to provide as full information as possible in their replies to written PQs. In recent years the quality of government replies has been strongly criticised by the report of the Scott Inquiry5 and the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC), the latter which expressed concern over the preponderance of “blocked questions” and “holding answers.”6 The Newton Commission recommended that “in cases where the Government does not produce a response to a Written PQ, the reasons for not answering must be made clearer.”7 Relatively low numbers of PQs are rejected by

3 The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable (2001), Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny, chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree (London: Vacher Dod), Para 4.24. 4 Gemma Rosenblatt (2006), A Year in the Life: From member of public to Member of Parliament (London: Hansard Society). 5 Report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions, chaired by Lord Scott (1996). 6 Public Administration Committee (1997–98), Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions, HC 820, Para 1. 7 The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable, Para 4.46. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 42 Procedure Committee: Evidence

ministers outright,8 but a common criticism made by MPs is that replies to PQs tend to be designed to minimised the opportunity for careful scrutiny. Answers tend to be brief, curt and limited to a narrow interpretation of the information being requested. Thus another explanation for the high number of Written PQs is that MPs will often have to table a series of questions, each time carefully reﬁning the way in which the question is phrased and constructed, in order to receive a reply that provides even a glimpse of the information being sought.

5. Dealing with Inadequate Replies Since July 2002, MPs who receive unsatisfactory answers to Written PQs have been able to refer them to the Chair of the PASC who will, where appropriate, take up the issue with the department concerned. Although this procedure provides an extra dimension to parliamentary pressure and can on occasions result in more informative answers or an explanation as to why information is not being released, it does little to alter the basic fact that there is not much Parliament can do when faced with executive obstruction. Research by the PASC on the 2001–05 Parliament demonstrated that ministers have repeatedly refused to answer questions on topics related to public interest on matters such as GM crops, Railtrack, the Millennium Dome, and Heathrow Airport; it is for this reason that it has called for the introduction of an independent monitor who could investigate refusals to answer PQs to verify that the public, rather than political, interest had been paramount in the decision to withhold the requested information.9 This mechanism, if implemented, would strengthen Parliament’s ability to deal with and rectify inadequate replies.

6. Written PQs and the Freedom of Information Act In recent years the presumption has changed signiﬁcantly in favour of greater openness as a result of the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). However, this has also led to a divergence of accessibility between the public and MPs. Annual monitoring reports published by the Department for Constitutional AVairs suggest that parliamentarians are increasingly using direct departmental requests for information rather than tabling PQs.10 This increased use of direct requests to departments is largely due to a perception amongst some Members that PQs are not treated with suYcient priority by ministers and departments, and that parliamentarians are actually in a weaker position than members of the public when it comes to asking questions. A 2005 Hansard Society report on parliamentary modernisation11 called on Parliament to ensure that its Members get fair treatment under the FOI. At a minimum the resolution of March 1997, which linked ministerial answers to PQs with the Code of Access to OYcial Information, should be replaced with an updated version that includes the presumption that the provisions of the FOI should now form the benchmark for ministerial answers.

7. Conclusion The Hansard Society is about to undertake a study on the role of MPs and will consider their role in seeking accountability from government. The Procedure Committee’s inquiry into Written PQs is concerned with an important aspect of the scrutiny functions of MPs and this is an area that our study will consider in due course. January 2007

Memorandum submitted by Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Session 2006–07, P 44) I understand that the Committee is now looking into Written Parliamentary Questions and how they are answered. Can I suggest that one area you might consider should be the format in which answers are provided? Currently, Government departments send out letters to Members with their responses, which arrive in the oYce the day after the answer date. Given that we can now e-mail questions to the Table OYce immediately, might it not be appropriate for departments to begin to answer questions in a similar fashion so that they might be received more quickly? I hope you will take this into consideration during the inquiry. February 2007

8 The ﬁgure has remained around 3% for the past decade. See Alex Brazier, Matthew Flinders and Declan McHugh (2005), New Politics, New Parliament? A review of parliamentary modernisation since 1997 (London: Hansard Society), pp 52–53. 9 Public Administration Committee (2003–04), Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions, HC 355, Para 13. 10 ibid, Para 6. 11 Alex Brazier, Matthew Flinders and Declan McHugh (2005), New Politics, New Parliament? A review of parliamentary modernisation since 1997 (London: Hansard Society). Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 43

Memorandum submitted by David Natzler, Principal Clerk, Table OYce (Session 2006–07 P 41) In February 2007 the Committee was provided with a memorandum and statistics on Written Questions (P19) published on the Internet. This is reproduced below incorporating supplementary points arising from experience over the past 12 months, together with updated ﬁgures.

A. Tabling Questions:Rules and Practices

Origin and Purpose of Rules 1. The tabling of a Written Question constitutes a formal notice. Written Questions form part of each day’s formal proceedings in the House and the text of a tabled Question is a parliamentary proceeding for the purposes of privilege. Rules on their content and form are therefore necessary in order to protect the integrity of the Order Paper. The Table OYce, acting under the Speaker’s authority, enforces the rules but is also there to assist Members in getting orderly Questions put down. It deals in conﬁdence with individual Members, with the prime objective of ﬁnding a way in which an orderly Question can be tabled which may in turn procure an Answer as sought by the Member. 2. Written Questions are only one of a number of means by which an individual Member can hold the Government to account. Members may see the tabling of a Question as an end in itself, and a means of making a point to a Minister. But the fundamental purpose of a Question is presumably to elicit a useful Answer, and many of the rules are designed to ensure that outcome. Members may therefore sometimes be frustrated in their desire to use Questions, where other avenues of parliamentary activity or research may be more fruitful. Questions are not an appropriate vehicle for the expression of views or the publication of information, nor for engaging Ministers in debate.

Current Rules 3. The rules on the form and content of Questions are set out in Erskine May, 23rd edition, pp 344–353. They were endorsed by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions in its 1972 Report, which also emphasised that the cumulative eVect of precedent should not be unduly restrictive. In May 1991 the Procedure Committee’s Report on Parliamentary Questions included an examination of rules and practices. In broad terms the Committee again endorsed the basic rules that a Question should: — seek (rather than oVer) information or ask for action; — relate to a matter for which a Minister is responsible; and — not be fully covered by an answer (or a refusal to answer) given in the same Session. It also restated and endorsed Mr Speaker’s power to authorise such changes of Table OYce practice submitted to him as he considered to be consistent with the main rules for Questions. Following the Committee’s further Report of May 1993, the House agreed on 4 November 1993 to several relatively minor changes in the rules, the principal ones being— (b) to allow, subject to the pattern of Ministerial answers, Questions on discussions between departments; (c) to allow Questions about the internal aVairs of other countries in the light of the Government’s stated foreign policy and international obligations; (d) to allow Questions on public statements made outside Parliament by Ministers in an oYcial capacity; (e) to allow Questions seeking information on the eVects of proposed legislation; (f) to allow Questions seeking information for any deﬁned time period in the past 30 years; and (g) to rely solely on replies of the current Session in deciding the admissibility of a Question on the grounds of previous Ministerial answering practice. None of these changes has caused any known problems. 4. In 2002 the Procedure Committee recorded that it had received no evidence to suggest that opinion in the House on the general rules governing the content of questions had changed materially since the 1991 Report.

Codiﬁcation of rules 5. The rules as set out in Erskine May are not always easy to interpret. Some past decisions and interpretations of the Chair recorded are arcane and deal with issues now of little obvious relevance. Consideration has been given to codifying the rules. It has also been suggested that the OYce construct guidelines for admissible Questions. While these proposals sound attractive, their eVect might well be to import a rigidity into the system which would not beneﬁt Members. Guidelines might also encourage mass production of templated Questions. Furthermore, the nature of disorderly Questions varies over time, and Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 44 Procedure Committee: Evidence

rules which seem useful at one moment may fail to address a novel or reinvented formulation at the next. However, a ﬁrst draft of a codiﬁcation of the current rules is attached as an Annex, should the Committee wish that option to be pursued.

Tabling practice

6. It is evidently most satisfactory if Members table Questions in person; it is for that reason that the OYce occupies space—albeit cramped space—close to the Chamber. The generally small changes necessary to make a Question admissible can then be sorted out face-to-face in dialogue, usually very quickly. Where Questions are handed in by staV or delivered by mail or e-tabled, the OYce can only engage in minor sub- editing before resorting to discussion with the Member concerned. Where personal tabling is not practicable for a Member, attaching the basis for a Question, such as an extract from an oYcial document or relevant oYcial correspondence, can be helpful. Direct discussion with a Member remains the most eVective way of doing business, and in the long run saves Members’ time. 7. When a Question raises problems of orderliness, a card is put on the Letterboard inviting a Member to “call at the Table OYce”. Around 10–15% of Written Questions submitted are “carded”; this includes a number where some of a text is tabled, and only inadmissible parts held back. The OYce can discuss the text of a Question with a Member either over the telephone or in person, but not via e-mail, since the correspondent’s identity is not validated. (a) A growing number of Members request the OYce to have electronic notiﬁcation of their “cards” rather than a card being placed on the Letterboard.

E-tabling: System

8. Electronic tabling of Questions was introduced following examination of the idea by the Procedure Committee in its June 2002 Report and the House decision to approve that Report in October 2002. It has proved a technical success, in that the system is accessible via the PDVN using a password and is easy to use. It has suVered few technical problems, and so far as known has proved secure. Questions are printed out in hard copy, and processed by Table OYce Clerks in the same way as all other Questions received. From the OYce’s point of view, e-tabled Questions have the advantage of being easily legible, with the Member’s name and the Minister to whom they are addressed being in the correct format, and in having one Question per page. 9. The facility has proved increasingly popular with Members and their staV. Over half of all tabling Members are registered to e-table, and between 35 and 40 % of all Questions are now e-tabled. There is no reason to believe that most e-tabled Questions come other than directly from the Member concerned or have the Member’s explicit or implicit authorisation.

E-tabling: Member authorisation

10. The downside is that the ease of remote tabling has tended to further diminish the direct involvement of Members in the process of asking parliamentary Questions. This is of course not a new issue. In earlier years it was alleged that some Members staV had access to pre-signed pads of blank Question forms. In any event, mere signature is not a proof of a Member having read the Question. Some Members authorise a bundle of unsigned Questions by bringing them personally to the OYce and leaving them for examination. But e-tabling may have made it easier for Members to delegate the submission of Questions. 11. The OYce rarely has incontrovertible evidence that an e-tabled Question has not been authorised by a Member. Even if the Member is known to be otherwise engaged at the time of receipt, including speaking in the Chamber, it may be that it was authorised in advance and that the Member’s staV are acting on an instruction to send it in. But the OYce has the impression that Members may on occasions countenance the tabling of Questions in their name of whose content they have little or no knowledge, since when asked to come in to discuss Questions about which there is a problem it is evident that they are seeing them for the ﬁrst time. On other occasions the content is such that it is hard to believe that it could have been seen and approved by a Member. This is not unique to e-tabled Questions. 12. Part of the diYculty may lie in the absence of a clear indication of the minimum level of authorisation which the House regards as required for a Question to be tabled in a Member’s name: and as to the acceptability of allowing staV to use a Member’s password for e-tabling. It might be helpful if the Committee were to provide such an unambiguous indication, in a form which could be conveyed in writing to Members when signing up for e-tabling. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 45

B. Volume Increase

Figures 13. The various statistics collected by the OYce and accessible from PIMS analysis all tell broadly the same story,of a steady average in FY 2002–03, 2003–04 and 2004–05 of around 350 Written Questions tabled per sitting day, rising sharply from June 2005 to an average of around 470 for FY 2005–06—a rise of around 35%. Over the past 12 months this new level has been broadly maintained, with some daily peaks of well over 600. The FY 2006–07 figure is likely to be around 450 or 460. Within that daily figure the share of Named Day Questions has risen slightly but not significantly.Attached are basic figures for the recent period. Further details can be provided if desired. (a) The final figure for the daily sitting day average of Written Questions tabled in FY 2006–07 was 435, following a perceptible dip in March 2007. The comparable FY 2007–08 figure was 424, with a peak in November 2007 of 629 per day. Annual figures do not include carded Questions, which are often he most labour-intensive for the OYce.

Reasons for increase 14. The Table OYce cannot give a definitive answer on the reasons for the recent increase in the volume of written Questions. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that a busy day now generally produces the equivalent of no more than around one written Question for each non-Ministerial Member of the House. But in practice relatively few Members are responsible for a relatively high proportion of the Questions. In session 2005–06 the 20 most prolific tablers were responsible for 26% of all Written Questions tabled. In the current session to date the proportion of the total number of Questions attributable to the top 20 is 31%. 15. The big increase in volume was associated with the start of the 2005 Parliament. This is to a degree reflected in other parliamentary activity indicators. Putting down a Written Question is relatively straightforward, compared to some other parliamentary activities. As a Parliament develops, Members may find other and better ways of pursuing matters of concern. Volumes are now flattening out, albeit settling at a substantially higher level than in the equivalent period in the 2001 Parliament. 16. There has been a steady rise in the numbers of Members’ staV, who may see generation of Questions as one of their functions. Combined with the introduction of e-tabling, dealt with above, that has no doubt contributed to the steady increase in volumes. 17. There is circumstantial or anecdotal evidence to suggest that a few Members may have tabled, or directed their staV to table, a lot of Questions in order to improve their rankings on the theyworkforyou website. In late 2005 and early 2006 there was mass tabling activity probably intended to improve ranking on the website. It involved Members who had hitherto asked few questions, often asking “round-robin” questions. The website itself records “hearing from real [sic] MPs researchers who have admitted to tabling questions to increase their boss’s rankings”. In response to negative publicity about its impact, the site has recently ended its crude ranking system. It is hard to judge if this has had any eVect, or indeed if the fact of its change has been widely noticed. 18. Finally, there is extensive use of Questions tabled in large numbers by some OYcial Opposition and Liberal Democrat front benchers on the subjects within their front bench portfolio. (a) The number of so-called “round-robins”, identical Questions addressed to all departments, seems to be growing. It is hard for the OYce to judge their eYcacy in any objective way.

Member engagement 19. One test of the extent to which Members are still personally and intimately engaged with the process of tabling Written Questions is the extent to which they respond to the cards sent to them to ask them to call the OYce where a Question has had to be held back. Some do not respond to cards at all, and the rejected Questions are stored until the end of the Session. Some respond by asking for the texts to be sent back to them. Others visit the OYce to discuss how, if at all, the Question can be rendered orderly.

Consequences 20. The OYce is responsible for the acceptance of written Questions: their editing, sub-editing and sorting: the preparation of text for printing by the staV of the OYce of the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote: and for corrections and recording transfers and withdrawals. Responsibility for printing Answers rests with the OYcial Report, and for indexing them as part of the PIMS system with the IDMS section in the Library. The Committee may wish to seek an indication from them of the impact of the increase in volumes of answers. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 46 Procedure Committee: Evidence

21. At the start of 2002 the Table OYce was allocated a ﬁfth Clerk to cope with the increase in 2001–02. In October 2006, a sixth Clerk was added. The continuing need for the most recently added post will be reviewed later in the year in the light of experience. (a) The sixth post has been retained and has proved necessary over the past 12 months. 22. Even with these additional staV, and revised rostering hours, Table OYce Clerks have at times had to work overtime hours after the rising of the House, including on some occasions beyond midnight on Mondays and Tuesdays, in large measure to cope with the occasional late burst of e-tabled questions coming in. The workload aVects the ability of Table OYce Clerks to do their job as eVectively as would be ideal, giving rise to the risk of uneven application and interpretation of the rules. The pressures work through the system and also aVect the OYce of the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote. 23. The staYng impact of increased volumes could be reduced by work-smoothing, leading to reduced overtime and stress. It would be of assistance if the House, on a recommendation from the Committee, were to agree that Questions tabled relatively late in the day might in some circumstances not be dealt with until the next morning. This would not signiﬁcantly aVect the speed with which they were answered. Named Day Questions would always be dealt with if submitted before the current deadline set out in Standing Order No 22. One option would be to bring forward the cut-oV point on Mondays and Tuesdays to say 8 pm, either generally or for e-tabled Questions, while still guaranteeing that Named Day Questions would be dealt with. Other Questions would be processed so far as time allowed, up until the rising of the House. 24. The main impact of increased volumes is of course on those responsible for answering the additional Questions. The Table OYce has detected some rougher edges in the Question process from overload of some departmental parliamentary branches. Answers from some departments may also be less helpful than they used to be.

C. Named Day/Ordinary Questions

Distinction 25. The current system of Written Questions dates back for just over a century; but the distinction between “named day” Questions and others dates back only to 1971.

Ordinary Written 26. Ordinary Written Questions are put down for answer two days after their date of tabling, largely for reasons of administrative convenience. The morning after tabling, a text appears in the blue section of the Bundle. Departments have their first sight of a Question at this time. In the course of that day, the Table OYce corrects spelling or punctuation errors in the text, and puts right minor infelicities or obscurities. Departments can decide whether a Question needs to be transferred. On the subsequent day the definitive text of the Question appears for the second and last time in the Question Book. It will not then re-appear until it is printed together with an answer in the OYcial Report. 27. The administrative advantages of having ordinary Questions notionally down for answer on such a relatively early day are that: (a) the text of the Question only has to be printed twice in the Questions Book; (b) Ministers able and willing to give a swift answer can do so, rather than being blocked by the rule that an Answer cannot be given earlier than the day for which it is sought; (c) it provides the discipline of a rigorous deadline for the process of correction and transfer. 28. On the other hand, it is plainly not helpful to those seeking to understand the proceedings of the House that several hundred “non-urgent” Questions are put down every day for a notional answering day on which few if any will be answered, and which is an earlier day than that given for possibly more urgent questions. The Government has since 1946 worked to a target of answering ordinary Questions within a working week. 29. The rule against answering a Question before its due date goes back to the time when Questions for written answer on a given day were printed as part of the daily Order Paper, and Members might reasonably be expected to glance through them to see what answers might soon be forthcoming. That is hardly conceivable now, and it is questionable what damage would be done by an answer being made “early”. If the Committee so wished, a scheme can be devised for publishing ordinary Questions which would more closely reflect realities.

Named Day 30. In 1972 the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions recommended the introduction of what were then called Priority Questions. Originally marked W, the letter P was introduced in 1991 and this was in turn changed to the current N for Named day from the start of session 1993–94. The minimum period for answer has since introduction of the system in 1971 been the same as the minimum period of notice for Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 47

oral questions, three days. There has never been any requirement for the Member tabling to demonstrate urgency. Following longstanding concern at what was seen as abuse of “priority” questions, a daily quota of five was recommended by the Procedure Committee and introduced in 2002. 31. Most named day Questions are put down for the earliest possible named day; but some Members make a practice of giving a department an additional few days to answer, so as to increase the probability that the Minister will indeed be able to meet the deadline. 32. The Table OYce does not track the process of answering. Recent Answers suggest that around 70/ 75% of named day Questions are answered on the due day. The OYce does not therefore know how far the introduction in 2002 of a rationed number of named day Questions has increased the proportion of such questions answered on the named day. 33. The 2002 Committee Report [para 75] envisaged consideration of adjustments to the five-a–day quota in the light of experience. The OYce has not encountered any problems with administering the quota. A handful of Members table four or five Questions for named day answer on many sitting days. The September 2006 experiment in recess Questions allowed for a quota of five for each of the named answering days, with no discernible problems. (a) The experiment in September 2006 of tabling recess questions for Answer in the recess was repeated in September 2007 and is now made permanent by Standing Order No 22B. The limit of five a day laid down in the new Order seems to have caused no problems. (b) There have been suggestions that the system established under SO No. 22B should be extended to cover other days. This is primarily a matter for those responsible for answering Questions, since Questions can—and always could—be tabled during recesses even if not answered for some time. The potential for an additional printing day of Questions in late September is being considered, but as matters stand they would still not be due for answer until the House’s return in October. (c) The Committee may wish to consider any special arrangements for Questions tabled for answer in the last few days of the summer before a recess. They are currently put down for answer on the first sitting day back in October. They cannot be answered before that date even if the department has an Answer ready. Answers can be given in the recess to Questions down for days before the adjournment and they are printed in September (see HC Deb, 7 February 2008, c 1120).

D. Answers

General 34. The OYce’s role on Answers is relatively limited. It has never been part of its role to monitor either the timeliness or the substance of Answers. Clerks in the OYce read the Answers in Hansard, so far as time allows, in order to acquire a suYcient grasp of patterns of answering to be able to enforce the rules. They rely primarily on PIMS to discover if a Question has recently been answered. (a) Some Members have expressed interest in the possibility of formal identiﬁcation of those Questions unanswered after a given period of time. This was proposed in the Internal Audit report of October 2007; the proposal was passed on to the Committee, as promised to the Audit Committee. The responsibility for answering Questions lies entirely with departments, and in the absence of any sanction it may be asked what is gained by the House merely listing unanswered questions. It is already possible to interrogate PIMS to establish the information. And of course the Member asking the Question may pursue an Answer, as many do, by a further “chasing” Question. But if the Committee sees advantage in this, it will be possible to devise options for its consideration.

Unsatisfactory answers 35. It is in essence a subjective judgement as to whether an Answer is unsatisfactory. Members can table Questions pursuing Answers with which they are not satisfied and the OYce will of course advise them how best to phrase such follow-up Questions. But it has to be accepted that where a Ministerial Answer has failed to give satisfaction, the chances are not good that a follow-up question, however ingeniously framed, will change matters. Members can be advised to write to the Minister concerned or to seek an adjournment debate or to try and pursue the issue in oral questioning; or to contact the Library Research services if it is a question of seeking information which the Member believes is available in some form. It is also open to a Member to ask a departmental select committee to take up Answers with which a Member is dissatisfied. (a) There have been recent exchanges at Business Questions on departmental practice on answering Written Questions, by reference to material readily available elsewhere—for example, in annual reports from departments or executive agencies—or to material available electronically on the web [OR, 27 March 2008, cols 330-1: 3 April 2008, cols 937–8]. These are matters primarily for the departments that answer. The Answers given do however have a knock-on eVect on the OYce’s practice in handling Questions. For example, Questions are carded where the information is indeed readily available in published departmental annual reports, or where past Answers have confirmed Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 48 Procedure Committee: Evidence

that the information is readily available on websites [see draft Rule 3 in the attached Annex]. The Procedure Committee’s Third Report of 2001–02 urged all Members of the House and their staV to seek information by means of Parliamentary Questions only if alternative sources have been explored and found wanting. “Members must ensure that their staV do not draft PQs as a ﬁrst resort when researching a particular issue.” April 2008

Questions by Financial Year 2002–03 to 2007–08

Scrutiny Unit

PQs per sitting day and 6 month rolling average 700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Apr-05 Apr-06 Apr-07 Dec-02 Dec-03 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04 Aug-05 Aug-06 Aug-07 Ord Written av All ND av All WPQs 6 month rolling average

Mean number of PQs per Sitting Day for Financial Years 2002-03 to 2007-08

Ord Written Nd (Earliest) Nd (Plus 1) Nd (Other) All

Sitting Number Mean Number Mean Number Mean NumberMean Number Mean Days

FY 02-03 153 38,887 254 9,004 59 2,215 14 2,719 18 52,825 345

FY 03-04 156 47,420 304 5,340 34 1,153 7 1,030 7 54,943 352

FY 04-05 151 45,569 302 5,433 36 1,261 8 1,112 7 53,375 353

FY 05-06 130 51,992 400 6,782 52 1,339 10 1,068 8 61,181 471

FY 06-07 146 52,171 357 8,488 58 1,504 10 1,296 9 63,459 435

FY 07-08 150 51,955 346 9,025 60 1,362 9 1,272 8 63,614 424

Source: Table Office Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 49

Annex

Draft Codification of Rules

Responsibility Rule 1 A Question must relate to public aVairs or administration for which the Minister is responsible. Notes: This excludes, for example, — party/individual/constituency member activity; — matters of past history (over 30 years); — interpretation of statute law (a matter for the courts); — individual devolved bodies, regional and local government, and other independent statutory bodies; and — the private and voluntary sectors. Questions are allowed on aspects of nationalised industries and similar bodies (Post OYce, BNFL, Railtrack etc); on local NHS services on which Ministers have answered; and internal aVairs of foreign countries which could “reasonably form the subject of a despatch from the UK diplomatic representatives in that country”. The beneﬁt in all cases of doubt goes to the Member. The OYce takes into account any recent pattern of answering which may reveal detailed knowledge of the work of local bodies, and of internal aVairs in some countries. One particular area which causes diYculties arises from Members wishing to seek a Ministerial comment on, or response to, a report produced by (often reputable) NGO or individuals or the broadcast media. In order to engage responsibility, Members have to identify the relevant issues raised rather then seek a response in general terms.

Basis Rule 2 A Question cannot rely for its factual basis, where the facts are of suYcient moment, merely on unsubstantiated media reports: nor can it be used to seek conﬁrmation or otherwise of a report. This is intended to prevent Questions based on false or damaging suppositions, which may be a means of conveying imputations : such as asking on how many occasions something has happened which would be regarded as opprobrious if it were true, or whether something is the case where there is no reason to believe otherwise. A Question may not be founded on rumours or wishful thinking.

Readily Available Rule 3 A Question is inadmissible if it seeks information readily available to a Member, either self- evidently or as revealed in past answers, or which has been either refused in terms in the current Session, or revealed as unavailable. Members seeking information may well be doing so as much to have it published in Hansard as for the sake of receiving it in an Answer, as a means of giving the facts wider public visibility,whether in a favourable or unfavourable light for the Executive (eg war casualties or ASBO numbers or local Lottery funding). Members are given the beneﬁt of the doubt, as reﬂected in the number of Written Answers which repeat familiar information or references to already published information. A balance clearly has to be struck between expecting Members to pore through complex statistics (or get the Library to do so) and Hansard becoming an abstract of already published statistics.

Sub Judice Rule 4 By Resolution of the House, and subject always to the discretion of the Chair and the right to question Ministerial decisions, a Question is inadmissible which refers to a case in which proceedings are active in UK courts. In practice, this rule rarely has to be applied.

Interrogatory Content, Tone and Form Rule 5 Questions must be readily comprehensible and neutrally phrased; must not convey more information than is required for an Answer: must avoid oVensive or invidious language; must not be hypothetical or contain supplementary questions contingent on the answer to an earlier leg of a question; must not seek to make an argument or advance debate: should not contain an argumentative connection; Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:53 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 50 Procedure Committee: Evidence

must not be so broad or so vague as not to be susceptible to a written parliamentary answer (“essay question”); must not be trivial, vague or meaningless; and must not form part of a “campaign” as deﬁned in practice. This Rule is intended to bring together a number of rulings which have primarily arisen from attempts to import into Questions material which is more appropriate for debate, or tabling as an Early Day Motion.

Memorandum submitted by Joan Miller, Director of Parliamentary Information Computer Technology (PICT) (Session 2006–07, P 37)

AUTHENTICATING THE ELECTRONIC TABLING OF PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Introduction 1. This memorandum contains advice on options for the authentication mechanisms available for the electronic tabling of Parliamentary Questions. It follows from paragraph 96 of the Committee’s First Report of Session 2007–08.

Basics of Authentication 2. When a person interacts with electronic system, it is common for the system to require knowledge of who that person is, in relation to an electronic version of that person’s identity. The person is required to present his or her electronic user identiﬁer, sometimes referred to as a username, and then prove the authenticity of this assertion—through an authentication mechanism. Commonly, there are three main ways for a person to prove that he or she is who they say they are: — By presenting to the system something that only that person could know—eg a password. — By presenting to the system something that only that person could have—eg an assigned token. — By presenting to the system a measurement of a physical characteristic of that person—eg a thumb print reading. 3. These three methods are sometimes known as “factors” of authentication. It is an accepted premise within the IT industry that presenting just one of these authentication factors—such as a password— generally represents a “weak” level of authentication, and that in order to “strengthen” the degree of authentication it is desirable to combine two or more factors. A system requiring strong authentication may therefore demand that an user presents something they know (factor 1), something they have (factor 2) and something that they “are” (factor 3), before allowing access.

Authentication Solutions 4. There are a very large, and growing, number of solutions that provide authentication into IT systems; it is beyond the scope of this document to cover all the techniques used, but this memorandum identiﬁes the more mainstream candidates that are currently available.

Factor 1Authentication—“Something You Know”

Passwords, PINs and answers to secret questions 5. Passwords are the most common means of authenticating access into systems, but PIN numbers and the provision of answers to secret questions are also used. The main weakness is that generally,people choose passwords that may be easy to guess (at least by a computer) and will often write passwords down. However, password authentication can be extremely strong if users are capable of choosing strong passwords, remembering them and have a vested interest in not divulging their passwords to anyone else.

Factor 2Authentication—“Something You Have”

Physical Token 6. Physical tokens come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Some display a periodically changing number that a user has to enter along with their username and password. The number changes according to an algorithm, which is matched within the authentication server so that the server “knows” what number should be displayed on the token at any particular time. By associating the token with the user ID, it is possible to verify that the user is in possession of the correct token. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 51

Software Token

7. This is similar to a physical token, except that the number is generated and displayed using software installed on the user’s device (eg workstation or PDA etc).

Mobile Phone

8. This technique uses mobile-SMS messages to text a one-time authentication string to the user’s mobile phone. In order to authenticate, the user presents username, password and the characters within the authentication string that correspond to a PIN Number that the user has chosen. For example, the authentication system may send the user an SMS message containing the following authentication string: 47572a456f

If the user’s PIN number is 1357, the user enters characters 1, 3, 5 and 7 from the SMS message—ie 4 5 2 4. The system therefore veriﬁes that the person is in possession of his or her mobile phone.

Smart Card

9. Smart cards commonly look similar to credit-cards and are host to information pertaining to the assigned user, usually within a chip-and-pin style device on the card itself. They require that the device through which the user is authenticating has an associated device which can read the information on the card.

Digital Certiﬁcate

10. A digital certiﬁcate is used to bind a user’s identity with a cryptographic encryption key, and is used within a public-key infrastructure to provide authentication, encryption, tamper-protection and non- repudiation with respect to secure message transfers. Typically a digital certiﬁcate is installed either on to the user’s device, or it is hosted on a smart-card or on a USB key.

Factor 3Authentication—“Something You Are”

Biometric authentication devices

11. Biometric devices measure a characteristic of the human body such as ﬁngerprints, patterns within the eye’s retina, facial characteristics, or patterns on the user’s hand, in order to authenticate the user. Naturally, the device through which the user authenticates to the system requires the means to measure these physical characteristics and a system that is able to provide a match between the measurements presented, and the measurements that are associated with a user.

12. Whereas most other forms of authentication require an exact match between the credentials that are presented and those that are associated with the user’s electronic ID, the nature of biometrics requires that a statistically good enough match is made between the biometric data presented and that associated with the user’s ID. Put simply,a password has to be 100% correct whereas a biometric reading has to be close enough. This leads to the situation where a system may incorrectly authenticate a user who shouldn’t have access— known as a false positive, or block access to an user who should be allowed access—a false negative.

Signature Readers

13. Signature readers use an electronic pen with which a user supplies his or her written signature. The signature is subsequently analysed in comparison with a supplied example to determine whether the signature is “correct” or not. This technique can be implemented on a tablet-PC device using software, or by using an external signature-capturing device. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 52 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Considerations with Respect to the E-tabling of Questions

Where are questions to be tabled from? 14. The Committee will need to consider whether the submission of questions is to be allowed from any device, anywhere, or whether e-tabling functionality should be tied to speciﬁc devices.

Compromising the authentication 15. Even the seemingly strongest authentication systems can be compromised given enough time and eVort by a malign influence. This is true for biometrics, where for example, gelatine casts of fingerprints have been used to “spoof” a real finger. 16. Also, any authentication system is susceptible to compromise if individuals have a vested interest in divulging their credentials. This can be achieved simply by telling someone else one’s password, or by lending someone else one’s smartcard or authentication token. 17. Therefore, the adopted authentication mechanism needs to be strong enough to thwart all but the most concerted attack, and also make it very diYcult for an individual deliberately to compromise the mechanism by passing credentials on.

Strategic consideration 18. There is interest within Parliament in extending the use of the new security pass system, which will grant access to physical locations across the Estate, also to allow access into the Parliamentary Network. This would not be achievable in the short term. However, the work being done now to identify a solution for e-tabling should aim to deliver something that at very least, does not conﬂict with the strategic goal.

A possible solution 19. PICT would suggest that a solution could combine biometric access into the application using readily available thumb-print readers (later to be replaced by credentials stored on the security pass), with the document subsequently produced containing a digitised bit-map of the Member’s signature. The rationale behind this suggestion is provide a strong, multi-factor level of authentication into the application to prevent unauthorised access, and for the question document to be tied in a very personal way—ie via the appearance of the signature— to the Member who produced it. June 2007

Memorandum submitted by John Hemming MP (Session 2007–08, P 59) On the issue of written questions not answered. On Monday there was a Statutory Instrument debate with the minister answering questions and then further debate. It struck me that this would be a good tool from which to take a Written Parliamentary Question which a member feels is improperly answered. 1. First you have the WPQ; 2. The minister responds; 3. If that is improperly answered the Member refers it to the departmental select committee secretariat with an explanation in writing as to why the Member thinks it improperly answered; 4. The departmental select committee secretariat give notice to the minister that it is thought improperly answered 5. Who responds again to the Member; 5. The Member can then refer that response (or lack of response) again to the departmental select committee to go on the agenda; 6. The select committee consider the response to that on the agenda and decide whether or not to refer it to a committee established to consider the issue. The member can attend for that item; 7. If the departmental committee think it of suYcient importance then it gets debated at a small committee; That would enable small debates on issues of considerable importance and get ministers to answer questions to avoid the grief. June 2008 Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 53

Memorandum submitted by Rt Hon Alan Williams MP, Chairman, Liaison Committee (Session 2007–08, P 82) Thank you for your letter to me of 15 October on proposed mechanisms for addressing the issue of inadequate answers to written parliamentary questions. The Liaison Committee discussed it at its meeting last week. Members are, of course, free to write to departmental select committees requesting them to pursue a particular issue, whether or not arising out of an answer with which they are dissatisfied, and in the recent past some colleagues have done so. It must then be for the Committee to decide what, if any, action to take. But we are firmly opposed to the mechanism outlined in the second paragraph of your letter, under which departmental select committees would act as a formal postbox for Members dissatisfied with an answer. Members can after all already pursue such matters though oral questions or in debate. We do, however, consider that departmental select committees might benefit from regular comparative information on the timelines of answers given by Ministers in their department, and that this might indeed be an issue committees could pursue in their inquiries into the department’s Annual Report. November 2008

Further supplementary memorandum from the Principal Clerk, Table OYce (Session 2008–09, P 24)

Introduction 1. The Procedure Committee has asked for a further supplementary memorandum from the Table OYce to assist it in its inquiry into Written Parliamentary Questions. In the context of the Committee’s interest in mechanisms which could be introduced to deal with late and unsatisfactory answers to Questions, and in light of the House of Lords practice of publishing, on a daily basis, a list of Questions unanswered after 14 days, we have speciﬁcally been asked: (a) whether it would be possible to publish, at the end of each Session, a list of the questions left unanswered; (b) whether it would be possible to compile, on a sessional or annual basis, an assessment of the performance of diVerent Government departments in answering questions on time; (c) whether it would be possible to compile, on a sessional or annual basis, an assessment of how quickly, on average, departments replied to questions (ie including all questions, not just those which were answered late); and (d) a rough estimate of the extra work that would be required to implement the above options. 2. The original memorandum to the Committee’s inquiry submitted by my predecessor David Natzler explained the Table OYce’s current relatively limited role in relation to Answers12 and dealt with the possibility of formally identifying Questions unanswered after a given period of time. David Natzler also attended an informal meeting of the Committee at which these subjects were discussed. 3. When considering the Lords’ practice of publishing a list of Questions unanswered after 14 days, it is important to bear in mind the great diVerence between the number of Questions for written answer tabled by Members in each House. In Session 2007–08, 6,530 Questions for written answer were tabled in the Lords, compared with 73,357 in the Commons. On 26 January 2009 48 Questions stood on the House of Lords Business paper as having been unanswered after 14 days. A search of the Parliamentary Information Management System (PIMS) on the same day showed 1,179 Questions for written answer tabled by Commons Members between the start of the 2008–09 Session and 12 January 2009 which had not been answered. 4. One consequence of the diVerence in the volume of Questions between the Lords and the Commons is that in the Lords it is possible for staV to compile the daily list from the original material, whereas in relation to Commons Questions it would be necessary to extract all statistical or other information from interrogation of material held on PIMS. The accuracy of any information published purporting to compare the performance of Departments in speed of answering Questions would therefore be dependent on the accuracy and timeliness of entry of material onto the PIMS database. While the database is generally highly reliable, there are occasions when, because of the way in which information is captured, publication of answers is several days after the date of answer. In any recording system it would regularly be the case that Departments would consider that an Answer had been given while the House’s recording system did not show that as having happened.

12 At paragraph 34. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 54 Procedure Committee: Evidence

5. In the House of Lords there is an expectation that Answers will be provided to written Questions within 14 days. In the House of Commons, Questions for answer on a named day are tabled for answer on a specified date which may be at the earliest the day three sitting days after the date of tabling, and ordinary written Questions are nominally tabled for answer no earlier than two sitting days after the date of tabling. While the Government has given an undertaking to seek to provide Answers to ordinary written Questions within one working week,13 there is no requirement on them to do so, and agreement would have to be reached on the time period after which an Answer could be considered to be late. Any system which deemed Answers received later than two or five days after tabling to be late would result in far higher numbers of late Answers being recorded than the figure of 1,179 referred to in paragraph 3 above. 6. The Committee will wish to take into account the fact that Questions for written answer vary enormously in the quantity and complexity of the information they seek, and often the Table OYce as part of its editing process will merge separate but related Questions into a single Question. In addition certain Departments and Government agencies, or sections or units within them, have a much heavier load in respect of answering written Questions than others. In the light of those two factors, it may not be generally accepted that a list ranking Departments by the number of unanswered Questions is a reliable indicator of Departments’ performance. 7. Finally,the Committee may wish to consider the eVect that a system designed to measure Departments’ performance primarily by the measurable yardstick of time taken to answer Questions might have on the quality of Answers, which is understood to be the second main concern of Members. A recording system which provided an incentive to Departments to produce an answer by a certain date might result in less full, accurate or helpful information being provided in Answers by Departments to ensure that they met the date target.

List of Questions Left Unanswered at the end of each Session

8. A list of Questions unanswered at the end of each Session could be produced relatively easily early in the following Session. However it would have to be borne in mind that the fact that a Question has not been answered before prorogation takes place is not necessarily indicative of a failing on the part of a Minister or Department. Where Questions are tabled shortly before prorogation there is no reason to expect Departments to be able to answer more speedily than they would at another time of year, and arguably Members are not greatly inconvenienced in such circumstances: they receive a so-called “prorogation Answer”, stating that it has not proved possible to reply in the time available, and are able to re-table Questions from the ﬁrst day of the succeeding Session. At the end of the 2007–08 Session, in addition, the uncertainty over the precise date of prorogation meant that Departments were prevented from answering Questions which had been legitimately tabled for answer on 27 November 2008, whether for ordinary or named day answer, because the House prorogued on 26 November.

Sessional or Annual Lists of Performance of Different Government Departments (a) in Answering Questions on Time and (b) in Speed of Answering all Questions

9. While PIMS records the date upon which a Question is answered it is not possible at the moment to interrogate the system automatically to produce information on Questions answered “late”, however this is defined, or to calculate the average length of time taken to answer Questions; and even if it were any resulting report would not take into account any of the factors which may result in a Question not receiving an answer for legitimate reasons as this information is not recorded. It may be untimely to contemplate system enhancements ahead of the outcomes of the current review of PIMS’ services and functionality delivery. It would however be possible to include specifications in the next generation of information management systems to enable reporting on late and unanswered questions, provided a clear definition of late answers had been agreed and a means of capturing all the required information had been established. If such information were automatically retrievable through PIMS it would be possible to provide figures on a sessional or calendar year basis, but a substantial staV resource, possibly amounting to a person-week or more, would be required to transform the statistics in a useful format. Without being able to retrieve the basic information from a PIMS search automatically, considerably more staV time would be involved. As noted above, agreement would first have to be reached on the period after which an Answer could be considered to be late. January 2009

13 See, eg, OYcial Report, 22 January 2009, cols 893–4. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 55

Supplementary Note from the Table OYce (Session 2008–09, P 43)

Registration of Dissatisfaction with Answers 1. Responding to Mr Hemming’s Questions (Qs 33–42) as to whether one way of dealing with answers which Members consider unsatisfactory might be for the Member to complete a form indicating that in his or her view the answer given to a question was unsatisfactory and to hand that form into the Table OYce, I promised that we would give further thought to the matter and, if possible, provide a supplementary note. 2. Before recommending the introduction of a procedure for recording answers regarded as unsatisfactory your Committee may wish to consider: — What it would add to Members’ current ability to follow up answers through pursuant questions, business questions or an adjournment debate. — Whether Members should be able to register dissatisfaction with all answers, including blocks. — Whether Members would have to give a reason which Ministers could consider. — Whether a limit should be placed on the number of registrations of dissatisfaction which a Member could make per day and/or per Session. — Whether only the Member who tabled the Question should be able to register dissatisfaction with the answer. 3. If your Committee felt it would be useful to introduce a procedure to allow dissatisfaction with answers to be recorded, one option would be for the registration to lead to a standard pursuant Question, such as: “Pursuant to the hon. Member for X’s registration of dissatisfaction with the Answer given to Question 123456, OYcial Report, column 123, on [subject], [on the grounds that the Answer did not provide all the requested information], if he will reconsider the Answer provided”. 4. Alternatively, the registration, together with the text of the question and answer, could be printed in Hansard and copies of the declaration sent to the relevant department and departmental select committee. If your Committee considered it appropriate, any response from the department could also be printed in Hansard. 5. It is not possible to estimate how many Members might choose to make use of such a procedure. In making any recommendation on the issue therefore your Committee might also wish to recommend that the Speaker should have a power similar to that which the House conveyed on him in relation to e-tabled Questions “to modify or halt the system if it appears it is being abused.” March 2009

Responses from Members regarding inadequate answers to Written Parliamentary Questions (Session 2008–09, P 59)

Email from Rt Hon Mr Greg Knight MP, Chairman, to all Members of Parliament In connection with its continuing inquiry into Written Parliamentary Questions, the Procedure Committee is keen to explore the incidence of objectively inadequate answers to WPQs. We mean by this answers which: — are signiﬁcantly late without good reason, — do not address all or part of the question, — fail to answer on issues which other departments have answered on, — give unjustiﬁed reasons for a refusal to answer, or — refuse to disclose information which is available under a Freedom of Information request. We should be very grateful if any Member who has received answers of these sorts in the last Session (2007–08) could send details to the Procedure Committee by 30 January 2009.

Response from David Taylor MP Please ﬁnd attached examples of written answers to PQs from David Taylor MP which do not answer the questions asked, either wholly or in part:

Defence Training David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the value for money of defence training contracts; and if he will make a statement. [232059] Mr. Bob Ainsworth: MOD lets a large number of contracts across training sites. It undertakes regular value-for-money analysis of contracts as a matter of routine. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 56 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency:Email David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) on the performance of their e-mail inquiry service to the public; and what the DVLA’s target is for responding to inquiries e-mailed by the public. [135359] Dr. Ladyman: Target for responding to inquiries e-mailed by the public is 95 per cent. within three working days.

Local Government:Equal Pay David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the total back pay liability for all expected years is in respect of each local authority that has applied for a capitalisation direction in respect of equal pay; and how much each authority is seeking to have capitalised. [149115] John Healey: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 July 2007, OYcial Report, column 1430W.

Regional Planning and Development:Northamptonshire Mr. Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what plans there are for infrastructure improvements in North Northamptonshire to coincide with the expansion in housing. [148421] Yvette Cooper: The provision of appropriate infrastructure is clearly critical to the eVective delivery of the Sustainable Communities Plan. Since 2004, the Government working with partners in the Northamptonshire area have invested £100 million additional funding through the Growth Area Fund in Northamptonshire. Furthermore the Government have set up an Inter Regional Board dedicated to delivering the coordination of sustainable growth across the Milton Keynes and South Midlands growth area reporting directly to Ministers. OYcials from the Department, the Government OYce for the East Midlands and the Department for Transport are working closely with local partners to develop a package of measures to resolve the particular issues associated with the A14 and the local transport networks in the Wellingborough and Kettering area. I expect further details to emerge from that work towards the end of the year, when we will have a clearer picture on timing and the phasing of development. Work with other agencies on the wider infrastructure issues is also progressing and these matters will be the subject of further consideration at the Examination in Public of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy commencing in October this year. The purpose of the examination will be to test the “soundness” of the plan, which includes the delivery of infrastructure. In addition, from the commencement of the new East Midlands Rail Franchise timetable in December 2008, rail passengers will beneﬁt from a new hourly service between Kettering and London (including Wellingborough), increasing the number of oV peak services on the midland main line to ﬁve trains per hour. It has also been agreed in principle to extend this service to a new station at Corby from December 2008.

Revenue Support Grant Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what consideration her Department has given to the position of local authorities on the revenue support grant ﬂoor under the pooled funding arrangements to take eVect from April 2008 to support local area agreements. [147085] John Healey: The pooled funding arrangements supporting local area agreements will have no eVect on the distribution of Formula Grant to local authorities. [Comment by Member:] Doesn’t really seem to answer the question.

Doctors Career Structure David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the ﬁndings of Sir John Tooke’s independent review of the Modernising Medical Careers programme; and if he will make a statement. [156448] Ann Keen: The Department would like to thank Sir John Tooke and his review group for investing so much time and expertise in providing recommendations for the future of medical training for 2009 and beyond. We will consider Sir John’s ﬁndings carefully. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 57

Eggs:ECAction David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs what recent discussions he has had with (a) European counterparts and (b) UK egg producers on the 1999 EU Laying Hens Directive. [156831] Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 10 October 2007]: DEFRA oYcials hold regular discussions, on this and a range of other issues, with stakeholders and colleagues in the EU.

Birds Smuggling David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs when oYcials in his Department last discussed measures to prevent the illegal importation of wild birds into the EU with the relevant European agency. [156832] Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 10 October 2007]: DEFRA oYcials hold regular discussions, on this and a range of other issues, with colleagues in the EU.

Fuel Poverty David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform when he plans to publish the Annual Progress Report for 2007 on the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy. [166771] Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 21 November 2007]: The Government will publish shortly their annual progress report on fuel poverty covering 2005 which will include statistics of households in fuel poverty in England in 2005.

Corporate Hospitality David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which members of (a) the Defence Council, (b) the Defence Management Board, (c) Defence Equipment and Support, (d) Defence Estates, (e) Science, Innovation and Technology TLB and (f) Central TLB attended the reception hosted by defence equipment manufacturers at the Automobile Club in London on Tuesday 18 September 2007. [175951] Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Import Controls David Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of crates imported to the UK were screened or searched at UK ports by HM Revenue and Customs in 2006–07. [223591] Angela Eagle: This information is not available. HMRC does not centrally record the number of crates imported into the UK.

Alcoholic Drinks:Excise Duties David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the merits of raising the duty on alcohol sold by (a) supermarkets and (b) oV-licences; [120245] (2) what assessment she has made of the public health eVects of a rise in the average per unit cost of alcohol sold by (a) supermarkets and (b) oV-licences. [120248] Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues. All taxes and duty rates are kept under review by the HM Treasury and are considered by the Chancellor as part of the Budget process. November 2008

Response from Richard Ottoway MP No speciﬁc examples, but we have to be in a position where a WPQ is as good as a FOI request. November 2008

Response from Derek Wyatt MP The worst thing is when Ministers are shuZed and then their old Questions are never answered. November 2008 Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 58 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Response from Mr Robert Goodwill MP I get a pretty good service from Ministers who answer questions. No real complaints about delays or content. November 2008

Response from Paul Farrelly MP You might also want to look at “rules” governing WPQs and how diYcult they make it for MPs to ask meaningful questions or pursue a line of enquiry with multiple questions. In connection with this, there is also the issue of the Table OYce rewriting questions without recourse, often wrongly second-guessing the MP or rendering the question meaningless. This simply happens all too often, wastes time sorting out and renders electronic tabling more time consuming, therefore, not less. November 2008

Response from Mr Roger Williams MP Following your recent email, below, I believe the following questions may qualify as being inadequately answered: 22 Oct 2008 Mr. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs (1) what assessment he has made of the levels of (a) deformity, (b) disability and (c) hereditary disease amongst (i) pedigree and (ii) other dogs; (2) what assessment he has made of the eVect of breeding practices on the welfare of pedigree dogs, with particular reference to consanguinity between breed pairs; (3) what assessment he has made of the eVects of the rules and regulations of pedigree dog shows on the welfare of pedigree dogs; (4) what assessment he has made of the eVects of breed standards on the welfare of pedigree dogs; and if he will make a statement; (5) what his policy is on the culling of pedigree dogs which do not meet breed standards; what estimate he has made of the number of pedigree dogs (a) culled and (b) neutered on such grounds in each of the last three years; and if he will bring forward legislative proposals to ban this practice; (6) if he will bring forward legislative proposals to amend breed standards in order to reduce health problems and improve the welfare and life expectancy of pedigree dogs; (7) if he will bring forward legislative proposals to ban (a) inbred dogs, (b) unhealthy dogs and (c) dogs with inherited diseases from being entered in pedigree shows; (8) if he will introduce mandatory health checks for pedigree dogs as a condition of entry into pedigree shows; (9) if he will review the standards and rules relating to breed showing for their implications for animal welfare; (10) what recent representations he has received on inbreeding in pedigree dogs and its eVects on animal welfare; and if he will make a statement. Jane Kennedy: The Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club have jointly announced an independent and wide ranging review of dog breeding. I will shortly meet with representatives of these organisations to discuss the assistance that DEFRA can provide to the review. 17 November 2008 Mr. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs pursuant to the Answer of 22 October 2008, OYcial Report, columns 361–2W, when the Minister of State plans to meet representatives of the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. Jane Kennedy: Meetings with both organisations will take place shortly. November 2008

Response from Mr David Jones MP/AS I would like to draw your attention to the enclosed question number 233096: “To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he last met the Icelandic Trade Minister”. The question was tabled as a named day question and received a holding answer on 4 November. On 10 November I received the enclosed answer, which, frankly, is obfuscatory and fails to deliver simple information that could easily be obtained and for which there is no good reason, in my view, for not supplying: Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 59

Ian Pearson [holding answer 4 November 2008]: Treasury Ministers and oYcials have meetings with their counterparts in other countries and with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the cause with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings. November 2008

Response from Hugh Robertson MP Thank you for your email about inadequate answers to WPQs. I have just received two, which I enclose, from the Prime Minister, which are deliberately obstructive and unhelpful. This reception was, presumably, publicly funded, so there is no reason why this information should not be available in the public domain. I have ﬁled a Freedom of Information request but the Table OYce tell me that 10 Downing Street is the most obstructive of all the Government departments. 27 Oct 2008 Hugh Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister, how many (a) Government Ministers, (b) opposition politicians and (c) members of the (i) London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, (ii) Olympic Delivery Authority and (iii) British Olympic Authority boards were invited to the No. 10 Reception for Team GB following the Beijing Olympics. [230849] The Prime Minister: I hosted a reception for Team GB at Lancaster House; guests were invited from a range of political and sporting ﬁelds, including those involved in the preparations for London 2012. 3 Nov 2008 Hugh Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister, further to his Answer of 27 October 2008, OYcial Report, column 666W, on the Olympic Games, if he will provide the names of all those who were (a) invited to and (b) attended the reception for Team GB at Lancaster House. [232278] The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on Monday 27 October, OYcial Report, column 666W November 2008

Response from Mr Mark Oaten MP I would like to draw to the attention of the procedure committee a few examples of bad WPQ responses. While I have received a number of responses I have not been happy with the below are the clearest examples of when answers have not been provided in a satisfactory manner and have involved further, and in my view, unnecessary questions and/or FOI requests. 1) The first, laid out below, does not seem to answer the question put in my view. Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs whether he has received reports of who fired first in recent skirmishes between forces of Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda across their mutual border. [240656] Bill Rammell [holding answer 8 December 2008]: The military situation in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is comparatively calm for the time being. Fighting between the National Congress for People Defense (CNDP) and DRC government forces was last reported on 17 November, when the two sides clashed around the town of Rwindi in North Kivu province. Since then, the rebel leader Laurent Nkunda has fulfilled commitments to withdraw from positions captured in recent fighting. However, skirmishes have taken place between the CNDP and other militia groups more recently. We continue to follow events in eastern DRC closely, and urge all parties to return to processes to achieve a political solution to the issues underlying the violence. 2) The responses to the series of questions below in my view have led to totally unnecessary further questions and now has led me to place an FOI request. The Howard league for Penal reform published a report into their “Barbed” project which confirmed that income tax paid by prisoners had been returned to them and I was asking these questions in parliament to confirm that. Therefore I think the answers given are totally unsatisfactory.The “pursuant to” question of 21 October was particularly disappointing. I believe that because it was a “pursuant to” PQ the Minister knew I was referring to the paying back of income tax to prisoners. Moreover the answer of 21 October is absolutely at odds with the answer on 25 Nov. To date a simple answer that the money was indeed paid back has not been provided.

Income Tax:Prisoners:6Oct 2008 Mr. Oaten: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions income tax has been repaid to people in custody in the last three years. [224310] Mr. Timms: The information requested is not available. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 60 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Income Tax:Prisoners:21Oct 2008 Mr. Oaten: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 6 October 2008, OYcial Report, column 376W, on income tax: prisoners, what his policy is on the payment of income tax by prisoners. [228971] Mr. Timms: Like other individuals, prisoners pay income tax in accordance with the law.

Income Tax:Prisoners:17Nov 2008 Mr. Oaten: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 21 October 2008, OYcial Report, column 338W, on income tax: prisoners, whether income tax paid by prisoners working on the Barbed project in Coldingley prison was returned to them. [236415] Mr. Timms: As for other individuals, the personal tax aVairs of prisoners are covered by rules of conﬁdentiality.

Coldingley Prison:Employment:25Nov 2008 Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what arrangements HM Prison Service staV make for the payment of tax and national insurance of prisoners participating in the Barbed project at HM Prison Coldingley. [239455] Mr. Hanson: The Barbed project at Coldingley has now ended. But as a matter of general principle prisoners working inside prisons are at all times under prison rules and cannot be treated as employees. Therefore there is no requirement for Prison Service staV to arrange for tax and national insurance to be deducted. December 2008

Response from Mr John Leech MP In response to your email to Members about inadequate answers to WPQs, John Leech would like to draw your attention to the attached letter and PQ 237569, which we feel has been inadequately answered by Rt Hon Rosie Winterton MP. We feel that this information would be available via a FoI request. I am sure that this is not the only inadequately answered question that we have submitted, but it is the example that springs to mind. Mr. Leech: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how much compensation the private ﬁrms aVected by the Government’s decision to withdraw the Post OYce Card Account contract from tender will receive. Rosie Winterton: I have been asked to reply. The other bidders who were still in the competition at the point at which it was halted will be reimbursed for their reasonable bid costs. The precise amounts payable will be subject to commercial conﬁdentiality.

Letter from Rt Hon Ms Rosie Winterton MP to John Leech MP, 2 January 2009 Thank you for your letter of 10 December about the amounts to be reimbursed to the unsuccessful bidders for the Post OYce card account. I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for the Method of Payment Reform Programme. Our decision to award a new contract for the Post OYce Card Account (POCA) to Post OYce Ltd has been widely welcomed by all directly involved—Post OYce Ltd, the National Federation of Sub- Postmasters and others. So it was a little disappointing that you should choose to categorise the amount to be paid as the cost of the “Government’s mistake”. The Government did not make a mistake. Circumstances changed, and the Government obtained fresh advice to reﬂect those changed circumstances. So I ask what would you have done in those circumstances? The Liberal Democrats were eVectively asking us to give the Post OYce a new POCA contract during the debate on 10 November. And you yourself signed EDM2449, which called on the Government to “. . . make a decision to keep the card account with the Post OYce as a matter of urgency”. That is precisely what we did three days later. Given that we cancelled the procurement process before a decision was reached, I think most people would agree that it would be reasonable to reimburse the other bidders, who were still in the competition at the point at which we halted it, for the costs they incurred in making their bids. As we have said a number of times, the amounts submitted to us will be subject to scrutiny and we will only reimburse their reasonable costs. Whilst the Department did incur costs during the tendering process, the end result of the whole exercise is a better overall deal for the taxpayer. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 61

Post OYce Ltd chose to put forward a competitive bid which properly reﬂected the costs of providing the POCA service. The costs we will be meeting through the new POCA contract are consistent with the Government’s aims to pay beneﬁts more eYciently and to support the Post OYce network.

I hope you will now fully support the Government’s approach to retaining the POCA in order to help support the Post OYce network. January 2009

Response from Mr Richard Benyon MP

I asked the following written question to the Home Secretary on 10 October: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will estimate the percentage of immigration cases heard in the Hatton Cross Tribunals in the next six months at which a Home OYce Presenting OYcer will represent the Government’s case. On receiving no reply I asked a follow up question on 20th November. On receiving no answer I asked the Speaker through a point-of-order whether I should be cynical and believe that the delay was so that the question would fall at prorogation. I received a reply from the Immigration Minister that he would write to me. On receiving no letter I resubmitted my question in the new session and ﬁnally received a reply by letter. We can argue about the quality of that reply but the point I would like to make is that it took an unacceptable length of time and eVort to elicit an answer to an important question. If I hadn’t persisted I suspect it would have quietly been forgotten. January 2009

Response from Mr Oliver Heald MP

Mr Heald’s response to the procedure committee’s request for incidences where written Parliamentary questions have been objectively inadequately answered; covering these areas:

1. Answers which are signiﬁcantly late without good reason

Questions to Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: Member Tabling Question: Heald, Oliver Question: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, how much was spent on entertainment by his Department in 2007–08; and how much of that sum was spent on (a) food, (b) alcohol, (c) staV and (d) accommodation. Answering Department: Dept for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Answer: NONE RECEIVED Question Number: 231502 Date Tabled: 24.10.2008 Date for Answer: 28.10.2008

Member Tabling Question: Heald, Oliver Question: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, when he plans to answer Question 231502, on departmental entertainment, tabled on 24 October 2008. Answering Department: Dept for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Answer: NONE RECEIVED Question Number: 240116 Date Tabled: 25.11.2008 Date for Answer: 27.11.2008 Notes: Question not answered—Date for answer after Prorogation Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 62 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Questions to Children, Schools and Families: Member Tabling Question: Heald, Oliver Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, when he plans to answer Question 231690, on departmental press oYcers, tabled on 28th October 2008. Answering Department: Dept for Children Schools and Families Question Number: 240113 Date Tabled: 25.11.2008 Date for Answer: 27.11.2008 Notes: Question not answered—Date for answer after Prorogation

Member Tabling Question: Heald, Oliver Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, when he plans to answer Question 231691, on departmental press oYcers, tabled on 28th October 2008. Answering Department: Dept for Children Schools and Families Question Number: 240112 Date Tabled: 25.11.2008 Date for Answer: 27.11.2008 Notes: Question not answered—Date for answer after Prorogation Questions to HM Treasury: Member Tabling Question: Heald, Oliver Topic: Written Questions: Government Responses Question: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to answer Question 228544, on pension funds, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire on 15 October 2008. Answering Department: Treasury Member Answering Question: Pearson, Ian Answer: I have now done so and very much regret not having been in a position to do so earlier. Question Number: 236729 Date Tabled: 12.11.2008 Date for Answer: 17.11.2008

2. Answers which do not address all or part of the question Questions about provision of Government cars for Special Advisers: Rather than answering the question, these answers simply quote the rule book leaving it unclear as to whether Government cars are provided for Special Advisers or not.

Departmental Ministerial Policy Advisers:25Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the cost of provision of Government cars to special advisers in his Department has been in the last 12 months. [238164] Kevin Brennan: Special advisers are temporary civil servants. They have no entitlement to an allocated Government car. Special advisers’ travel arrangements are made in accordance with the rules and guidance set out in the Civil Service Management Code and departmental staV handbooks.

Departmental Ministerial Policy Advisers:24Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister what the cost of provision of Government cars to special advisers in his OYce has been in the last 12 months. [238175] The Prime Minister: Special advisers are temporary civil servants. They have no entitlement to an allocated Government car. Special advisers’ travel arrangements are made in accordance with the rules and guidance set out in the “Civil Service Management Code” and departmental staV handbooks. Yet other departments did give a straight answer: Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 63

Departmental Ministerial Policy Advisers:12Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs what the cost of provision of Government cars to special advisers in his Department has been in the last 12 months. [233242] Huw Irranca-Davies: On most occasions, special advisers travel in the same cars as Ministers or departmental oYcials, and it is not possible to disaggregate the costs of their car travel, since records are not kept of who travelled in which car. The total cost of provision of government cars to special advisers when travelling on oYcial business on their own was £387.08 in the past 12 months.

3. Answers which fail to answer on issues which departments have answered on Questions about the provision of Government cars for Special Advisers:

Official Cars:26Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of provision of Government cars to special advisers in her Department has been in the last 12 months. [233521] Mr. Woolas: The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Yet other departments were able to locate costs:

Departmental Ministerial Policy Advisers:26Nov 2008—continued Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of provision of Government cars to special advisers in his Department has been in the last 12 months. [238174] Mr. Woodward: Special advisers are temporary civil servants and as such their travel arrangements are made in accordance with the rules and guidance set out in the Civil Service Management Code or other guidance and handbooks used by the NIO for such purposes. They have no entitlement to an allocated Government car and are required to use the most eYcient and economic means of travel in all circumstances. In the past year approximately £1,300 has been paid for the use of Government cars by special advisers. Questions about departmental expenditure on Hotels:

Hotels:25Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent on hotel bills by the Prime Minister’s OYce in 2007–08. [236647] Kevin Brennan: The Prime Minister’s OYce is an integral part of the Cabinet OYce. The information requested for the Cabinet OYce is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Hotels:19Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on hotel bills in 2007–08. [237148] Angela Eagle: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 October 2008, OYcial Report, column 780W to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson).

Departmental Official Visits:27Oct 2008 David Simpson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on overnight accommodation by his Department’s civil servants in the last 12 months. [228783] Angela Eagle: The Treasury’s accounting system does not separately identify spending on overnight accommodation within total spending on subsistence. All travel and subsistence is conduced in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code, Travel by Ministers and the Civil Service Management Code. Yet other departments were able to locate costs: Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 64 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Wales,Departmental Expenditure:19Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on hotel bills in 2007–08. [237143] Mr. Paul Murphy: My Department is split over two sites with a requirement that some staV have to attend meetings in both London and CardiV as well as supporting Ministers visiting diVerent parts of Wales. For the year 2007–08, £26,879 was spent on hotels. Questions about departmental expenditure on Entertainment:

Departmental Catering:18Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural AVairs how much was spent on entertainment by his Department in 2007–08; and how much of that sum is accounted for by expenditure on (a) food, (b) alcohol, (c) staV and (d) accommodation. [233255] Huw Irranca-Davies: The core-Department holds no information centrally on the expenditure category of entertainment.

Departmental Official Hospitality:24Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much was spent on entertainment by his Department in 2007–08; and how much of that sum is accounted for by (a) food, (b) alcohol, (c) staV and (d) accommodation. [235303] Maria Eagle: This information could be provided across the Ministry only at disproportionate cost. All expenditure on entertainment should be incurred in accordance with published departmental guidance on ﬁnancial procedures and propriety that are based on the principles of Managing Public Money and the Treasury handbook on Regularity and Propriety.

Departmental Official Hospitality:10Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on entertainment by his Department in 2007–08; and how much of that was for (a) food, (b) alcohol, (c) staV and (d) accommodation. [233524] Mr. Bradshaw: The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Departmental Official Hospitality:3Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent on entertainment by his Department in 2007–08; and how much was spent on (a) food, (b) alcohol, (c) staV and (d) accommodation. [231450] Kevin Brennan: Details of how much was spent on entertainment by the Cabinet OYce in 2007–08 and how much was spent on (a) food, (b) alcohol, (c) staV and (d) accommodation is not held centrally and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost. All Cabinet OYce expenditure on entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on ﬁnancial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in “Managing Public Money” and the Treasury handbook on “Regularity and Propriety”.

Departmental Official Hospitality:24Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent on entertainment by his Department at Caxton House in 2007–08. [237641] Jonathan Shaw: While the Department separately identiﬁes expenditure on entertainment within its agencies and business units, this information is not recorded by location. It would not, therefore, be possible to provide this information without incurring a disproportionate amount of time and cost. Yet other departments were able to locate costs:

Departmental Official Hospitality:24Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs how much was spent on entertainment by his Department in 2007–08; and how much of that sum was accounted for by expenditure on (a) food, (b) alcohol, (c) staV and (d) accommodation. [233189] Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 65

Gillian Merron: The total spent against the entertainment budget in ﬁnancial year 2007–08 was £6,470,379.11. This expenditure was spent on entertainment of oYcial contacts in furtherance of the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce (FCO)’s objectives. This expenditure would include the costs of food, drink and sundries when oYcial contacts were entertained at an oYcer’s home, the costs of employing extra domestic staV solely for a representational event, and the cost of entertaining oYcial contacts at external venues (eg restaurants, hotels etc.). Additional expenditure on entertainment may have been put to other budgets, but it is not possible to identify this separately. Expenditure on entertainment is not broken down into the requested categories, and to obtain this information would require analysis of each individual invoice. This could be done only at disproportionate cost. The FCO is committed to ensuring that all expenditure, including that on entertainment, is incurred in accordance with the principles of Managing Public Money and the Treasury handbook on Regularity and Propriety. Questions about departmental Internet:

Departmental Internet:24Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of maintaining his Department’s website was in 2007–08; and what the forecast costs of maintaining it are in 2008–09. [237575] Jonathan Shaw: Maintenance of DWP websites including www.dwp.gov.uk is mostly carried out by the Department’s own in-house digital media team. It is not possible for us to quantify internal staV costs, because in most cases, staV are engaged in more than one role. In addition, we are unable to establish accurately our infrastructure costs because they form part of a wider departmental IT contract. DWP is currently working with the COI to develop a standardised method for quantifying website costs across Government. We will be implementing this standard from March 2009 in line with the current timetable.

Departmental Internet:26Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister what the cost of maintaining the No. 10 website was in 2007–08; and what it is expected to be in 2008–09. [236651] The Prime Minister: As a result of accounting changes it is not possible to provide a single comparable ﬁgure for the running costs of the No. 10 website. However, the total cost of the digital communications unit, which includes the website, but also includes equipment, e-petitions, audio and visual production, and all other forms of digital communication and all costs associated with staYng was £527,800 for the ﬁnancial year 2007–08. Yet all other departments were able to give a straight answer

Departmental Internet:11Nov 2008 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of maintaining his Department’s website was in 2007–08; and what the forecast cost of maintaining it is in 2008–09. [233530] Mr. Bradshaw: The cost of maintaining the Department’s website in 2007–08 was £1.169 million. The forecast cost of maintaining the Department’s website in 2008–09 is £1.081 million.

4. Answers which refuse to disclose information which is available under a Freedom of Information request Questions on departmental Consultants: Is it really so expensive to have a look at the record of passes given to contractors, or do they simply not want to reveal the answer?

Departmental Consultants:12Jan 2009 Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the answer of 5 November 2008, OYcial Report, column 2226W, on departmental consultants, how many security passes her Department has issued to contractors providing consultancy services in the last 12 months; and if she will put in place measures to record the number of external consultants contracted to provide services for her Department. [244836] Mr. Woolas: The Department does employ consultants for specialist areas of activity. The Department has records of passes issued to external contractors, including consultants. However, the cost involved in conﬁrming the number of passes issued to consultants over the 12 months would incur disproportionate costs in accordance with extant January 2009 Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 66 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Response from Mr Dai Davies MP I have collected below a selection of inadequate replies to some of my Parliamentary questions asked since October 2008. The reasons for the inadequacies were very well canvassed by Norman Baker in his excellent adjournment debate speech on 22 January 2009 (OYcial Report, columns 971–78). As Norman Baker pointed out, some departments appear to make no eVort to craft replies that address the questions asked; indeed some, the Prime Minister’s oYce being the greatest culprit, make general reference to press conferences held, which, when the text is consulted, are found not to include any mention of the issue raised in the question. On one occasion, when I pointed out to the Prime Minister’s parliamentary clerks this was the case, they insisted he was content with content of his reply, which is surely unacceptable when Hon Members are carrying out one of their important roles; to scrutinise ministers actions and policies. The members of the Procedure Committee will recognise how damaging it is to democracy that hon. members have no recourse to the Speaker when they receive such partial or non answers, as Mr Speaker always makes it clear he is not responsible for the content of ministerial answers. However, perhaps the committee could recommend that Mr Speaker could take a more interventionist role to protect the rights of backbenchers to carry out one of their expected duties, scrutinising the democratic process.

28 Jan 2009 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what (a) guidance and (b) instructions he has issued to those banks in receipt of public money under the Bank Lending Programme announced on 19 January in respect of lending to overseas-registered companies with (i) operations and (ii) no operations in the United Kingdom. [250936] Ian Pearson: As set out by the Chancellor on 19 January 2009, OYcial Report, columns 485–86, the Government intend to negotiate lending agreements with each bank which will be binding and externally audited in return for access to support measures.

Iran:Nuclear Power:12Jan 2009 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed the Iranian state shareholding in the French state Uranium Enrichment Company during the visit of President Sarkozy on 8 December 2008. [244884] The Prime Minister: I discussed a wide range of issue with President Sarkozy. I refer the hon. Member to the press conference I held with President Sarkozy and President Barroso on 8 December. A transcript is available on the No. 10 website at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17733 A copy has also been placed in the Library of the House.

Israel:Nuclear Weapons:12Jan 2009 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister what matters concerning (a) Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal and (b) Iran’s nuclear programme, he discussed in his meeting with his Israeli counterpart on 16 December 2008. [245675] The Prime Minister: I discussed a wide range of issues with Prime Minister Olmert.

Security:18Dec 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which sectors of industry have sites protected by armed police. [243809] Mr. Coaker: We do not comment on the security arrangements in place either at sites or in industry sectors. However, I can assure you that security in all sectors of industry is kept under review by the Government and police in co-operation with the relevant companies and organisations.

Treasury—16 Dec 2008 Banks: Regulation Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance the Financial Services Authority has given to those banks in receipt of public money to assist their liquidity on building up their balance sheets. [244459] Ian Pearson: The matters raised in this question are the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, whose day to day operations are independent from Government control and inﬂuence. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 67

Financial Services Authority:Secondment:16December 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Financial Services Authority (FSA) staV are on secondment from (a) HSBC, (b) Lloyds TSB, (c) HBOS, (d) Northern Rock, (e) Bradford and Bingley and (f) the Royal Bank of Scotland; who pays the salaries for secondees to the FSA; and what proportion of FSA staV is made up of secondees. [244228] Ian Pearson: The matters raised in this question are the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, whose day to day operations are independent from Government control and inﬂuence.

Nuclear Disarmament:16Dec 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister what matters concerning nuclear disarmament initiatives were discussed at his meeting with President Sarkozy of France on 8 December 2008. [243815] The Prime Minister: I discussed a wide range of issue with President Sarkozy. I refer the hon. Member to the press conference I held with President Barroso and President Sarkozy on 8 December. A transcript is available on the No. 10 website: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17733 A copy of this page has been placed in the Library of the World Economy: 16 Dec 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister with reference to the answer of 20 November 2008, OYcial Report, column 662W, on the world economy,which ministers and oYcials accompanied him to Washington for the G20 economic summit on 15 November 2008; and if he will put on his OYce’s website all papers submitted to the summit. [241807] The Prime Minister: I was accompanied to the G20 in Washington by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Minister for Economic Competitiveness and Small Business (Baroness Vadera). The Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy is available on the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081115-1.html A copy of this webpage has been place in the Library of the House.

Departmental Publications:25Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform for what reasons his Department’s annual report was published on the penultimate sitting day of Parliament before the summer recess. [223895] Mr. McFadden: The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform publishes a combined annual report and accounts. The deadline for publication of combined departmental annual reports and accounts is summer recess.

Strategic Siting Assessment:24Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 3 November 2008, OYcial Report, column 231W, on applying the proposed strategic siting assessment criteria, how the stakeholders invited to the engagement events were chosen; and what publicity his Department’s predecessor gave to public participation in each event. [234427] Mr. Mike O’Brien: As part of the consultation on the Strategic Siting Assessment the Department held three stakeholder events in London, Bristol and Manchester. These events were designed to inform key stakeholder groups of the consultation and to seek their views. We tried to ensure we captured a broad range of views and invited local authorities, unions, environmental groups, business representatives, companies involved in the nuclear industry, law ﬁrms and other organisations. In addition we also invited those people who had responded to previous consultations and who had asked to be kept informed of events.

Trident:20Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during the initial gate period for the Trident submarine replacement programme he plans to produce a progress report to Parliament. [237103] Mr. Quentin Davies: In accordance with the usual practice on major procurement projects, the ﬁrst full progress report on the programme to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent will be made after the Initial Gate for the new class of submarines. We expect to publish this report in autumn 2009. There are no plans as yet to provide an interim report. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 68 Procedure Committee: Evidence

UK Financial Investments:19Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he has made for the accountability to Parliament of his Department’s arms-length company, UK Financial Investments Limited (UKFI); from what budget UKFI will be funded; and what salary will be paid to (a) the chairperson, (b) the chief executive and (c) each of the non-executive board members. [234604] Ian Pearson: Annual reports on UKFI’s performance will be laid before Parliament and the chair and chief executive will make themselves available for scrutiny by the relevant parliamentary committees. UKFI will be funded by HM Treasury which will in due course determine the remuneration packages of the chair, chief executive and non-executive board members.

19 Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will appoint non-executive directors from (a) banking trades’ unions, (b) relevant non-governmental organisations and (c) elected politicians as non- executive directors to the board of UK Financial Investments Ltd. [236231] Ian Pearson: The Chancellor’s letter of 3 November 2008 to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee announced the appointment of Sir Philip Hampton as Chair of UK Financial Investments Ltd (UKFI). Three further non-executive directors will be recruited to the Board of UKFI on the basis of appropriate commercial skill and experience through a process of fair and open competition.

Regional Economic Council:18Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what (a) matters were discussed and (b) decisions were taken at the ﬁrst meeting of the Regional Economic Council on 5 November 2008; and if he will (i) post on his Departmental website and (ii) place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the meeting. [234426] Mr. McFadden: A note will be placed in the Libraries of the House and on the BERR and HMT websites following each meeting.

Banking Supervision:17Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct his appointees as non-executive directors on the boards of banks in receipt of recapitalisation from the public purse to establish lending rules which prohibit the provision of sub-prime mortgages; and if he will instruct the Financial Services Authority to oversee implementation of this instruction. [227924] Ian Pearson: As part of its investment, the Government have agreed a range of commitments with banks accessing the recapitalisation scheme. The Government expect boards to appoint new independent non- executive directors, in consultation with Government. These banks are committed to oVering a wide range of products at competitive rates, which will be made available to customers with good credit ratings. Decisions on the terms and pricing of specific products are commercial decisions for the individual institutions. It is important that all lenders lend responsibly and fulfil their regulatory obligations. Since 2004, the Financial Services Authority has held responsibility for the regulation of first charge residential mortgages, helping to ensure that lenders lend responsibly and borrowers are aVorded appropriate protections.

Banks:Public Appointments:17Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has considered placing a Minister or departmental representative on the board of directors of those banks in receipt of public funds and support; [226914] (2) if he will consider appointing as non-executive directors to the boards of banks in receipt of public funds for recapitalisation representatives from (a) the Bankworkers’ Trade Union and (b) the third sector. [228371] Ian Pearson: As part of the recapitalisation scheme, it is intended that new non-executive directors will be appointed to the boards of each of RBS and, provided it proceeds, the merged Lloyds TSB/HBOS. These will be independent non-executive directors appointed by the board of each bank. UK Financial Investments, the company which will manage the Treasury’s shareholding, will work with those boards to ensure the individuals have appropriate commercial experience. The purpose behind their appointment is to strengthen the board of each bank and to provide independent oversight in respect of governance and other matters in the interests of all the shareholders of each bank. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 69

Overseas Aid:12Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the United Kingdom has met its commitments to deliver the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and if he will place in the Library a copy of the addresses he made during the special United Nations General Assembly session on the MDGs in September 2008. [230049] Mr. Douglas Alexander: The UK is fully committed to meeting the millennium development goals (MDGs) and is on track to meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent. of gross national income (GNI) on oYcial development assistance (ODA) by 2015. Important progress has been made towards the MDGs, but there is still a long way to go. At the half way mark to 2015, the UN High Level Event (HLE) last month in New York provided an opportunity to strengthen the commitment of the international community, including the private sector and foundations, to the MDGs. The UN Secretary General (UN SG) announced commitments of $16 billion at the closing plenary of the event. Of these commitments, the UK estimates that at least $11.5 billion represents new commitments (for education, malaria, health and food security) but we are waiting for the UN to confirm these figures with member states and other stakeholders. Further information on how the UK has met its MDG commitments is available online: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/mdg/progress-07.asp. Going forward we must ensure the commitments made at the UN HLE are delivered. The next major international meeting will be in Doha where the international community will come together to review progress on financing for development. I did not address the UN General Assembly on the MDGs in September. The Prime Minister did however and his speech can be found on the No. 10 website: http://www.number10.gov.uk/.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty:11Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs what assessment he has made of the proposal made by the Australian Government to the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on 15 October 2008 on the global non-proliferation regime in the period running up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010. [229842] Bill Rammell: The United Kingdom shares Australia’s commitment to strengthening the non- proliferation treaty (NPT) and to a successful NPT Review Conference in 2010. The Prime Minister has written to Prime Minister Rudd welcoming the establishment of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament and the appointment of Baroness Williams of Crosby as a Commissioner. We share the objective of making substantive progress on nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Plutonium:11Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what discussions Ministers or oYcials from his Department, or its predecessors, have had with oYcials from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on the development of plutonium management and security policies since 2006. [228374] Mr. Mike O’Brien: OYcials have an ongoing dialogue with the NDA on the development of plutonium management strategies.

Gulf States:Nuclear Power:10Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister what matters relating to nuclear power development were discussed during his recent visit to the Gulf States. [234418] The Prime Minister: I discussed a range of issue on my recent trip to the Gulf States. I refer the hon. Member to the press brieﬁng given by my spokesman on 3 November 2008. A transcript of this is available on the No. 10 website http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17353 and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 70 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Family Courts:6Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to make the operation of family courts more open and transparent. [232618] Bridget Prentice: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 14 October 2008, OYcial Report, column 1031W, to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and my answer of 17 October 2008, OYcial Report, column l506W, to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham).

Family Courts:14Oct 2008 Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when he plans to respond to the consultation, Confidence and Confidentiality: Openness in family courts. [226770] Bridget Prentice: This is an important and complex area of policy about which people have strong views, and one that we are examining with care and consideration. That is why we have consulted twice on how we could improve transparency in family courts. While it is important that the family courts are open to scrutiny and have the confidence of the public; it is equally as important that the welfare of children is protected, and that includes their right to privacy and anonymity. The response paper to the last consultation will be published soon and details of it will be announced to Parliament.

Banking Supervision:5Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the non-executive appointees to the boards of banks in receipt of funding from the public purse to enforce a carbon audit of the investments made by their banks; and if he will make it a condition of recapitalisation of banks that they minimise their investments in and loans to projects involved with high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. [227925] Ian Pearson: As part of its investment, the Government have agreed a range of commitments with banks accessing the capitalisation scheme. The conditions attached to the Government’s recapitalisation scheme were set out in detail in the Chancellor’s statements of 8 and 13 October.

Banks:Land:5Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it a condition of British banks being in receipt of ﬁnancial support from public funds that they permit the release of land being landbanked for early use for housebuilding. [227921] Ian Pearson: As part of its investment, the Government have agreed a range of commitments with banks accessing the recapitalisation scheme. The conditions attached to the Government’s recapitalisation scheme were set out in detail in the Chancellor’s statements of 8 and 13 October.

Nuclear Power:5Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what (a) meetings and (b) brieﬁngs he has had on nuclear power; with whom; on what dates; and if he will post on his departmental website copies of all brieﬁngs he has received on (i) nuclear and (ii) other power generation sources since his appointment. [228641] Mr. Mike O’Brien: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had introductory meetings on a range of matters concerning our new portfolios which includes nuclear. As such briefs and presentations provide advice and information to Ministers, the Department will not be publishing them.

Banks:Correspondence:4Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will (a) place in the Library and (b) post on his Department’s website copies of his Department’s correspondence with (i) chief executives, (ii) chairmen and (iii) other executives of (A) British and (B) foreign banks which have received ﬁnancial support from the public purse since July 2008. [232156] Ian Pearson: Treasury Ministers and oYcials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 71

Mortgages:Repossession Orders:4Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent discussions (a) she and (b) the Minister for Housing has held with (i) the Secretary of State for Justice and (ii) the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in respect of the rate of use of charging orders by banks (A) nationalised and (B) in receipt of capitalisation by public money, resulting in the repossession of homes of people unable to keep up mortgage payments; and if she will review the application of such charging orders. [232175] Margaret Beckett: Ministers have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals on a wide range of subjects. Information relating to internal meetings, discussion and advice is not disclosed as to do so could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.

Prime Minister:3Nov 2008 Cabinet: Meetings Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister what rules cover those entitled to attend Cabinet meetings; and what powers he has to change such rules. [232174] The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the Ministerial Appointments press notice released by my OYce. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and are also available on the No 10 website: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/press-notices

Banking Supervision:3Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct his appointees to the boards of banks in receipt of public funds for recapitalisation to seek measures through the board to (a) recover the bonus payments made and (b) reduce the pension payments to the chief executives and chairmen of the board of those banks commensurate with their performance. [228370] Ian Pearson: As part of their investment, the Government have agreed a range of commitments with banks accessing the capitalisation scheme. The Government expect that no cash bonuses will be paid to directors in the current year. Going forward, and to ensure that taxpayers’ interests as shareholders in the bank are protected, and the performance of the company enhanced, directors’ remuneration will be linked to long term value creation and take account of risk. The terms have been agreed on a case-by-case basis with banks accessing the recapitalisation scheme, although elements are common to all participating banks.

Profits:3Nov 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the merits of requiring the repatriation of any proﬁts transferred oVshore by those British registered banks in receipt of support from the public purse. [226873] Ian Pearson: As part of their investment, the Government have agreed a range of commitments with banks accessing the recapitalisation scheme announced on 8 October. This package has been designed speciﬁcally so that it protects the interests of taxpayers.

Lehman Brothers:30Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings his predecessor held with Lehman Brothers in (a) 2004, (b) 2005, (c) 2006 and (d) 2007; what the purpose of each meeting was; and if he will place on his Department’s website the text of the speech made by his predecessor when he opened the Lehman Brothers headquarters at Canary Wharf in 2004. [225950] Ian Pearson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers regularly meet with representatives of the banking industry and with other organisations in both public and private sectors. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide such details. Treasury Ministers’ speeches, including the speech to which the hon. Member refers are routinely placed on the Treasury’s website.

Banking Supervision:28Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which budgets capital was made available to (a) support and (b) invest in banks; what considerations were given to presenting a Bill to put the provision of money to banks on a speciﬁc legislative footing; and if he will publish on his Departmental website the minutes of meetings held with chief executives and other senior executives from banks and Treasury Ministers, oYcials and Financial Services Authority oYcials since 1 September 2008. [227919] Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 72 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Ian Pearson: This package of measures to support and invest in banks announced on 8 October will be funded through the Government’s ordinary borrowing mechanisms, via the central Government debt and cash management operations. We are investing in the banks themselves on commercial terms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, other Treasury Ministers and oYcials regularly meet with representatives of the banking industry. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of all such meetings.

Mortgages:Repossession Orders:28Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct those banks which have received funds from the public purse not to repossess any property in cases where the mortgage holder is unable to keep up payments where the property in question is the mortgage holder’s home and solely- owned property. [229840] Ian Pearson: On 8 October this year, the Government announced a comprehensive package of measures to support stability of the ﬁnancial system, protect ordinary savers, depositors, businesses and borrowers, and to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer. As part of their investment, the Government have agreed with the banks supported by the recapitalisation scheme a range of commitments. Details are available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press 105 08.htm

Radioactive Materials:27Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will instruct the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to release the full unredacted version of the macro-economic study of United Kingdom plutonium and uranium stocks and options for future management. [226939] Mr. Mike O’Brien [holding answer 14 October 2008]: I do not intend to instruct the NDA to release the full version of their Uranium and Plutonium: Macro-Economic Study paper as it contains security and commercial information that is restricted. The public version of the document has since been supplemented by the NDA’s Plutonium Options Paper that was recently published on their website.

Repossession Orders:27Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to take possession of houses and ﬂats on which mortgage-holders with Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley have defaulted and allocate the properties to those on the waiting list for social housing. [228232] Ian Pearson: Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley are run at arm’s length from the Government, on commercial principles. The Government have made increasing the provision of social housing a priority in successive Spending Reviews. In England, the Government are investing £8 billion over the next three years in aVordable housing—a 50 per cent. increase over the last three years.

Lord Mandelson:23Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister at what time and on what date Lord Mandelson’s appointment as Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform formally commenced. [228540] The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the Ministerial Appointments press notices released by my OYce. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and are also available on the No 10 website: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/press-notices.

Ministers:Transport:23Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will encourage Ministers with business in the House to walk between their departmental buildings in Whitehall and Victoria Street and the Palace of Westminster. [228231] The Prime Minister: This is a matter for individual Ministers who continue to travel making the most eYcient and cost-eVective arrangements. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 73

Banks:Incentives:21Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the bank restructuring plan announced on 13 October, board members and other senior executives of banks in receipt of recapitalisation funds and investment capital from public funds will be permitted to receive any non-cash bonuses in the form of share options, pension beneﬁts or other non-cash end-of-year beneﬁts. [227920] Ian Pearson: As part of its investment, the Government have agreed a range of commitments with banks accessing the capitalisation scheme. The Government expect that no cash bonuses will be paid to Directors in the current year. Going forward, and to ensure that taxpayers’ interests as shareholders in the bank are protected, and the performance of the company enhanced, directors’ remuneration will be linked to long-term value creation and take account of risk. The terms have been agreed on a case-by-case basis with banks accessing the recapitalisation scheme, although elements are common to all participating banks.

Housing:Construction:15Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the eVect of reductions in land values for the Government’s housebuilding targets. [226869] Mr. Iain Wright: The Government do not publish forecasts for private house building.

Treasury:14Oct 2008

Banks:Regulation Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the dates were of each meeting he and his predecessor held with the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to discuss the adequacy of regulatory oversight of the ﬁnancing models for British-based banks; and if he will (a) place in the Library and (b) post on his Department’s website copies of all correspondence between him and his predecessor and the FSA on banking oversight and reform since January 2006. [226134] Ian Pearson: Treasury Ministers meet the chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority regularly to discuss a range of issues.

Lehman Brothers:13Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he has held with representatives of senior management of Lehman Brothers in the last 12 months. [226665] The Prime Minister: My oYcials and I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals on a range of subjects.

National Economic Council:13Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister in what capacity the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform attended the ﬁrst meeting of the National Economic Council on 6 October; and if he will publish the full minutes of each meeting of the Council on his departmental website and that of HM Treasury. [225931] The Prime Minister: The National Economic Council meets in private. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Lord Mandelson) is a member.

Israel:Nuclear Weapons:8Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed with his Israeli counterpart the status of Israel’s nuclear weapons during his visit to Israel on 21 July. [223897] The Prime Minister: I discussed a wide range of issues on my recent trip to Israel. I refer the hon. Member to the speech I made to the Israeli Knesset, a transcript is available on the No. 10 website at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page16423 A copy has also been placed in the Library of the House. Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Ev 74 Procedure Committee: Evidence

Fraud:6Oct 2008 Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for CardiV, Central of 2 July 2008, OYcial Report, columns 964–65, on fraud, what cases referred to in the answer were excluding any references to individuals; and which cases (a) are under investigation and (b) have been resolved. [220835] Mr. Timms: As there were fewer than ﬁve cases, it would not be appropriate to provide details. All cases have been resolved. January 2009

Response from Mike Penning MP (Session 2008–09, P 56) As part of the enquiry into Written Parliamentary Questions—and as one who is proud of the existing system—I wanted to outline my thoughts on the subject. I do believe, through my own experience, that if Government Departments were prepared to answer submitted questions more fully then the amount of supplementaries and concurrent PQs would be reduced. Written Parliamentary Questions are integral to our democracy—but they are contigent upon the executive answering in a helpful manner. Often Members know the answer to tabled questions in advance, and are seeking oYcial conﬁrmation of fact. I hope these comments are helpful. May 2009

Memorandum submitted by Liam Laurence Smyth, Clerk of the Overseas OYce House of Commons (2007–08 P 61)

Summary of responses (at 3July 2008) to ECPRD Request 996: Complaints about Answers by Ministers to Written Questions On 9 June 2008, we asked correspondents in other national parliaments belonging to the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation: what is the mechanism for Members to complain about replies by Ministers to questions for written answer which are late or inadequate? We received answers from Andorra, Armenia, Austria (Nationalrat), Belgium (Senate and Chamber of Representatives), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic (Senate), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France (National Assembly and Senate), Germany (Bundestag and Bundesrat), Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Italy (Chamber of Deputies and Senate) Latvia, Lithuania, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, Poland (Sejm), Portugal, Romania (Chamber of Deputies), Russia (Federation Council), Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain (Senate), Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. We also received answers to a similar request made to the private Canadian Clerks-at-Table network from Alberta, British Columbia, the Canadian House of Commons, the Canadian Senate, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Qu„bec, Saskatchewan, Yukon and from New South Wales (Australia). We are very grateful to all those who took the trouble to reply. In general, there is no appeal mechanism for arbitrating on the quality of Ministerial answers to parliamentary questions for written answer. Most respondents indicated that it was up to the individual Member to press the matter, possibly by asking further questions or raising the matter publicly in a plenary sessions. On late answers, some parliaments have deadlines ﬁxed in their Rules of Procedure. Ministers may be asked by the Presiding OYcer to explain their non-compliance with these Rules or Standing Orders. In the Belgian Parliament, each House publishes under a special rubric the list of written questions which have not been replied to within the required deadline (20 working days). List and statistics of late answers, for each Minister, are also published on the parliamentary website. In Finland, a parliamentary oYcial calls the Ministry to ask for an explanation if the deadline (21 days) is missed. In the Canadian House of Commons, any failure of the Government to reply to a written question within 45 calendar days is automatically referred to a standing committee determined by the Member, usually the standing committee that has the mandate to study the subject matter of the question. The Chair of the committee must then convene a meeting within ﬁve sitting days of the referral so that the committee can address the issue of the Government’s failure to respond to the question. The committee may choose to do nothing more with the question and not report to the House; write a letter to the department(s) in question expressing concern about the lack of response within the 45-day timeframe; decide not to take any action Processed: 09-07-2009 18:41:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 365557 Unit: PAG4

Procedure Committee: Evidence Ev 75

based upon information that the Government response is soon scheduled to be tabled in the House; call upon witnesses; and/or report to the House and make recommendations on ways to improve the departmental or agency response process. Since this procedure of referring to a committee the failure to respond within 45 days has been implemented, the Government has rarely missed the prescribed deadline. Alternatively, Members whose questions remain unanswered after 45 days may decide to take the matter up during Adjournment Proceedings. This procedure is rarely used for written questions, but if a Member chooses to proceed in this way, the reference to the committee is dropped. Similarly, in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, if the Government does not give its answer within the 20- day time limit, the President of the Chamber, at the request of the questioner, includes the question in the agenda of the next sitting of the appropriate Committee. In Sweden, a Member may complain about lateness of Ministerial replies to the Riksdag’s Committee in the Constitution. July 2008

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 7/2009 365557 19585