House of Commons Procedure Committee Monitoring written Parliamentary questions Seventh Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 17 April 2013 HC 1095 Published on 8 May 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £11.00 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. Current membership Mr Charles Walker MP (Conservative, Broxbourne) (Chair) Jenny Chapman MP (Labour, Darlington) Nic Dakin MP (Labour, Scunthorpe) Thomas Docherty MP (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Sir Roger Gale MP (Conservative, North Thanet) Helen Goodman MP (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr James Gray MP (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Tom Greatrex MP (Lab/Co-op, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) John Hemming MP (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham Yardley) Mr David Nuttall MP (Conservative, Bury North) Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Conservative, North East Somerset) Martin Vickers MP (Conservative, Cleethorpes) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chair until 6 September 2012) Karen Bradley MP (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands) Andrew Percy MP (Conservative, Brigg and Goole) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Angela Smith MP (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Sir Peter Soulsby MP (Labour, Leicester South) Mike Wood MP (Labour, Batley and Spen) 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. Publications 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 Huw Yardley (Clerk), Lloyd Owen (Second Clerk) and Jim Camp (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]. Procedure Committee 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Unsatisfactory answers 5 Trial exercise in monitoring unsatisfactory answers 5 Rejected complaints 6 Complaints followed up 6 Result of trial exercise 8 3 Timeliness of answering 8 Provision of statistics on timeliness of answering 8 Performance of Government departments 10 Correspondence with poorly-performing departments 10 Department for Education 10 4 Conclusion 11 Recommendations 12 Formal Minutes 13 Witnesses 14 List of written evidence 14 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 15 Procedure Committee 3 Summary In October 2010, in response to a report by our predecessor committee in the last Parliament, we began a trial exercise in monitoring unsatisfactory and late answers to written Parliamentary questions. We have received just over 50 complaints from Members in response to the exercise, of which we have followed up around half. As a result we have obtained answers for Members on a number of occasions in circumstances where they would otherwise have found it difficult or impossible to follow up on an inadequate response, and we have been able to use the opportunity to emphasise to Ministers the importance and value of engaging adequately and appropriately with this particular form of Parliamentary scrutiny. We now intend to bring this trial period to an end and put the exercise on a more permanent footing. We have also considered a memorandum from the Leader of the House providing statistics in a standard format on the time taken to respond to WPQs in 2010–12. We have sought from the Ministers in charge of poorly-performing departments an explanation of the reasons for the level of performance recorded in the memorandum, and of what steps their department is taking to improve. We have also followed up in appropriate cases questions remaining unanswered at the end of the 2010–12 session. We have published the answers we have received on our website and will be looking for Ministers to make good on the assurances of improved performance which they have given. In the case of the Department for Education, whose performance was especially poor, we have taken oral evidence from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and a senior official in the Department, and followed that up with a session with the Permanent Secretary and Secretary of State when we were dissatisfied with the evidence given at the first session. We cannot be sure that the actions which the Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary set out in response to our concerns will be sufficient until we see performance actually improving. We will continue to take a close interest in the answering performance of the Department for Education, and will demand further account from the Secretary of State and Permanent Secretary if performance does not improve markedly. Procedure Committee 5 1 Introduction 1. In July 2009, our predecessor Committee published a report on written Parliamentary questions. The report considered concerns about the rising number of questions and the pressure which was thereby being created both on the House authorities and on Government, and made a number of recommendations designed to address the issues arising. The report also considered concerns about the quality and timeliness of answers. 2. In response to those concerns about quality and timeliness, our predecessors proposed that the Procedure Committee assume a role in monitoring the answering of written Parliamentary questions. The role proposed would take two forms: firstly, investigating complaints from Members about answers which they considered unsatisfactory; and second, receiving and evaluating (1) a list of questions unanswered at the end of each session of Parliament, and (2) sessional statistics in a standard format on the time taken by departments to respond to WPQs, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out any factors affecting their performance. Announcing its intention to undertake this role, our predecessor Committee said It is in order to uphold [the] 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. […] 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.1 2 Unsatisfactory answers Trial exercise in monitoring unsatisfactory answers 3. We accordingly launched an exercise in monitoring unsatisfactory answers to written Parliamentary questions in October 2010. We did so by writing to all Members, inviting them to refer to us specific instances where you are dissatisfied with the answer received to a question tabled by yourself. This could be, for example, where an answer clearly does not address the question or where information is refused when requested through a WPQ but is made available by other means. It does not include cases where the dissatisfaction is with the policy expressed in the answer. The Committee will examine every submission and in cases of particular concern we will refer questions to Ministers for comment and review. 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. 1 HC (2008–09) 859, paras 104, 103. 6 Procedure Committee Members are also invited to refer to the Committee complaints about late answers which will be processed in a similar way. 4. We added It is important for us to stress that what makes an answer unsatisfactory may well be a subjective judgement and the Committee does not undertake to investigate every answer referred to it. Members should also be aware that this is initially a monitoring exercise and that the Committee at present has no power to impose sanctions on the Government for unsatisfactory answers. Nevertheless, we hope that Members will find this a useful facility for addressing inadequate and late answers, that the data gathered will give us a clearer picture of the extent of the problem and that Government departments will improve their performance as a result. 5. Since the launch of the exercise in October 2010, we have received just over 50 complaints from Members about answers to written Parliamentary questions. Around half of these complaints have warranted further investigation or action by means of correspondence with the relevant Secretary of State. Rejected complaints 6. The most common reason for rejecting a complaint has been that we considered there was scope for following up an inadequate answer by means of further written questions. As the guidelines which we issued when we started this exercise make clear, “Members should note that they will be expected to have sought advice from the Table Office on what further action is possible to obtain the information they require before the Committee will usually consider a specific answer”.2 We have also occasionally rejected a complaint because it amounted to disagreement with the policy contained in the answer received, rather than being the result of an unsatisfactory answer; we reiterate that “disagreement with the policy stated in an answer will not be accepted as a basis for deeming the answer to be inadequate”.3 Complaints followed up 7.