SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(a) The present notice period required for
oral questions has become a major barrier to the effective operation
of questions. (paragraph 34)
(b) The period of notice required for oral
questions to departmental Ministers should be reduced from ten
sitting days to three sitting days. We believe that this will
enable Question Time to become much more topical and relevant,
while allowing a reasonable period (in effect, two whole working
days) for departments to prepare briefing for their Ministers.
(paragraph 38)
(c) This change should be accompanied by
three other modifications of the existing rules. The first is
that Members should be allowed to table oral questions on any
day after their last Question Time and before the minimum notice
period—that is, generally, up to a period of four weeks
before the day for answer. (paragraph 39)
(d) The timing of the shuffle should be brought
forward from 6.30 pm to 4 pm. (paragraph 41)
(e) The number of Questions per department
in each daily slot should be reduced. (paragraph 42)
(f) The following new quotas should be adopted:
Oral questions slot Questions
printed (maximum)
55 minutes 25
50 minutes 20
45 minutes 20
30 minutes 15
15 minutes 10
10 minutes 8.
These new quotas should be subject to regular review,
and ... Mr Speaker should have the authority to make any further
adjustments which seem to him desirable. (paragraph 43)
(g) The four recommendations set out in paragraphs
38 to 43 above comprise an integrated package. They are intended
to operate in conjunction with each other and we believe it is
essential that they should be implemented together. (paragraph
44)
(h) The House should be invited to decide
upon two further proposals aimed at injecting greater topicality
into oral questions. These are that:—
(1) On every Tuesday and Thursday, departmental
Question Time should be followed by a further session of up to
30 minutes of questioning on a single subject.
(2) Once a week, an hour-long session of questioning
addressed to a single Minister of State, or two 30-minute sessions
addressed successively to two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries,
should be held in Westminster Hall (possibly on Thursday mornings).
(paragraph 45)
(i) We are very concerned about the increasing
length both of questions and of Ministerial answers. (paragraph
47)
(j) We strongly support Mr Speaker in his
attempts to restrain the prolixity of some Members. Long, rambling
questions are counter-productive, whilst long, rambling answers
are an abuse of the time of the House. We would encourage Mr Speaker—and
the Deputy Speakers—to interrupt long-winded Members and
instruct them to come to the point. We believe that the Chair
should take a pro-active role in seeking to change the 'culture'
of Question Time and foster more incisive, tightly focussed exchanges.
(paragraph 47)
(k) We also believe that the balance of power
at Question Time between Minister and questioner is at present
tilted too far in favour of the former, who can choose to give
evasive or unhelpful replies, knowing that questioning will move
on and he or she will shortly be 'off the hook'. We support the
proposal by Lord Norton that the Speaker should give the Member
who has asked a question the opportunity to ask a second supplementary
after all supplementaries from other Members have been called.
If this recommendation is implemented, the questioner will have
the opportunity of some redress if the Minister has blatantly
failed to address the original question. (paragraph 48)
(l) The distinction between Prime Minister's
Questions and departmental Question Time is sufficiently fundamental
that special provision for the former would be justified. We recommend
that the timing of PMQs ought to be separately specified in the
standing orders, so that any future change to it will be open
to debate and subject to the formal decision of the House, which
will thus be seen to have 'ownership' of its own procedures. (paragraph
55)
(m) We very much welcome the Prime Minister's
willingness to appear before the Liaison Committee, which we believe
will lead to a significant increase in Government accountability
to Parliament, as well as an enhanced recognition of the importance
of the select committee system within Parliament. ... It may be
that in due course the principle of questioning the Prime Minister
in committee could usefully be extended, with more frequent committee
appearances, perhaps every six to eight weeks. Such evidence sessions
might be held in Westminster Hall. (paragraph 60)
(n) Our proposal to reduce the period of
notice for oral questions from ten to three sitting days, if implemented,
will reduce some of the perceived disadvantage to Members of tabling
closed questions to the Prime Minister, by making it easier for
such questions to be relevant and topical. We hope this will encourage
Members to make greater use of closed questions. In addition,
any future extension of the practice of questioning the Prime
Minister in committee might provide an opportunity to experiment
with greater use of closed questions. (paragraph 61)
(o) The text of 'engagements' questions to
the Prime Minister should no longer be set out in full. Instead,
the names of Members successful in the ballot should be listed
under a rubric indicating that, unless a question is printed under
their name, they will ask an open question. (paragraph 62)
(p) We trust that the Select Committee on
Public Administration will address these and similar concerns
[raised in evidence] in their continuing inquiry into the quality
of ministerial answers. We recommend that they give consideration
in particular to the need for the Government, in cases where it
does not give a full and satisfactory answer to a question, to
state the reasons why this has not been possible. (paragraph 65)
(q) We also take the opportunity of reminding
the Government of the importance of adhering to the 1997 Resolution
of the House on ministerial responsibility. (paragraph 66)
(r) The House should impose a daily quota
per Member of five named-day questions (that is, five per day
relating to all named days, not just the earliest named
day). We expect that this measure, by relieving the pressure on
departments, will lead to a significant reduction in the number
of holding replies. (paragraph 73)
(s) The ration [of named-day questions per
Member per day] must be fixed and non-negotiable. (paragraph 74)
(t) We reject the Government's further proposal
that, in addition to a daily ration of named-day questions, the
minimum period for a reply to a named-day question should be extended
from three to four working days. (paragraph 76)
(u) The Principal Clerk, Table Office, suggested
to us that if there were to be a ration of named-day questions,
a Member who did not receive a substantive answer to such a question
on the due date could be given priority in a forthcoming ballot
for adjournment debates, perhaps in Westminster Hall. The Principal
Clerk argued that "such a penalty might discourage excessive
use by Ministers of holding replies". We understand the attraction
of this proposal, but consider that it would be best to see whether
our reform, if implemented, is successful in significantly reducing
the number of holding replies before deciding whether it would
be desirable to introduce sanctions of this kind. We may return
to this proposal in a future report. (paragraph 77)
(v) 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.
(paragraph 78)
(w) We urge 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. Members must take direct responsibility for
all questions tabled in their name. (paragraph 79)
(x) We welcome the Government's proposal
that the time for answering written questions should be brought
forward. We recommend that it be implemented. However, we note
the concerns expressed by the Table Office and the Official Report.
... The Government should give an undertaking that departments
will use their best endeavours to answer questions at 9.30
am rather than in batches during the day, and that (other than
in exceptional circumstances) all questions will be answered by
7 pm. (paragraph 81)
(y) We recommend that [the Government's]
proposal to replace planted questions with 'written statements'
should be adopted. (paragraph 82).
(z) The introduction of a system of electronic
tabling is highly desirable and should proceed. (paragraph 90)
(aa) In the first instance the House should
approve the introduction as soon as possible of a system of electronic
tabling which is closer to the Scottish or House of Lords model
[than to the 'strong authentication' option] (but with some added
safeguards which we detail below). This should proceed on an experimental
basis. (paragraph 90)
(bb) 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. If necessary, the more expensive and complicated option
of commissioning a system based on 'strong' authentication could
at this point be pursued. We hope that Members will operate the
new system in a responsible manner and this latter option will
not prove necessary. (paragraph 90)
(cc) Members who wish to use the new system
should be required formally to opt into it, by supplying the Table
Office with a signed authority allowing the Office to receive
questions sent from specified electronic addresses. (paragraph
91)
(dd) Questions should only be accepted from
addresses within the Parliamentary Data and Video Network. (paragraph
91)
(ee) Questions should not be accepted via
ordinary e-mail. Instead, there should be a Web-based system using
a template. (paragraph 91)
(ff) The development of the template and
associated software should be undertaken by the parliamentary
IT authorities, in liaison with the Table Office and other interested
parties such as the House of Commons Library and the Official
Report. The Table Office (subject to the authority of Mr Speaker)
should have the final say as to the contents and configuration
of the system. The overall objectives will be to maximise the
advantages of automation, by producing a system which is as easy
as possible for Members to use, which will capture as much relevant
information as possible at the earliest time, and which may, if
it proves technically feasible, police any relevant deadlines
and quotas. The system will need to be developed within the wider
framework of the House's overall strategy for future information
services. (paragraph 92)
(gg) Electronic tabling will be in addition
to, not instead of, the existing methods of tabling.
(paragraph 93)
(hh) 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.
(paragraph 94)
(ii) Oral as well as written questions should
be submissible electronically. (paragraph 95)
(jj) With effect from the introduction of
electronic tabling, submission of oral questions by post should
be again permitted. (paragraph 95)
(kk) Further developments in regard to electronic
transmission of information should be reviewed in the light of
the experience of introducing electronic tabling and of IT developments
such as new arrangements for printing questions and the proposed
new information system for the House. (paragraph 96)
(ll) The current 'closed period' for questions
during the summer of nearly three months represents an unacceptable
restriction of Members' rights to pursue urgent political and
constituency concerns. Equally, ... it is reasonable that there
should be a shorter annual break from tabling of questions during
the holiday period. We therefore recommend that with effect from
1 September each year, Members should be permitted to table written
questions. ...This change should be made irrespective of whether
the Government's proposals for September sittings of the House
are adopted. (paragraph 101)
(mm) During recess periods in September/October,
the Table Office should be open every Thursday during specified
hours to receive questions, which should be printed after each
tabling day in a special issue of the blue notice paper; and ...
answers should likewise be printed in a special issue of Hansard
to appear on a fixed day once a week (paragraph 102).
(nn) During September/October recess periods,
named-day questions may only be put down for answer on a day one
week ahead of the tabling day. (paragraph 102)
(oo) We do not believe that, initially at
any rate, quotas should be imposed on the number of questions
a Member may table in the recess. (paragraph 103)
(pp) The shuffle for a Question Time immediately
after the summer recess should be held in the final part of the
recess, on the day on which it would be held if the House was
not in recess—i.e. if the House were to return on a Monday,
the shuffle for Question Time on that Monday would be held (assuming
our recommendation about notice is accepted) on the preceding
Wednesday. We do not recommend any change to the earliest tabling
dates for these questions. This proposal will enable much more
topical questions to be tabled for Question Times immediately
after the summer recess, and will maximise convenience for Members,
whilst still affording the standard notice period for Government
departments. (paragraph 104)
(qq) We welcome the Government's sensible
proposal in relation to questions unanswered at the start of the
recess. (paragraph 106)
(rr) We recommend that headings should be
inserted in the blue notice paper to reflect the way questions
are organised on the paper, in order to make easier for Members
and others to find their way around the 'blues'. (paragraph 107)
(ss) We recognise that some of our recommendations—such
as those in relation to electronic tabling and tabling in the
summer recess—will have resource implications for the House
in terms of staff time and printing costs. We believe that the
extra resources needed can be more than justified in terms of
the gains that will accrue to the House by way of more effective
scrutiny of the Executive and greater convenience to Members.
We also recognise that our recommendations will impose some extra
burdens on the staff of the House. We hope that where necessary
the House authorities will take steps to provide more staff resources
and to ensure that staff facilities are adequate (for instance,
a review of the accommodation available to the Table Office would
be desirable). We also wish to take this opportunity of thanking
the staff of the House—and especially the Clerks in the
Table Office—for the commitment, skill and courtesy with
which they administer the system of Parliamentary Questions. (paragraph
108)
(tt) We hope that our recommendations, if
approved by the House, will be implemented as soon as possible,
preferably with effect from the start of Session 2002-03. We recognise
that some recommendations will require the development of computer
software, alterations to the POLIS system, or considerable liaison
between departments of the House, and that it may not be possible
at this stage to impose a firm deadline for their coming into
effect. We believe that if such recommendations have been approved
in principle by the House, Mr Speaker should have the authority
to approve their coming into effect as soon as he is satisfied,
on the basis of advice from the House authorities, that the necessary
preparatory work has been carried out. (paragraph 109)
|
