| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
There is also the question of
cost. We must acknowledge that questions are an expensive business. The
business of holding the Executive to account is important and merits
spending money, but such a tool should not be used irresponsibly. Five
years ago the
average cost of answering a written question was estimated to be
£129 and that of answering an oral question £299. Asking
questions is an expensive business, and we must be careful how we use
the tool.
I have indulged in the luxury of more time and have made my points at greater length than I might otherwise have done. Let me turn to what I suggest are three possible remedies. The House has a less legitimate right to complain about inadequate answers if individual Members are abusing the system. I am clear that many answers are inadequate, and I am clear that many Members are abusing the system. I am also clear about what needs to be done, although other Members may have different suggestions to deal with the menace that I have identified. I propose three simple measures to reduce the number of questions tabled, in the hope that as a result, Ministers will feel able to pay more attention to their replies.
Although my remedies are procedural, it is worth emphasising that, as I said earlier, it would help if we thought a bit more carefully about where we could find things out. Training in both the sources of information available and the purpose of parliamentary questions would help. Parliamentary questions are not a short-cut research tool, but a vital part of the politician’s armoury to hold the Government to account. My three proposals will not be popular with all Members, but they are important. They are based on the principle that if a thing is worth asking about, it is worth making a bit effort to ask about it.
First, we should end the electronic tabling of questions—at least while the system is examined for abuse. We know that it is being abused. Our individual convenience should not come ahead of the integrity of the whole system. True parliamentary modernisation is not about making things easier for Members or the Executive, or even using new technology for its own sake “because it is there”. It should be about making Parliament more relevant. The loss of e-tabling may be regretted by the anoraks and nerds, but it should be welcomed by all true parliamentary democrats.
My second proposal is that we should require all questions to be tabled in person by Members, not their staff. I repeat that if a question is worth asking, it is worth making the effort. The proposal would be a form of rationing through which those who made the effort would get the reward. There would be no more dropping parliamentary questions in the box outside the Table Office. Members of Parliament would actually have to go through the door in person and hand their questions to the hard-working and helpful Clerks who frequent the office. Members might find that their questions were improved in the process if they sought a bit of advice from the Clerks.
If we could table questions when the House was not sitting, the proposal would require the Table Office to be staffed for at least part of the summer recess. As I have the luxury of more time, I will make my next point at more length than I had intended. I do not favour a return to September sittings, for a range of reasons that are outside the terms of the debate, but the House should find it easier to hold the Government to account during the recess. One way of achieving that would be to allow Members to table written parliamentary questions during the recess.
I am aware of two Select Committee recommendations on this matter, although there are probably others. The third report of the Procedure Committee in 2001-02, entitled “Parliamentary Questions”, said:
“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.”
“during recess periods...the Table Office should be open every Thursday during specified hours”.
Much more recently, the Modernisation Committee made exactly the same point, albeit slightly finessed, in a report on sitting hours that was published on 11 January 2005. It said:
“Since there will be no September sitting in 2005, we propose that there should instead be a two-week period during which questions for written answer may be tabled and answered and we urge the Leader of the House to bring forward a Motion to give effect to this proposal.”
Those sound ideas would help us to do our job during the recess, so I commend them to hon. Members, and to the Deputy Leader of the House. I realise that they would require the Table Office to open for limited periods, so there might be a question of expense, but it would be worth adopting such a procedure.
My third proposal is very simple: we should change the question forms that we have to sign so that Members’ signatures need to be entered at the absolute end of the question on the page, not at the bottom of the form. That would end the practice of signing blank forms, and ensure that Members at least looked at the questions that they were tabling, even if they had been written by someone else. Perhaps it is not too ambitious to hope that Members might start writing questions themselves, which would be wonderful.
None of us would leave a book of signed blank cheques lying around the House, or even our home, but Members are doing something similar in terms of their right to scrutinise the Government, which they are treating lightly, as they also treat the expense of answering questions. My proposal would be a simple but powerful device to ensure that Members’ researchers would no longer be able to bombard the Order Paper with unnecessary questions.
I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to use the luxury of additional time, but I will now conclude. I have outlined three simple and practical proposals that could restore integrity to the whole process. If Parliament cleans up its act, we will have a right to look to Ministers to do the same thing by improving the processes for the answering of questions in their Departments. Who knows? Then I might even get some better and more timely answers for my constituents.
5.57 pm
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) for securing this timely and thoughtful debate. I want to dwell on one or two of the issues that he did not raise. He was quite right that there have been several problems with late answers.
My hon. Friend did not mention questions that are tabled for answer on a named day. I receive an increasing number of holding answers to such questions. If one has asked a detailed and complex question that cannot be answered fully in a short time, it is perfectly reasonable to receive a holding answer, as long as a full answer arrives in a reasonably short time. However, I am disturbed that questions that require simple statements of fact or Government policy that ought to be easily available—not the sort of things that are available on a website, but information that it should be pretty straightforward for a Minister to give—still receive a holding answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) tabled such a question to ask the Government to lay out their strategic objectives in the middle east. Given that we have close on 10,000 troops there, it should have been reasonably possible for the Foreign Office to lay its hands on a comprehensive answer, but he instead received a holding answer, which seemed inappropriate. Perhaps the situation arose because of the points about volume that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made. The answers to those sorts of questions need to be approved by a Minister, and if there is a significant number of questions it is simply not possible for even the basic ones to be answered within the deadline. The quantity is definitely affecting the quality.
My hon. Friend also made the point that with the advent of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we have to be very careful about how we use parliamentary questions to make sure that Ministers look to the answers to parliamentary questions as the pre-eminent method of transmitting information to Members, as Mr. Speaker has on a number of occasions made clear that they should. We should not be able to get that information more quickly or more comprehensively by another route. We know that newspapers make lots of freedom of information requests. Indeed, at some point it may be worth having an Adjournment debate on how that legislation is working. I suspect that some of the things that my hon. Friend said about parliamentary questions probably apply to freedom of information requests. We need to make sure that Parliament, not the Freedom of Information Act, is the central method of holding the Executive to account.
I agree with my hon. Friend to some extent about being careful about the costs that we incur, although looking at it from an accountant’s point of view, I am always very nervous about the quoted cost of answering questions. Unless there is an increase in the number of staff—with Departments rushing out and hiring staff specifically to answer questions—most of that cost is a matter of allocating overheads.
I would argue
that if civil servants are busy answering questions, they are probably
not inventing costly Government policies. One could argue that tabling
lots of questions and tying up the Government in that way is saving
taxpayers’ money rather than incurring a cost. If we look simply
at the accounting side of the matter, there is resource involved in
answering questions, even if it is just time. The biggest cost is
probably not a financial cost; if we put Departments under pressure to
answer a volume of questions that are not worth answering, we take away
valuable time that Ministers and civil servants ought to be using for
thinking about policy and about implementing policy. Perhaps, rather
than
focusing purely on the cash cost, we should consider the reduction in
the quality of government that we are
getting.
The potential solutions laid out my hon. Friend are very valuable. After some thought, I think that his e-tabling solution is worthy of consideration. Coming from an IT background, I am always reluctant to get rid of a technological solution, but forcing Members to table questions in person may be advantageous, as Table Office staff are able to look at the questions. We could perhaps allow e-tabling during recesses. As a new Member I have found no problem visiting the Table Office to table my questions.
To expand on a point that my hon. Friend made in passing, I have found the quality of the Table Office staff to be very high. They often improve the question, and it is useful for a Member to discuss with them exactly the point that one is trying to get to and the information that one is trying to get. They, with their great experience, are often able to suggest ways of drafting a question so that one is more likely to get the information that one is after. Members who solely use e-tabling or have questions deposited in the box, and do not interact with Table Office staff, are missing out on a valuable resource available to them. Perhaps if they used that resource, and questions improved, it would make it more difficult for Ministers to give poor answers, as some of those loopholes left in the questions would be closed.
My hon. Friend’s suggestion of forcing Members to sign immediately after the question, or some solution to force Members into personal interaction, is incredibly valuable. I was very surprised by the information that he gave about the small number of carded questions which are followed up. I know that when I table questions, I actually want the answer, whether for constituency reasons or for Front-Bench responsibilities. If I receive a card from the Table Office, I make it my business to present myself there fairly sharply to clear up the problem with the question, discuss it with the staff and ensure that it is tabled. Frequently, if questions are not answered, I have to table questions chasing them up. Usually, when I table questions, the answer matters, either to a constituent or as part of the formulation of Government policy and the process of holding the Executive to account. That is our responsibility. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about TheyWorkForYou.com and the way in which its measurement of the effectiveness of a Member of Parliament in a performance league table puts Members under incredible pressure. If they do not undertake a volume of work, their performance is criticised—that applies more to new Members than experienced colleagues, who are more relaxed because they have more experience in the House.
That league table, however, is
indicative of a wider problem. Many of our constituents are
professionals who work in public services. They say that many
professional people—and I hope that Members of Parliament
consider themselves professional people—whether they work in the
public or private sector believe that they operate in a target culture,
in which management attempt to categorise all their work with easily
measurable performance indicators. Government bear
wider responsibility, as they try to measure public
servants’ performance in professional, complicated jobs with
simple performance indicators, so we can hardly complain when others
judge us with similarly ill-thought-through measures that do not fully
comprehend a Member of Parliament’s role. In a wider sense,
therefore, we only have ourselves to blame.
Finally, I endorse my hon. Friend’s support of the Procedure Committee’s recommendations about the way in which we hold the Executive to account in the recess, particularly the summer recess. We have a constant battle explaining to the press and our constituents that we do not have long summer holiday. The House may not be sitting, but we still have many things to attend to. We receive letters from constituents and we attend engagements in our constituencies. We can use the time for thinking, researching policy or doing things that we do not have time to do when we are under heavy day-to-day pressure. However, we are supposed to hold the Government to account in the recess. We could introduce a pilot measure, at least to allow questions to be tabled in September. I accept that there would be logistical problems for the Table Office if we permitted questions to be tabled throughout the recess. Table Office staff work incredible long hours when the House is sitting, and they are entitled to a holiday. It would be sensible not to allow questions to be tabled in August, but the opportunity to do so would be welcome in September. As the House is not sitting, we may have to use a measure such as e-tabling, given that it is physically problematic for Members whose constituencies are far from London to come to the House. However, it is certainly worth a trial with certain constraints to see how the proposal works and to reinforce for Members of Parliament the message of quality versus quantity.
My hon. Friend has done the House a valuable service by holding this debate, and I look forward to the response from the Deputy Leader of the House.
6.8 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on securing this debate on the issue of written parliamentary questions, and on the thoughtful way he presented his case. However, he will forgive me if I do not agree with every detail of his analysis.
As well as expressing concern about the speed and quality of answers he has received, the hon. Member expressed wider concern about what he regards as a problem in the operation of the system for tabling written questions. He suggested that there was a link between that problem and some of the difficulties he has experienced securing satisfactory responses to his perfectly legitimate parliamentary questions. I will deal with the wider issues in a moment, but in respect of any problems that he has encountered securing answers to individual questions, may I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made clear, that the Government attach a high priority to the obligations on Ministers to respond properly to written questions? The Government fully recognise the important role played by parliamentary questions in contributing to the accountability of Government to Parliament. That accountability lies at the heart of our constitutional arrangements.
Paragraph 1.5 of the ministerial code states:
“Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and to be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies”.
“it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament”.
The Cabinet Office guidance backs that up, setting out the deadlines for responding to parliamentary questions. Since taking up his post, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been at pains to underline the Government’s commitment in this area. He has raised the matter directly with Cabinet colleagues, and he has responded to concerns raised on the Floor of the House, most recently on 14 June following a point of order.
Of course, there will be times when hon. Members do not feel that the response that they have been given is up to the standard that they want. Where hon. Members are dissatisfied with the response given, various remedies are, of course, open to them. They can correspond with the Minister, table further parliamentary questions and engage in other procedures of the House, including, of course, Adjournment debates such as this one. They can also report their dissatisfaction to the Public Administration Committee, which reports regularly to the House. The Committee has completed a number of reports on the quality of answering, and it takes representations from individual hon. Members into account in its comments. We must strive to ensure that the original answer is satisfactory and that hon. Members feel no need to engage with any of these follow-up paths. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has drawn the House’s attention to answers that he has received recently from three Departments, and I will certainly take up his points with those Departments.
Let me turn to the issue with which the hon. Member dealt at some length and which he and I believe the whole House needs to consider carefully—whether the dramatic rise in the number of written questions, particularly those tabled by researchers and volunteers, is contributing to a decline in the quality of answers. It is in the interests of both Government and Parliament that the system works well. The more effective the tabling procedure, the more effective will be the accountability. The procedure works best when the questions tabled are penetrating and factual, and the answers are as accurate as possible.
The hon.
Member has rightly pointed out that that creates obligations on both
sides. He has highlighted the concerns of many hon. Members that so
many written questions are being tabled that the quality of the
questions is diminished and that the quality of the answers comes under
threat, too. The hon. Member has given some graphic statistics,
covering both written and oral questions, and I can underline his
essential conclusion by giving the figures for written questions alone.
In the 1997 Parliament, around 200 written questions were tabled on
each sitting day. In the 2001 Parliament, that rose to 350 questions
tabled each day. And in this Parliament, since 2005, the figure has
risen further to 474 questions tabled a day. Clearly, since the number
of written questions has more than doubled in
less than a decade, this will have some effect on the
time Ministers and officials have to devote to preparing and
authorising the
answers.
As the hon. Member has said, the Procedure Committee last looked at the matter in 2002. The then Leader of the House, Robin Cook, was asked whether he thought that “there is an erosion in the quality of the answers people get to those written questions”.
Because of the increase in the number of questions, he gave the unequivocal answer, “yes”, and he said that when the number of written parliamentary questions was significantly lower than it is now. He believed that pressure on the system was such that the overall level of answering declines, so that it is not only those who have caused the increase, unwittingly or not, who suffer, but all hon. Members who suffer.
The hon. Member has been as constructive as he has been critical. He has criticised e-tabling, which was introduced in 2002. As the hon. Member has described, it is popular, but it is open to abuse. The use of electronic means for conducting our affairs is something that we are all used to, and it is absolutely right that we should be looking for ways to improve the efficiency with which we conduct our business in this place.
The hon. Member has posed the essential question: is e-tabling making the tabling of questions by researchers too easy? Is it threatening the required link between a question and the hon. Member in whose name it stands? That was certainly a concern at the time that e-tabling was introduced. The Procedure Committee noted that, in essence, there was a choice between a “strong” authentication system—such as a Member’s House security pass—before a question could be sent, or a “weak” authentication system involving a written authority and protocols. On balance, it thought that the House would prefer the weaker model, but proposed that it should be experimental, and that the Speaker should have a power to act if necessary. The House opted for the weaker system, but an increasing number of hon. Members believe that there is a case for reviewing the situation. Of course, the issue of how far the Member tabling a question is really involved in the process can arise with questions tabled in hard copy. The Table Office is aware of hon. Members who, in effect, pass on pre-signed pads of question forms for their staff to use.
The second issue of concern raised by the hon. Member is whether Members are asking for information readily available elsewhere. That concern, too, has been raised in past discussions. Robin Cook told the Procedure Committee in 2002 that
“there are...an awful lot of questions which go down...asking about matters which are easily in the public domain. To be frank, when I was in opposition I found it more useful to wander along the library and ask for information than to try and put questions to the Government...I got the answer in more convincing detail and, sometimes, quicker than when I tabled a question to the minister. Since those days the internet has exploded in terms of the availability of information.”
That latter
point is important: masses of information is available both in the
House of Commons Library and on the internet from both Government and
other websites, which would answer many of the
questions
tabled. If Members’ staff cannot easily identify where to look or
what they need, the House of Commons Library could not be more
helpful.
Peter Luff: My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) rightly paid tribute to the work of the Table Office, which perhaps I should have done at greater length in my speech. The Minister is making an important point. The Library is an incredibly powerful resource, which Parliament still probably under-uses.
Nigel Griffiths: On a personal note, I have always found the Library to be the gem of this place and the real adornment. I agree with the hon. Member.
The then Leader of the House, Robin Cook, made several important points that reflected his thoughtful style and prescience about embracing new technology, but also pointed out that that needs to be considered in practice.
The hon. Member referred to the pressure that some Members feel to be seen to be tabling lots of questions, or at least more questions than their parliamentary neighbours, and he mentioned websites that promote that effect. Clearly, we have colleagues who are more easily swayed by such league tables than others. As I think that he indicated, however, Government accountability is not about crude numerical performance measures, and nor is that of individual Members. It is not a contest in that sense. It is about improving the performance of Government and about helping to establish whether that performance is satisfactory or how it might be improved.
The hon.
Member made several proposals about how the situation might be
addressed, which were echoed eloquently by his hon. Friend the Member
for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper): ending the system of e-tabling;
requiring all parliamentary questions to be handed in by a Member to
the Table Office; and/or requiring a Member’s signature at the
end of the question as it is handed in, rather than at the bottom of
the form, to help preclude the use of pre-signed forms.
Let me be frank: I do not want to be seen—the Government do not want to be seen—as seeking to clamp down in any way on Members’ ability to scrutinise the Executive. Members have different perspectives on what is important and how they wish to pursue their work, or on how to use their staff. That is absolutely right and proper. But the Government agree with the hon. Member that the volume of written parliamentary questions is causing difficulties. In practice, as the Leader of the House pointed out today, in many ways, the Government are now subject to wider scrutiny, from even more directions—both parliamentary and non-parliamentary—than was ever the case in the past. It is certainly not for the Government to seek to impose changes on the House in this regard. It is healthy that the concerns expressed this evening have come from an individual Member—an Opposition Member, indeed—and his colleagues, and not from the Executive.
I have drawn the hon. Member’s concerns to the attention of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). He chairs the Procedure Committee, which last examined the issue four years ago under other chairmanship. The right hon. Member is minded to ask his Committee to consider the hon. Member’s proposals, and will write to him after he has studied them more fully. That, in turn, could pave the way to the tabling of questions when the House is not sitting. A review by the Procedure Committee could allow a proper assessment of the views of other Members to establish the extent to which the hon. Member’s concerns are shared, and the extent to which Members are prepared to consider changes in practices that will involve co-operation on all sides. Let me make it clear again that the objective would be better scrutiny, not less scrutiny, of the Executive by the House.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for giving us an opportunity to discuss the issues more fully.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Six o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |