Appendix 1
Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions:
Government Response to the Committee's Fifth Report of Session
2004-05
The Government welcomes the Fifth Report of Session
2004-05 from the Public Administration Select Committee, the latest
in a series of reports on Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary
Questions.
Conclusions and recommendations
1. We understand that the Cabinet Office is actively
considering ways in which to disseminate good practice across
departments. We will return to this matter in a future report.
(Paragraph 2)
The Government recognise the importance of ensuring
that those working in Parliamentary Branches across all Departments
have access to information and advice, and are able to share and
disseminate best practice. There are currently a number of initiatives
in place to enable Parliamentary Branches to do this.
The Parliamentary Clerks Working Group (PCWG) was
established in November 2002 by the then Leader of the House the
late Rt. Hon. Robin Cook MP. It meets on a regular basis. The
Working Group is currently developing a Parliamentary Clerks Guide
to ensure best practice is shared across departments. This guide
will be produced in consultation with the House authorities. The
Government would be happy to share a copy of the guide with the
Committee and would welcome any comments.
In November 2004, the then Leader of the House, the
Rt. Hon. Peter Hain MP, launched a proof of concept website for
Parliamentary Clerks. The electronic parliamentary community (e-PC)
website provided a central source of information and guidance
for all Parliamentary Branches. This website is currently suspended
following the decision by the Cabinet Office to put the work of
the E-Government Unit (Knowledge Network) out to tender. The effectiveness
of a related database, which allowed for the electronic exchange
of parliamentary questions and answers and written ministerial
statements, is currently being evaluated by the Office of the
Leader of the House of Commons.
The Leader of the House, the Rt. Hon. Geoff Hoon
MP, will be hosting a seminar for Parliamentary Clerks on 8 December
to stress the importance of ensuring that Parliament is informed
of policy announcements in the first instance and that
good practice is exchanged between departments.
We note that the Committee plans to return to this
matter in a future report and we would welcome any comments the
Committee would make on this issue.
2. We are concerned that departments have failed
to honour fully their undertaking to provide the specific Code
exemption where they have failed to give an answer on public interest
grounds. We are particularly concerned that the Home Office has
been such a poor performer. This appears to be of a piece with
its inability to deal with named day Parliamentary Questions and
to meet its own deadlines for correspondence (Paragraph 5)
The Government acknowledges the concern of the Committee
on this issue. In response to the Committee's ninth report of
Session 2001-02, the Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers
to Parliamentary Questions was amended to reflect the Committee's
recommendation that where there was a refusal to provide information
the relevant exemption under the Code should be provided.
The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information
was superseded by the Freedom of Information Act in January
2005, and the revised version of Guidance to Officials
sets out the practice for Parliamentary Questions where information
is refused.
The House authorities were consulted on the guidance
and copies have been circulated to all Departments. Copies are
also available on the Cabinet Office website.
3. The Committee will monitor the effect of the
Freedom of Information Act on Parliamentary Questions, and we
will publish our findings in a future report on this subject.
(Paragraph 6)
The Government will of course consider and respond
to the findings of the Committee in any future reports on the
Freedom of Information Act and Parliamentary Questions.
4. We believe the Cabinet Office guidance, revised
to take account of the Freedom of Information Act, is inconsistent
with earlier practice and with the Government's recent response
to us which undertook to maintain the approach in future that
exemptions must be cited for each situation where information
is not provided in the Parliamentary Answer. As with the Code,
it should be possible to interpret the public interest by analogous
reference to Freedom of Information Act exemptions. For example
an answer withholding information for a particular reason could
state that "the parallel exemption under the Freedom of Information
Act would be …". Such phraseology would be helpful without
prejudicing the separate and distinct character of Parliamentary
proceedings. We recommend that Cabinet Office guidance should
be reconsidered accordingly. (Paragraph 10)
The Government acknowledges that, with the implementation
of the Freedom of Information Act in January 2005, it has not
proved possible to maintain the previous approach that exemptions
should be cited where information is not provided in response
to a Parliamentary Question.
The Government does not regard it as "possible
to interpret the public interest by analogous reference to Freedom
of Information Act exemptions". However the Guidance does
provide that a response should explain, in terms similar to those
in the Freedom of Information Act, the reasons for the refusal.
The Government believes that this strikes the right balance: it
responds in terms that echo the Act without prejudicing the differences
between the two processes.
The Government is concerned that any reference to
Freedom of Information Act exemptions in responses, even in terms
of the phraseology suggested by the Committee, will give the Member
or Peer the impression that the request for information in the
Parliamentary Question has been subject to a full public interest
test when in fact it is not possible to do this within the time
constraints for answering Parliamentary Questions.
Under the Freedom of Information Act those in receipt
of a written request for information are under a statutory obligation
to reply to that request promptly and in any event within 20 days.
However where the public authority needs to consider the balance
of the public interest in relation to disclosure, it is not obliged
to comply with its duties under section1 of FOIA (the right to
access) until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances.
The deadlines for responding to Parliamentary Questions are not
compatible with this. Ministers have an obligation to Parliament
to ensure that Members receive a substantive response to their
named day question on the named day and to endeavour to answer
an ordinary written question within a working week of it being
tabled.
However, the Government firmly believes that greater
access to information should do nothing to undermine the crucial
role of Parliament in holding the Government to account.
Where there is a change of policy in relation to
the release of information the Government is of the view that
where appropriate the House should be informed that this is the
case.
The Cabinet Office guidance advises Departments that,
"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 a written ministerial statement".
5. We recommend that the annual report on departmental
performance on handling correspondence should be accompanied by
a similar report on departmental performance on named-day questions.
(Paragraph 13)
The Government is not persuaded that a report is
necessary at this point. Departments regularly publish updates
on their performance in response to PQs.
However, the Leader of the House of Commons will
keep under review the need to provide Parliament with an annual
report on the performance of replying to Parliamentary Questions
within agreed deadlines.
6. We would strongly deplore any attempt by departments
to use the new arrangements for dealing with Questions before
Prorogation, intended to create greater transparency, as a means
of avoiding answering a Question. We are particularly concerned
about the performance of the Home Office in this respect. We recommend
that the Leader of the House should, by the end of the year, review
how the new arrangements have been working and report to the House.
(Paragraph 16)
The Leader of the House of Commons will submit a
memorandum to the Committee at the end of this year on the use
of "prorogation answers".
| 
