Memorandum from the Principal Clerk, Table
Office (P 19)
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 Office, 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 23 edition, pp 344-353.
They were endorsed by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions
in its 1972 Report, which also emphasised that the cumulative
effect 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 offer) information
or ask for action;
— relate to a matter for which
a Minister is responsible;
— 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 Office 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
affairs 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 official capacity;
(e) to allow Questions seeking information
on the effects 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 Office construct guidelines
for admissible Questions. While these proposals sound attractive,
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. 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 Office 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 staff or
delivered by mail or e-tabled, the Office 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 official
document or relevant official correspondence, can be helpful.
Direct discussion with a Member remains the most effective 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 Office". 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 Office 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.
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 suffered few technical problems, and so far as
known has proved secure. Questions are printed out in hard copy,
and processed by Table Office Clerks in the same way as all other
Questions received. From the Office'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 staff. 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' staff 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 Office
and leaving them for examination. But e-tabling may have made
it easier for Members to delegate the submission of Questions.
11. 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. But 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 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 difficulty 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 staff
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.
B. VOLUME INCREASE
Figures
13. The various statistics collected by
the Office 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.
Reasons for increase
14. The Table Office 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' staff, 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 staff 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 effect, 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 Official Opposition and Liberal
Democrat front benchers on the subjects within their front bench
portfolio.
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 Office 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 Office to discuss how, if at all, the
Question can be rendered orderly.
Consequences
20. The Office is responsible for the acceptance
of Written Questions: their editing, sub-editing and sorting:
the preparation of text for printing by the staff of the Office
of the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote: and for corrections and
recording transfers and withdrawals. Responsibility for printing
Answers rests with the Official 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.
21. At the start of 2002 the Table Office
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.
22. Even with these additional staff, and
revised rostering hours, Table Office 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 affects 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. The pressures work through the system and also affect
the Office of the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote.
23. The staffing 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 affect 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-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.
24. The main impact of increased volumes
is of course on those responsible for answering the additional
Questions. The Table Office 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 Office 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 Official 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; and
(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 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 Office 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 Office
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 Office 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.
D. ANSWERS
General
34. The Office'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 Office
read the Answers in Hansard, so far as time allows, in
order to acquire a sufficient 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.
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 Office
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.
David Natzler
February 2007
Annex
DRAFT CODIFICATION OF RULES
RESPONSIBILITY
Rule 1 A Question must relate to public affairs
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.
— The private and voluntary sectors.
Questions are allowed on aspects of nationalised
industries and similar bodies (Post Office, BNFL, Railtrack etc);
on local NHS services on which Ministers have answered; and internal
affairs 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 Office takes into account any recent pattern
of answering which may reveal detailed knowledge of the work of
local bodies, and of internal affairs in some countries. One particular
area which causes difficulties 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 sufficient content, 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 offensive 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; 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.
Source: Table Office.
Mean number of PQs per Sitting Day for
Financial Years 2002-03 to 2006-07
| | Ord Written
| Nd (Earliest) | Nd (Plus 1)
| Nd (Other) | All
|
| | Sitting Days |
Number | Mean | Number
| Mean | Number | Mean
| Number | Mean | Number
| Mean |
| FY 2002-03 | 153 | 38,887
| 254 | 9,004 | 59
| 2,215 | 14 | 2,719
| 18 | 52,825 | 345
|
| FY 2003-04 | 156 | 47,420
| 304 | 5,340 | 34
| 1,153 | 7 | 1,030
| 7 | 54,943 | 352
|
| FY 2004-05 | 151 | 45,569
| 302 | 5,433 | 36
| 1,261 | 8 | 1,112
| 7 | 53,375 | 353
|
| FY 2005-06 | 130 | 51,992
| 400 | 6,782 | 52
| 1,339 | 10 | 1,068
| 8 | 61,181 | 471
|
| FY 2006-07* | 112 | 42,508
| 380 | 6,938 | 62
| 1,275 | 11 | 1,001
| 9 | 51,722 | 462
|
FY 2006-07 data complete to January 2007.
Source: Table Office.
| 
