Memorandum submitted by Mr Oliver Heald
MP (Session 2006-07, P 26)
I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to
the Procedure Committee in relation to its latest inquiry.
Changing role of Members of Parliament:
The role of MPs has changed and continues to change, reflecting
the decline in "deference", modern technology and more
tightly contested election campaigns. MPs are under greater pressure
from press and public to illustrate to their constituents that
they are serving the local community. Just as this will be mirrored
in increasing casework, so it will also be mirrored in Parliamentary
Questions that are tabled. I sense there is also a trend for MPs
to use PQs to raise local constituency issues, rather than just
via correspondence alone; this is not a negative trend—as
it is a very transparent manner of championing constituency interests.
Moreover, as the Cheadle by-election showed, candidates who had
a record of not tabling PQs were criticised for not being an effective
constituency MP.
Long-term trends: I disagree with
the comments of the Leader of the House who in his evidence to
the Committee in February attacked the "industrial quantities
of PQs" being tabled. [1]Last
year, he actually pointed out that this was a sign of healthy
scrutiny of government, and that recent increases were merely
a long-term trend from the 1960s. "...The scrutiny of government
is far more substantial than it was back in the mid-seventies
when I was working as a special adviser... Written questions.
The number of those tabled has been on an inexorable rise. In
1964-65, there were 8,270, rising to 17,468 in 1971-72. By 1985-86
that had risen to 31,808. The latest figures for this session—to
the end of April—show that more than 66,000 have been tabled
already." [2]
The role of Her Majesty's Opposition:
I would expect the number of PQs tabled by Conservative MPs
has increased year on year since 1997. This reflects the fact
that, when in Government, it was less appropriate for MPs to table
questions to Ministers—correspondence would have been more
effective. Combined with being in government since 1979, this
meant that when Conservatives entered Opposition in 1997, there
was a less strong culture or tradition of using WPQs to hold the
Government to account. By virtue of the 2001 and 2005 general
election results, Conservatives have remained in Opposition. Unsurprisingly,
we have learnt the lessons of effective Opposition, and the wide
use of Parliamentary Questions is part of that. As a member of
the Shadow Cabinet, I find WPQs invaluable in performing my duties
as an opposition frontbencher.
Cost of Questions: The Government
when they receive difficult questions often complain that the
cost of a Question is £140. This is a disingenuous response.
The true test should be the marginal cost of tabling a question
(near £40) rather than the average cost; this is since there
are certain unavoidable fixed costs of providing a facility to
handle PQs by virtue of our Parliamentary system.
Holding the Government to account: Parliamentary
Questions are a vital part of the Parliamentary process and help
facilitate effective scrutiny of the prevailing government of
the day. Any attempt to curtail their use—in a similar manner
to the way that the Labour Government is clamping down on Freedom
of Information requests—would be viewed as a partisan move
by Her Majesty's Opposition and strongly resisted. I believe that
vigorous use of WPQs is a sign of a healthy democracy.
Role of technology: Modern computers,
especially the internet, have had a significant and ongoing effect.
The public are able to read Hansard online—and see what
questions are asked, and which MPs do not ask questions. Electronic
tabling and mail-merging certainly make it easier to table questions
physically, by removing the mundane administrative barriers. This
will inevitable encourage more questions to be tabled, in the
same manner that email has increased casework; but the march of
technology is not, in itself, a trend to be resisted. From the
other side, technology has made it easier for Questions to be
answered.
Freedom of Information Act: My frontbench
colleagues and I are concerned that there is a trend for Ministers
to refuse to answer PQs properly by releasing documents or information
which is requested; but in turn, such information is subsequently
released under Freedom of Information Act requests. The practical
effect of such avoidance measures by Ministers is to undermine
the primacy of Parliament in holding the Government of the day
to account, and raises questions on whether Ministers are being
entirely genuine in the reasons they give to Parliament for refusing
to disclose such documents. I would note that under Section 16
of the Act, public authorities have a duty to provide assistance;
this does not apply to requests made in Parliamentary Questions.
I would like to ask the Committee to consider whether it should
be appropriate for such a duty also to apply to requests for information
made through the Parliamentary process.
Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs,
and
Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
March 2007
1 Uncorrected transcript, HC 336-i, 28 February
2007. Back
2
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, LSE and Fabian Society Public Lecture,
"The Future for Democracy-Politics in a Spectator Society",
28 June 2006. Back
|
