1 Introduction
1. The Procedure Committee last considered the
matter of written parliamentary questions (WPQs) in detail in
2002.[1] That Report recommended
a daily quota for named day questions, the establishment of an
electronic system for tabling questions, and the introduction
of tabling facilities during the Summer Recess period. The Report
also concluded that it would be wrong in principle to seek to
impose any limit on the number of ordinary written questions that
could be tabled by a Member.[2]
2. In the five year interval between that Report
and the commencement of our current inquiry, the improvements
recommended by the Committee have had time to bed down and become
part of the accepted system for tabling questions. Some positive
innovations have been made: for example, the introduction of tabling
days during the summer recess. We decided to initiate this further
inquiry to evaluate the impact of the previous recommendations
and to assess new challenges facing the system of WPQs. In particular,
the number of WPQs has continued to rise, placing pressure on
the resources of both Parliament and Government. We were also
aware of frustration among Members with the quality and timeliness
of some answers to WPQs. In addition, the introduction of the
e-tabling system, although largely successful, has further heightened
long-standing concerns over the authentication of tabled questions
and the extent of Member participation in the process of drafting
and submitting WPQs.
3. In 2007, we heard evidence from the then Leader
of the House, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, and a group of MPs representing
opposition and backbench interests: David Drew MP (Labour), Oliver
Heald MP (Conservative) and David Laws MP (Liberal Democrat).
We then decided to suspend this inquiry while conducting our inquiry
into e-petitioning. In 2009, we returned to this subject and brought
the inquiry up to date by taking further oral evidence from officials
in the Table Office of the House of Commons, and from Chris Bryant
MP, the then Deputy Leader of the House. We also invited all Members
of the House to submit examples of questions which they felt were
answered either inadequately or not at all. We are grateful to
all those who took up this invitation.
1 House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliamentary
Questions, Third Report of Session, 2001-02, HC 622. Back
2
Ibid; paragraph 78. Back
|
