Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
140-145)
MS JACQY
SHARPE, MR
NICK WALKER,
MS KAREN
SAUNDERS AND
MS LYNN
LEWIS
11 MARCH 2009
Q140 John Hemming: The Member would
have to fill in a standard form and turn up with it personally,
not do it by e-tabling, and ask for a pursuant question. The form
would say, "Member x considered the answer inadequate
and, pursuant to this, could the department do any better?"
Do you see a problem with that?
Mr Walker: Are you not saying
that in effect that would be the same procedure as a Member tabling
a question pursuant to an answer in which for whatever reason
the information was not provided?
Q141 John Hemming: If you look at
the question of process I think it would be wrong for the Table
Office to be put into a position where it had to exercise judgment
as to whether a question had or had not been adequately answered.
The question on the paper here is whether you would be willing
to have a role in judging it. I do not think you do want such
a role?
Ms Sharpe: No.
John Hemming: I do not think that is
appropriate. It is similar to the position under freedom of information
where the first step is to ask for a review within the public
authority that you are approaching for information. Logically,
the first step following an unsatisfactory answer is to go back
to the department and say that in your view it is not satisfactory
and ask for its response to that. That could elicit a response.
At a later stage it could go to the departmental select committee
or whatever, but from your point of view you would be entirely
happy to have a process where you record and ask another question
pursuant to a previous one which the Member thinks has been answered
unsatisfactorily.
Q142 Chairman: It would have to be
more sophisticated than just a straightforward pursuant question.
Some pursuant questions arise out of the information that is revealed
in the answer about which the Member does not know. I think Mr
Hemming is talking about the situation where a Member wishes to
table a pursuant question which relates only to the unsatisfactory
nature of the initial answer.
Mr Walker: The ability to table
a pursuant question depends to some extent on the nature of the
original question. If the government responds to a question by
saying that it cannot answer it on grounds of national security
for us that is a clear block, but a Member may well come in and
say he or she thinks that is unsatisfactory. I can well imagine
circumstances in which that would happen. The Member would claim
that it was not a matter of national security and would like it
recorded that he or she felt it unsatisfactory and the government
was refusing to answer it. Without an actual procedure to follow
the registration of dissatisfaction, if one wants to call it that,
I am not completely persuaded of the value of the procedure. I
believe that at the time of the introduction of the Freedom of
Information Act the government said it was possible for Members
to submit a freedom of information request as a kind of appeal.
Q143 John Hemming: But that is really
an undermining of democracy. The theory is that parliamentary
questions should elicit as much information as possible and more
quickly than the Freedom of Information Act and to resort to the
latter as an appeals mechanism is not very good at all. What you
are saying is that as long as there is a procedure whereby one
can go somewhere else afterwards you are entirely happy to have
a form for unsatisfactory answers and pursuant questions because
at some point the fact that it is considered an unsatisfactory
answer is recorded?
Ms Sharpe: If the Committee and
House think it is a good idea we can certainly give thought to
how it can be achieved. We can certainly give some thought to
it this week and see if we can provide you with a supplementary
note.
Q144 John Hemming: What I read into
what you are saying is that if there was no further procedure
you would see it as relatively futile but if there was a next
step after it and a process that a Member could follow it would
have merit?
Ms Sharpe: We would certainly
look at it. If you would like us to give it some thought and provide
a paper on it with our views we would do so.
Mr Walker: That would be my initial
reaction. I just want to make clear that I do not advocate use
of the Freedom of Information Act as an appeal mechanism for unsatisfactory
answers to parliamentary questions.
Q145 Chairman: We may write to you
further. Is there anything that you wish to add or place on record?
Ms Sharpe: I should emphasise
that the fundamental aim of our office is to be helpful to Members
who wish to table questions. I noted that in one evidence session
a Member thought that sometimes we might act as gate-keepers to
keep down the numbers. That is not our aim. Our aim is to help
Members to table questions as is their right within the rules
that we implement on behalf of Mr Speaker.
Chairman: I thank you all on behalf of
the Committee for giving us your time and sharing with us your
expertise and knowledge. It has been very helpful to us.
| 
