Government response
Number of Questions
Recommendation
The use of WPQs is vital to the scrutiny of Government
and, in line with previous recommendations of the Committee, we
believe that no restriction should be placed on the number of
ordinary written parliamentary questions Members may ask (Paragraph
11)
Response
As the Committee notes, the volume of written questions
has grown significantly in recent years. The longer-term increase
is even more marked than the Committee suggests. During the 1997
Parliament, the average number of written answers per sitting
day remained fairly constant at a little more than 200. This was
followed by a sharp increase to 363 questions per day in 2001-02.
Volumes have fluctuated in subsequent sessions but an overall
upward trend resulted in the government answering an average of
445 questions per sitting day in 2007-08 and the Committee records
that, by March 2009, the average daily number of questions tabled
was 515. This is more than double the number tabled in any session
of the 1997-2001 Parliament.
The Committee's analysis notes that as well as being
driven by a greater desire on the part of Members to hold the
Government to account, the increase in the number of questions
might be attributable in part to a number of negative factors.
These include the use of question volumes by some websites which
monitor MPs' activities as a flawed proxy measure of their efforts
and effectiveness. The Committee also suggests that Members may
be delegating the drafting of significant numbers of questions
to their staff.
The Committee may be right in its conclusion that
a quota of ordinary questions is not the way to address the rising
volume. The Committee suggests that increasing numbers of questions
may be dealt with by running the system more efficiently and effectively.
The Government's view is that significant increases in the volume
of questions will inevitably compromise the Government's ability
to provide full, accurate and timely answers.
It is will not always be possible for the Government
to improve the quality and timeliness of answers by devoting more
resources specifically to answering Parliamentary questions. Complete
and accurate answers can in many cases only be provided by the
officials who work on the relevant policy. This is discussed in
more detail in the response to the Committee's recommendations
on departmental resources (paragraphs 59 & 60 of the Report).
'Trivial' or 'frivolous' questions
Recommendation
We understand the frustration of departments when
dealing with questions that may seem frivolous. However, Members
may have serious motives for tabling these questions, and must
be allowed to do so. We do not agree with the suggestion of the
former Leader of the House that there should be stricter rules
against such questions. It is not appropriate to ask the Table
Office to judge definitively whether or not a question is trivial,
and the benefit of the doubt in these cases must be given to the
Member. Departments should aim, as with all questions, to provide
a full and accurate answer, even if the question appears trivial.
(Paragraph 16)
Response
The Government accepts that some questions which
appear to be trivial or frivolous may have a serious purpose which
for some reason remains obscure. It will, however, generally be
easier for the Government to provide full and accurate answers
where the serious purpose of a question readily apparent.
Round robin questions
Recommendation
Members should be free to table round robins to all
departments, if they wish. The Table Office should try to identify
instances where a round robin is not relevant to a particular
department, and advise the Member accordingly, but the Member
should continue to have the benefit of the doubt. However, Members
should be encouraged to consider carefully whether questions are
relevant to all departments, and should recognise that a smaller
number of carefully focused questions may be more effective. (Paragraph
21)
Response
The Government welcomes the Committee's proposal
for the Table Office to advise Members where a "round robin"
question has been tabled to one or more departments to which it
is not relevant. Departments' parliamentary branches will be happy
to work with the Table Office to help establish where round robin
questions are not relevant to them.
Questions where the information is already available
to Members
Recommendation
Members should not use WPQs as the first resort for
obtaining information that could be available elsewhere. We strongly
encourage Members to investigate other options before tabling
a WPQ. The Table Office should continue to seek to identify, where
possible, when information is available elsewhere. However, we
recognise that Members may have legitimate reasons for asking
such questions, such as wanting to get a Minister's views on record
or wishing to see the information presented in a certain way.
(Paragraph 26)
Response
The Government welcomes this proposal and agrees
that questions should not routinely be used to seek information
which is already in the public domain unless there is a sound
reason why the Member wishes to see the information re-published
in the Official Report. The Government acknowledges that information
which is technically in the public domain may be difficult to
locate and recognises that there are circumstances in which a
Member might use a Parliamentary Question to seek information
which is already published.
Authentication
Recommendations
We recommend that Members be reminded regularly that
WPQs are a proceeding in Parliament and that they are personally
and directly responsible for questions tabled in their name. This
reiteration should be made to all Members at the beginning of
a new Parliament. It should also be made to Members signing up
to the e-tabling system; should appear on the e-tabling pages;
and should be included in every email acknowledgement of questions
tabled. (Paragraph 49)
The Committee understands that researchers are likely
to have a role in preparing questions, but tabling questions is
an exclusive right and responsibility of Members of Parliament.
Members must take full responsibility for the questions tabled
in their name, and each individual Member must satisfy him or
herself that they have had sufficient involvement in the preparation
and tabling of their questions to be able to do so. The Table
Office should not be expected to make a judgement of the level
of Member involvement. (Paragraph 50)
We recognise that a stronger authentication system
for e-tabling could assure a guaranteed minimum level of Member
involvement at the point of tabling. But, given that any stronger
authentication would involve significant cost to the House, such
a measure should only be undertaken if there is confidence that
it could address a genuine problem of excessive delegation of
the preparation of WPQs to researchers. The e-tabling system already
assumes that questions received from a Member's account have been
authorised by that Member, and this would remain the assumption
under stronger authentication. Imposing a further level of authentication
would provide only a superficial solution to the much more complex
underlying problem of attitudes to the WPQs process. The challenge
is to reform these attitudes by ensuring Members understand their
responsibilities, rather than imposing further technical restrictions
on the work of Members. (Paragraph 53)
Response
The Government endorses the Committee's view that
tabling questions is an exclusive right and responsibility of
Members of Parliament.
Departmental resources
Recommendations
It is reasonable that, at times of particular pressure
on departments, especially in response to a topical issue, it
may take a little longer to provide answers. We also recognise
that there may be difficulties in moving resources to meet spikes
in demand. However, the volume of questions is unlikely to fall,
and Departments need to adjust rather than 'make do'. The Government
must ensure that, in sections where there is constant pressure,
departments have the resources they need to respond to questions
as efficiently as possible. (Paragraph 59)
We recognise that in particularly busy periods the
limited number of Ministers available to approve questions may
cause some delays. However, we do not believe this should be used
as argument against increasing the resources available to departments
below ministerial level, especially when better resourced departments
should mean Ministers get better answers, and get them more quickly.
(Paragraph 60)
Response
It is not always possible for a department to direct
extra resources to answering Parliamentary questions in the way
the Committee appears to envisage. Questions are in most cases
answered by the relevant policy teams. Answering Parliamentary
questions is an integral part of their work and the answering
of questions by the appropriate policy experts is the best way
to ensure high-quality answers. Except in cases where there is
a sustained overall increase in questions relating to a particular
policy area, it will therefore be difficult to increase the number
of staff available to answer questions.
Furthermore, departments have quality-control processes
in place to ensure that answers meet the standard that Members
and the House are entitled to expect. It will always be necessary
for answers to be signed off at a senior level, in order to guarantee
the quality of the material that is presented to Ministers, and
for Ministers to give the final approval in order to protect the
principle of Ministerial accountability to Parliament. There will
therefore always be bottlenecks in the system which cannot be
addressed simply by providing more resources.
Recommendation
We would support the development of an electronic
parliamentary community to improve the speed and efficiency of
the answering process. We urge the Government to proceed with
these plans as quickly as possible. (Paragraph 62)
We urge the Government to ensure that any development
of the Electronic Parliamentary Community takes account of the
need to record and analyse the timeliness of answers. (Paragraph
101)
Response
The Government continues to take forward work that
would provide for the secure electronic exchange of information
between Parliament and Whitehall, in discussion with the House
authorities. The Government believes that there is scope for efficiency
savings by developing processes in this way and supports the suggestion
that any such system should take account of the need to record
and analyse the timeliness of answers as discussed elsewhere in
this report.
In the meantime, the Government believes that there
could be scope for improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness
of the current system if the House were to accept answers via
e-mail only, rather than in hard copy.
Guidance for Departments and Ministers when answering
questions
Recommendation
We welcome the fact that the Cabinet Office and the
Office of the Leader of the House produce central guidance for
officials. However, the widespread dissatisfaction with the quality
of answers, and the suggestion of inconsistency between certain
departments, indicates that this guidance may often be disregarded
or may not have been properly disseminated from these central
offices. The Government must take steps to review its guidance
structures and instigate a thorough review process across government
to ensure that the principles set out in the guidance are adhered
to in practice. We urge the Government to publish prominently
on a publicly accessible website its full range of guidance to
officials for answering written parliamentary questions, and to
ensure that this is kept up to date. (Paragraph 66)
Response
The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons
regularly provides guidance to departments on answering of PQs.
Since 22 October 2009, this guidance has been brought together
with other central guidance that is available on Parliamentary
processes and published on the Cabinet Office website as the Guide
to Parliamentary Work at the following address: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/parliamentary-clerk-guide.aspx
Departments will continue to supplement this with
guidance which addresses their own particular internal processes.
However, the principles governing the substance of answers to
parliamentary questions do not vary between departments and the
Cabinet Office's central guidance about the content of answers
should be followed by all departments. Where answering departments
produce their own guidance, the focus is generally on internal
procedures for allocating questions to officials, circulating
drafts for comment and signing them off for ministers to consider.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Prime Minister undertake a
revision of the Ministerial Code to provide a clear and separate
statement on the responsibilities of Ministers in answering written
parliamentary questions. (Paragraph 69)
Response
The Ministerial Code applies to all ministerial dealings
with Parliament, including the answering of written parliamentary
questions.
The Code is intended to be a broad statement of Ministers'
responsibilities. In the Government's view, it is not the best
vehicle for providing detailed guidance of the kind the Committee
proposes.
However, the Government acknowledges the Committee's
concerns about the lack of detailed guidance for Ministers on
answering Written Questions. The Prime Minister will therefore
issue guidance to Ministers, drawing on the recommendations in
the Committee's Report.
Freedom of Information
Recommendation
No information should be refused under WPQs that
would be released under an FOI request. To do so undermines the
primacy of Parliament. The Government states its support for this
principle, and must enforce it. (Paragraph 74)
Response
The Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers
should refuse to provide information which they hold only when
disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be
decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.
'Unsatisfactory' answers
Recommendation
We propose that, for an experimental one-year period,
we take on the role of monitoring unsatisfactory answers referred
to us by Members. We do not expect to investigate each individual
case, but in cases of particular concern we will refer questions
to Ministers for comment and review. We expect the Prime Minister
to make clear to Ministers that they should engage fully with
the Procedure Committee on the issues referred to them. We will
also inform the Leader of the House if we identify broader concerns,
in particular weaknesses in answers on a particular topic or from
a particular department, and will produce Reports from time to
time on trends in unsatisfactory or inadequate written answers
and departmental performance. We expect that information on departmental
performance will also be used by the relevant departmental select
committees in their own analysis and scrutiny. (Paragraph 87)
Members with particular grievances about late answers
should refer individual cases to the Procedure Committee as part
of the same experiment proposed for pursuing unsatisfactory answers.
(Paragraph 96)
Response
The Government welcomes the Committee's proposal
to conduct an experimental review of answers which Members consider
to be unsatisfactory. Ministers will of course respond to any
request from the Committee for information about why a question
has been answered in a particular way.
The Committee received a number of examples of answers
which were unsatisfactory in the view of the tabling Member. These
included multiple questions on the same subject being grouped
with a single answer, answers to the effect that the information
requested was not available; answers which refer to an earlier
answer; disproportionate cost answers; and holding answers which
are given in order to allow more time for a proper answer to be
prepared. The Government welcomes the Committee's acknowledgement
that such responses are often genuine and hopes that this view
will guide the Committee in deciding which individual cases to
pursue.
If the Committee is seeking to identify weaknesses
in answers on particular topics or from particular departments
then it would be helpful if the Committee were also to monitor
overall numbers of questions on individual topics in order to
evaluate the extent to which question volumes have an impact on
the quality of answers.
Late answers
Recommendation
A system of publishing a regular list of those questions
not answered within a particular deadline could have a serious
detrimental effect on the quality of answers. Although we strongly
encourage the Government to provide answers promptly, we believe
that the quality of the answer provided must be the deciding factor.
As such, we do not wish to set a strict deadline after which responses
to ordinary WPQs will be considered late. However, we firmly believe
that ordinary WPQs should receive an answer within five working
days, and certainly no later than ten working days. We urge the
Government to work to this timetable. We reiterate the current
expectation that, other than in exceptional circumstances, named
day questions should receive a substantive response on the day
set for their answer. (Paragraph 94)
Response
The Government aims to answer named-day questions
on the named day, and ordinary questions with a week, subject
to recesses. However, there are inevitably occasions on which
it is not possible to do so.
The Government agrees that, where it is not possible
to provide a full answer within the usual deadline, it will usually
be preferable to provide the answer a few days late than to provide
an incomplete answer.
Recommendation
In the event that departments need to give holding
answers, the holding answer should include an explanation of the
reason for the delay, and a fair indication of when an answer
will be provided. (Paragraph 95)
Response
The Government does not believe that providing an
explanation of the reason for the delay will necessarily be helpful
to the Member concerned. It is likely that such explanations would
become formulaic and, in any case, they would still need to go
through the same quality-control processes as substantive answers
thereby exacerbating the problem in cases where the delay was
due to the volume of questions tabled to a particular unit.
Recommendation
We recommend that a list be produced by the Table
Office of those questions that remain unanswered at the end of
each session, arranged by date and department. Although this will
include some questions that could not realistically be answered
before the end of the session, it will also highlight answers
that are unacceptably late, will help to identify the worst offenders,
and should ensure departments are accountable for any questions
that are simply ignored or 'lost'. This list should be submitted
to the Procedure Committee, and will be evaluated by us. (Paragraph
98)
Response
The Government would welcome greater monitoring of
the number of questions which remain unanswered at the end of
each Session as a tool for improving the proportion of questions
which are answered.
It is right that departments should be accountable
for questions which they ignore or lose. The Committee notes that
some questions which are tabled towards the end of a Session can
not realistically be answered before prorogation, especially when
the date of prorogation is announced late and the Table Office
continues to take questions until a day or two beforehand. There
will also be a number of cases where the Member concerned has
agreed with the department that he or she no longer requires an
answer.
Nonetheless, the Government believes that a list
of unanswered questions at the end of a Session could help to
identify flaws in the system so that they can be addressed. The
Government would like departments to have the opportunity to consider
any figures produced by the House before they are published, in
order to investigate the reasons for any discrepancies between
the House's figures and departments' own records.
Recommendation
We recommend that departments be required to provide
the Procedure Committee with sessional statistics in a standard
format on the time taken to respond to WPQs, accompanied by an
explanatory memorandum setting out any factors affecting their
performance. These statistics should also record when holding
answers have been given. This would allow departments to be compared
and trends to be identified, without compromising the quality
of answers to individual questions. These statistics should indicate
the number of WPQs answered by the department throughout the session,
and show the proportion and number of questions answered within
particular periods of time. We intend to evaluate such statistics
and report on departmental performance as necessary. As with data
on unsatisfactory answers, this information on departmental performance
will be sent to the relevant departmental select committees to
inform their own scrutiny of departments. (Paragraph 100)
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation, with
effect from the current Session of Parliament. In the Government's
view, explanatory memoranda should address general factors which
have an overall effect on a department's performance, such as
a very large volume of questions being tabled on the same subject,
rather than giving reasons for each individual delay.
Conclusion
Given that many parts of the WPQs system operate
well and are valued by Members, we have sought to improve and
reform the existing system before considering more radical alternatives.
We intend to evaluate progress in the areas covered by this Report,
and, if it proves necessary, we will return to the subject to
consider further steps. In addition to the Government Response
to the Report, we intend to write to the Principal Clerk of the
Table Office at the end of the next Session of Parliament, to
seek the Office's views on the operation of the system and the
effectiveness of any changes made. (Paragraph 105)
Response
The Government broadly welcomes the Committee's recommendations.
In a system which now processes more than 500 questions a day,
it is inevitable that the quality of answers will vary and that
some will occasionally fall short of what a Member is entitled
to expect. The Leader of the House monitors the timing of answers
and raises issues of concern with the relevant department where
necessary.
The Government and the Committee are in broad agreement
on the principles that should underpin the answering of written
questions. However, the Committee, in its Report and the accompanying
evidence, highlights a number of individual cases in which those
principles appear not to have been followed.
The Government hopes that the new arrangements the
Committee proposes for monitoring the timing and content of written
answers will help departments to improve their performance. In
the meantime, a copy of the Committee's report and the Government
response has been sent to the Parliamentary branch of each answering
department.
Ms Harriet Harman MP
Leader of the House
November 2009
| 
