4 Written parliamentary questions
Background
33. In 2008-09 our predecessor Committee published
a report on Written Parliamentary Questions.[21]
The inquiry was undertaken against a background of a rising number
of written parliamentary questions (WPQs) and concerns over the
pressure this placed on the resources of both Parliament and Government,
with consequent effects upon the quality and timeliness of answers.
The Committee concluded that the use of WPQs is vital to the scrutiny
of Government and rejected the placing of restrictions on the
number of questions Members could ask or stronger authentication
requirements for e-tabling. The Committee recommended that Members
should not use questions where the information could be obtained
in another way; that an earlier cut-off be introduced for e-tabled
questions (7.00 pm on Monday and Tuesdays, 6.00 pm on Wednesday
and Thursdays and 2.30 pm on Fridays); and that Members should
regularly be reminded that they are personally and directly responsible
for WPQs which are proceedings in Parliament.
34. The Committee undertook to examine the subject
again if these changes were insufficient to address the problems
identified in the system. In fact, since the House has not been
given an opportunity to endorse our predecessor's report, the
changes have not been implemented and in the current Parliament
the number of questions tabled has continued at record levels.
There is no sign of the number falling as new Members become acquainted
with the procedures of the House. We therefore decided that it
was time to look at this issue again.
Number of questions
35. In the week beginning 24 January 2011 the number
of questions handled by the Table Office was:
| Oral | 830
|
| Ordinary Written | 1,113
|
| Named Day | 280
|
| Carded | 313
|
| total questions | 2,536
|
This includes questions processed by the Table Office
but not printed, either because they could not be brought into
order that week ("carded" questions)[22]
or, in the case of oral questions, they were not successful in
the shuffle.[23]
36. Such figures indicate that we are on course to
continue the record levels which had been reached when our predecessors
expressed concern. In 2008-09, the most recent parliamentary
session of normal length, the total number of questions printed
(not including carded questions or unsuccessful orals) was as
follows:
| Number of Questions which appeared on the Order Paper:
| |
| for written answer on a named day
| 8,907 |
| for ordinary written answer
| 47,285 |
| Total for written answer
| 56,192 |
| |
|
| for oral answer
| 4,113 |
| number reached for answer in the House
| 1,314 |
| Total number of Questions
| 60,305 |
| average per sitting day
| 440 |
| of which for written answer
| 410 |
Value of parliamentary questions
37. The heavy use made by Members of written parliamentary questions
indicates the value placed on them as a form of parliamentary
scrutiny. Despite new ways for the public to access information
through Freedom of Information requests or the internet, parliamentary
questions remain a unique way in which Members can ask for government
information quickly, directly and in a non-bureaucratic way, in
the knowledge that their request is public, that the response
will be seen by a Minister and that the information provided will
be published openly in a readily accessible way. WPQs play an
important role in keeping departments informed of rising issues
by registering and forcing a response to issues which Members
raise on either a national or smaller scale.
38. There are concerns, however, that the rise in
the number of questions threatens to undermine the value and effectiveness
of this valuable form of parliamentary scrutiny. For Members,
the danger is that good sharp questions may get swamped by the
sheer volume of questions published. For Ministers and departmental
staff, excessive numbers of questions impose a disproportionate
burden on time and resources. For the House and the services it
offers to Members, the Table Office, despite increases in staff,
has less time to advise Members on individual questions and there
is greater room for error in misprinting questions or misunderstanding
a Member's intentions.
39. There is also the cost. Each question involves
significant costs both to the House and to Government departments.
The House Service estimates the average cost of processing a question
as £44 and of reporting the answer of £36, giving a
total unit cost of £80 per question which includes direct
staff and staff-related costs and printing costs.[24]
There is also the cost to departments of answering the question
which the Government calculates as £425 for an oral and £154
for a written.[25] In
sum each oral question may be estimated as costing £525 and
each written question over £230 on average. Taking the figures
from session 2008-09, that is an approximate cost per sitting
day of over £110,000. Clearly, much of this is a fixed cost
and the total would not decrease proportionately as the number
of questions fell but it illustrates the size of the overall burden
of a very expensive system of extracting information. Whilst we
do not believe that scrutiny should be driven by considerations
of resource allocations alone, we also recognise that in the current
economic climate the cost of parliamentary questions can only
be justified by their effectiveness, both individually and as
a category of parliamentary action.
40. Finally, there is a perception that some questions,
especially those submitted electronically, are devised and tabled
by Members' staff without always the explicit approval of Members
which in itself reduces the significance of the process. In the
last inquiry into this subject by our predecessor Committee, the
then Leader of the House, Jack Straw MP, argued that such questions
were making a significant contribution to the rise in the number
of questions[26] and
the Table Office reported that:
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 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.[27]
Although we appreciate that individual Members may
adopt their own, quite legitimate, arrangements for the involvement
of staff in parliamentary questions, written parliamentary questions
are proceedings in Parliament and as such should only be initiated
by Members.
41. For all these reasons, we conclude that it is
time to ensure that there are fewer, better questions tabled in
the House and that these are processed and answered in the most
efficient way. In an internet age there are many other sources
of information and much greater access to government data than
in the past. The role that parliamentary questions now fill may
therefore be narrower than before and a restriction on the number
of questions that a Member might ask would be less likely to have
a detrimental effect in terms of the quantity or type of information
made available by Government. We believe that every question should
have the maximum impact and the system should be designed to elicit
the information sought by the Member with the greatest efficiency.
The recommendations that follow are designed to boost the effectiveness
of parliamentary questions as a key part of the scrutiny of Government
by Members of the House.
Options for change
42. For the reasons set out above as to the value
of WPQs as part of parliamentary scrutiny, we have not considered
the more radical and restrictive options for change such as abolishing
WPQs altogether, abolishing ordinary written questions but retaining
named day questions, restricting the opportunities for Members
to delegate responsibility for questions to others or making changes
to oral questions in order to release resources to handle written
questions. Nor, at the other extreme, do we think it would be
sensible to leave the system as it is. Other more acceptable options
could be: setting a quality threshold; introducing quotas; or
changing deadlines for tabling. Of these, whilst setting a quality
threshold so that only effective questions were tabled might be
desirable, we decided that it would be difficult to implement
because of its subjective nature. We therefore considered the
options of quotas and deadlines which we have explored in more
detail.
43. We have borne in mind that questions may be submitted
to the Table Office for tabling by a variety of means. The previous
Procedure Committee report drew a distinction between questions
tabled in person or by post and those submitted by secure e-tabling.
E-tabling is undoubtedly popular and a useful facility for Members,
especially when away from the House. Of the 485 Members who now
have e-tabling accounts, 284 Members used this method in January
2011. A significant number of questions are delivered to the Table
Office in this way. Of the 4,936 questions for ordinary written
answer in November 2010, 3,023 were e-tabled - that is just over
60% of the total or 151 per sitting day. We do not believe that
the e-tabling facility should be withdrawn, nor do we believe
that questions tabled in this way are less valid than other questions.
We do, however, consider that this facility can be viewed separately
from other means by which Members may table questions in hard
copy direct to the Table Office and that restrictions on e-tabling
could have a significant impact on the number of questions tabled.
Our recommendations therefore concentrate on restrictions applying
only to written questions tabled electronically.
QUOTAS
44. Quotas are already in use for tabling parliamentary
questions. There is a limit of one per departmental slot on the
number of oral questions which a Member may enter into the shuffle
for each Question Time and also a quota of five named day questions
tabled on any sitting day which was introduced as a result of
a previous Procedure Committee report.[28]
The quota principle could be extended to electronically-tabled
written questions more generally, operating on a daily, weekly,
monthly or sessional basis. This would reduce the number of questions
overall and would, we hope, lead to Members being more selective
about the questions they do table, leading to an improvement in
quality and effectiveness.
45. The familiarity of the quota system which already
operates might make an extension to cover ordinary written questions
acceptable to many Members, if not all, although we recognise
that this would depend upon the level at which the quota was set.
Possible disadvantages would include the complexity of the system
if a timeframe other than a daily quota was chosen and the possibility
that a quota system might lead to a shadow market in trading quotas
between Members. It could also encourage portmanteau or multi-part
questions. Nevertheless, we believe that a limit placed on written
questions tabled electronically would not be so restrictive that
it impaired the ability of Members to scrutinise the Government
effectively, especially as it would leave open the possibility
of tabling crucial questions in person if the need arises.
DEADLINES
46. All questions submitted by Members are processed
by the Table Office on the day on which they are tabled, subject
to deadlines set out in the Standing Orders. In the report cited
earlier, our predecessor Committee recommended earlier cut-off
times for tabling questions electronically, leaving it open to
a Member to table a pressing question in person later in the day.
At present Members may table WPQs in the Table Office or via e-tabling
until half an hour after the moment of interruption or until the
rising of the House, whichever is the earlier. Any questions received
via either method after these times are held over to the following
day. Bringing forward the deadlines for e-tabling would lift the
immediate pressure on the Table Office staff to deal with questions
late into the evening with consequent gains for Members in terms
of the attention their questions received. It may also reduce
the numbers of questions but perhaps not substantially because
questions received after the deadline would simply be processed
the next morning (in the absence of any further change) and the
possibility remains that Members may drop off large quantities
of questions in the Table Office after the e-tabling deadline
which would require processing that same day.
QUOTAS AND DEADLINES COMBINED
47. A combination of quotas and deadlines would enhance
the effectiveness of these measures in controlling the growth
of parliamentary questions whilst minimising the inconvenience
caused to Members of any changes. We asked the Table Office to
calculate for us the projected effect of a daily quota of five
e-tabled written questions (named day or ordinary writtens) combined
with a cut-off time for e-tabling of 7.00 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays
and 6.00 pm on Wednesdays and Thursdays. The Table Office told
us that it would "significantly reduce the number of WPQs
e-tabled".[29] Taking
one day as an example, on Monday 31 January 2011, 93 WPQs from
13 Members would not have been tabled by this means.
48. The Table Office also told us that these measures
might lead to WPQs being tabled earlier in the day which would
be helpful to Members since the Clerks would be able to address
issues such as sub judice more rapidly, leading to fewer questions
being held over for that reason until the following day.[30]
The implementation costs were estimated at £3,500 including
VAT for changes to the e-tabling system and some costs from the
revision of guidance on tabling WPQs. Against this could be offset
the savings to be made from a reduction in the number of WPQs
printed and answered.
49. We also asked the Table Office to look at a consistent
cut-off time for e-tabled WPQs from Monday to Thursday. They pointed
to the benefits to Members of reducing the complexity of the rules
and suggested that in order to avoid a situation on Thursdays
where the cut-off time for e-tabled questions fell after the cut-off
for questions tabled in the office, the latest possible uniform
time from Monday to Thursday would be 6.30 pm.[31]
The Committee's recommendations
50. We recognise that there are disadvantages, as
well as advantages, to Members in adopting the restrictions outlined
above. Their effect seems likely to reduce the number of WPQs,
although we accept that the extent of this reduction cannot be
predicted with any accuracy and would depend to some extent on
changes in Members' behaviour. Nevertheless, we believe that the
problem is such that it has to be tackled. We propose no alterations
to the ability of a Member to table WPQs in the Table Office in
person or by post. We recommend, however, that for an experimental
period of three months the deadline for submitting written parliamentary
questions electronically be set at 6.30 pm every sitting day from
Monday to Thursday and 2.30 pm on sitting Fridays and that a daily
quota of five e-tabled written questions (named day or ordinary
written) be imposed on Members. At the end of the trial period,
we undertake to assess the impact of the changes on Members and
others involved or interested in the parliamentary questions process
and to recommend either its continuation or abandonment.
51. We recognise that different rules should apply
during periods when the House is not sitting. A strict quota of
five questions per sitting day would mean that during recesses
Members were restricted to that number for the whole of the non-sitting
period because all questions submitted during recesses are treated
as if tabled on the next sitting day.[32]
We do not consider that this would be acceptable to Members or
good for parliamentary scrutiny. We therefore recommend that
the quota restriction be lifted on the first sitting day following
a recess of a week or more.
52. There is the possibility that the changes we
have outlined above might lead to a more questions being tabled
in the later evening if Members respond to the e-tabling deadlines
and quotas by delivering bundles of questions in person or by
using another Member as a proxy just before the moment of interruption.
The Table Office currently exercises its discretion on occasion
to hold over some ordinary written questions to the following
day on particularly busy days. We would hope that this would only
occur on very rare occasions but we recognise the need for this
discretion and we support the continuation of its use when absolutely
essential.
Answers to written parliamentary
questions
53. Much of our predecessor Committee's report was
concerned with the answers to written parliamentary questions.
We are currently undertaking a monitoring exercise to explore
how widespread dissatisfaction is with answers received from departments
and the lateness of answers. We will report the results of that
experiment in due course.
54. The report also recommended that departments
should provide sessional statistics in a standard format on the
time taken to respond to WPQs. The Government accepted the recommendation,
with effect from Session 2009-10.[33]
It also undertook to provide explanatory memoranda with the statistics
addressing "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". We finally received the
statistics relating to the session which ended in April 2010 in
February 2011.
55. We deprecate the delay in providing statistics
on the performance of departments in responding to WPQs in the
previous session. This has much reduced the usefulness of the
data which we intend to send to the relevant departmental select
committees to inform their scrutiny of departments as well as
to use for our own purposes of monitoring WPQs. We understand
from the Leader of the House that the change in administration
and the rules regarding access to a previous administration's
papers has been a contributory factor in the delay.[34]
This will not apply in the preparation of the statistics relating
to the current session. We recommend that the Leader of the
House ensure that the sessional statistics on WPQs for the current
session are provided to this Committee within three months of
the end of the Queen's Speech at the start of the subsequent session.
56. In this inquiry we briefly considered the efficiency
of the delivery of answers to Members. At the moment, this is
done by individual departments sending messengers to the House
with hard copy and it seemed to us that it would be of benefit
to Members to receive answers electronically. A pilot project
is currently underway within Parliament which could lead to this
outcome in the near future. We look forward to its successful
implementation. In the meantime, we see no reason why departments
should not email answers direct to the Member at the same time
as the answers are delivered in the conventional way to the House
for processing. We recommend that the Government instruct all
departments that the answers to written parliamentary questions
be sent by email to the Member concerned at the same time as the
answer is delivered to the House.
21 Third Report from the Procedure Committee, Written
Parliamentary Questions, Session 2008-09 (HC 859) Back
22
So-called because the Table Office sends a card to the Member
concerned asking them to call in to the office to discuss the
question Back
23
The figures include oral questions to the Prime Minister and "topical"
questions to other departments which in general require less attention
from Table Office than other questions. Back
24
HC Deb, 30 November 2010, c732W Back
25
HC Deb, 20 January 2010, 15WS Back
26
HC 859, Session 2008-09, Q2 Back
27
HC 859, Session 2008-09, Ev 44 Back
28
Third Report from the Procedure Committee, Parliamentary Questions,
Session 2001-02 (HC 622) Back
29
Ev 2 Back
30
Ev 2. The resolution of the House of 15 November 2001 prevents
questions being asked about matters which are currently before
the courts. Checks are necessary by the Table Office where questions
appear to be in possible breach of this rule. Back
31
Ev 3 Back
32
Standing Orders provide for possible tabling days in September
during a long recess, but these have been superseded by the reintroduction
of September sittings. Back
33
First Special Report from the Procedure Committee, Written
Parliamentary Questions: Government Response to the Committee's
Third Report of Session 2008-09, Session 2009-10 (HC 129) Back
34
Letter from the Leader of the House, 17 February 2011, published
2 March 2011 Back
| 
