Written Parliamentary Questions: Departmental Performance in Session 2022–23

Written Parliamentary Questions: Departmental Performance in Session 2022–2023

1. Since 2010, our Committee, along with its predecessors, has been routinely engaged in the monitoring of Government responses to Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs). This has, in the past, taken the form of quality monitoring work, offering Members of Parliament an avenue to challenge unsatisfactory answers, in addition to monitoring departmental performance on the timeliness of answering WPQs based on termly statistics provided to us by the House of Commons Table Office. As our predecessor Committee set out in the 2005–10 Parliament, the purpose of the monitoring work up to that point had been to:

[…] uphold [the] system of WPQs and reiterate the responsibilities of those involved in it […]. Not only will this allow us to gauge the extent of any problem, it will also send a clear signal to Government that apparently inadequate answers to questions will not go uninvestigated. […] We are determined to ensure that the WPQs system is treated with due respect by Government departments and that the questions asked by the public’s elected representatives receive the answers they deserve.¹

Timeliness of answers

2. In our report on performance in the 2021–22 Session, we noted that the number of parliamentary questions tabled² by Members of Parliament for written answer had stabilised at around 330 each sitting day for the previous two sessions—a level not witnessed since routine monitoring by our predecessor Committee began in the 2010–12 Session.³ We note in the Session under examination in this report that a record high in the number of WPQs have been tabled per sitting day, up by 4% on the previous Session.

Table 1: Number of questions tabled to all answering bodies per sitting day, Session 2010–12 to 2022–23

Source: 2010–12 to 2014–15: memorandum from the Leader of the House of Commons, November 2015; 2015–16 to 2023: Q&A system

3. It is clear that Members of Parliament regard WPQs as a core mechanism for scrutinising the work of the Government, and we anticipate that the WPQ system will continue to be increasingly utilised in sessions to come. It is therefore disappointing to note that the proportion of WPQs answered on time across Government remains below the established pre-pandemic benchmarks. As in previous years, we have scrutinised departments against the cross-Whitehall performance standard of 85% for timely provision of written answers, where responses are deemed ‘on time’ for Ordinary Questions if they are provided within five working days of being tabled, and deemed ‘on time’ for Named Day questions if answers are provided by the specified date.

4. Whilst overall answering performance improved in the 2022–23 Session, with both Ordinary and Named Day Questions showing a 3% increase in timely responses and the response rate for Ordinary Questions surpassing the 85% cross-Whitehall performance standard, this represented a slower rate of progress compared to the preceding session. In the 2021–22 Session, the rates of timeliness in written answers across Government had improved by 6% for Ordinary Questions and 5% for Named Day Questions compared to the 2019–21 Session.⁴ Had performance continued to improve at the same rate as the 2021–22 Session, it would have matched the responsiveness levels last seen in the 2015–16 and 2016–17 Sessions. We reiterate our stance that the House should not accept a permanent reduction in ministerial accountability via WPQs, and we expect to see significant improvements in performance across Government over the current Session to reach—and in due course exceed—the 2015–16 and 2016–17 levels.⁵

Table 2: Overall rates of timeliness in written answers from Government departments, Sessions 2010–12 to 2022–23

Source: 2010–12 to 2014–15: memorandum from the Leader of the House of Commons, November 2015; 2015–16 to 2023: Q&A system

5. While we note the improvement in performance compared to the previous two sessions, the figures contained in the table above represent an average across all departments. In our last report, we identified six individual departments whose answering performance fell below an acceptable standard during the first half of the 2021–22 Session.⁶ We kept a close eye on the performance of these departments throughout that Session. In September 2023, given the length of the 2022–23 Session, we conducted a detailed analysis of departmental answering performance based on interim data for the period up to the end of March 2023, and subsequently followed up with the Home Office and Department for Health and Social Care concerning their progress. Additionally, we identified three departments that had fallen short of the 85% cross-Whitehall performance standard for Ordinary and/or Named Day questions during the Session.⁷

Table 3: Departments in which poor performance was identified between 10 May 2022 and 30 March 2023

* Departments in which poor performance had been previously identified in 2021–22 Session

6. Of all the departments identified, the Home Office was the only department that performed above the 85% cross-Whitehall performance standard for both Named Day and Ordinary Questions in the most recent data period up to the end of the Session,¹³ and it was also the only department that consistently improved its performance over each successive period.¹⁴ All four other departments identified demonstrated inconsistent performance during the Session, indicating a worrying trend. At its lowest point in the Session—the period ending 20 December 2022—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs answered just 38% of Ordinary Questions and 46% of Named Day questions on time, down by 24% and 13% respectively on the preceding period.¹⁵ Additionally, the Attorney General’s Office answering performance for Ordinary questions dropped at the start of 2023, down from 71% in the period ending 20 December 2022, to 57% in the period ending 30 March 2023.¹⁶ The Department for Education’s performance had generally improved over the Session,¹⁷ however its performance declined significantly in the period ending 26 October 2023, down by 12% for Ordinary Questions and 4% for Named Day questions on the preceding period.¹⁸ It is worrying that such dips in performance across a single session can occur, and departments should ensure their focus is on maintaining consistently high levels of responsiveness throughout as well as on average across the entire Session. It is further disappointing that, despite our pressure on departments to improve their performance, some have apparently failed to put in place sufficient measures to minimise delays in providing responses to questions tabled.¹⁹

7. Ministers and their departments should regard timely responses to Written Parliamentary Questions as a crucial means for maintaining transparency and ministerial accountability to Parliament. We expect all departments—particularly those we have identified as having issues in the 2022–23 Session—to demonstrate a sincere commitment to improving their answering performance and meet the cross-Whitehall performance standards. Should departments fail to live up to this expectation, we and our successors will continue to hold them to account for their failure to show proper regard for the importance of transparency and accountability to Parliament via Written Parliamentary Questions.

8. Regrettably, this marks the third consecutive Session in the present Parliament where the Department for Health and Social Care has been highlighted in our report for its poor performance in responding to WPQs. Since 2019, we have written to the Department five times regarding its answering performance and extended several invitations to successive Secretaries of State to provide evidence.²⁰ In the response we received, the then Secretary of State did not provide any explanation for the significant overall decline in the Department’s performance during the relevant period.²¹ Data shows that in the period from 14 April to 26 October 2023, the Department for Health and Social Care’s performance averaged 85% for Ordinary Questions and 68% for Named Day Questions,²² but dipped as low as 63% for Ordinary Questions and 41% for Named Day Questions during some months.²³ Whilst the then Secretary of State acknowledged the need for further action to bring his department’s Named Day performance up to an acceptable standard,²⁴ it is evident that there is still some way to go before the Department for Health and Social Care consistently meets the cross-Whitehall performance benchmark for both Named Day and Ordinary Questions.

9. While we note that it is neither alone, nor the worst performing department, across the 2022–23 Session, it is disappointing that the Department for Health and Social Care remains unable to meet the expected cross-Whitehall performance standard for Written Parliamentary Questions despite the repeated interventions by this Committee.

10. We recommend that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care write to us within 28 days of publishing this report, setting out in detail her long-term plans to address the chronic challenges regarding the department’s answering performance to Written Parliamentary Questions to ensure sufficient and consistent responses across the entirety of the current Session and beyond into the next Parliament.

11. We recommend that our successor Committee in the next Parliament closely monitor the performance of the Department for Health and Social Care over the course of this Session when they come to perform their analysis, and, if performance issues persist, for the relevant Secretary of State to come before the Committee to explain the steps they are taking to address these issues.

12. Of the responses received to our letters to departments highlighting areas where performance was falling below the require standard, the most commonly cited reason for poor WPQ answering performance was operational issues, specifically staff shortages and ministerial reshuffles in the second half of 2022.²⁵ We accept that the Session has been exceptional in recent years in the number of ministerial reshuffles, which can be disruptive to routine business. However, ministerial churn is not a sufficient excuse for poor departmental performance in WPQ response times. While ultimately it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure the smooth running of departmental operations, including the timely handling of WPQs, support should be provided centrally, through the Cabinet Office if necessary, to help resolve process issues during transitional periods between ministers at times of reshuffles.

13. We are also concerned by the answering performance of several departments following the February 2023 Machinery of Government (MoG) changes. Two newly established departments—the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—failed to meet the cross-Whitehall performance standard on average throughout their existence during the latter part of the Session. On the other hand, both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero performed well in the Session, despite also being affected by MoG changes.

Table 4: Performance of newly formed departments in the 2023 MoG changes

14. As shown by the commendable performances of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, unsatisfactory answering performance is not an inevitable outcome for newly established departments, or those departments affected by Machinery of Government changes. It is important that new departments are equipped with adequate resourcing and training from the point of their establishment to ensure a high level of WPQ answering performance from day one.

15. As the department with policy oversight of Machinery of Government changes, we recommend that the Cabinet Office put in place processes and procedures to ensure that mechanisms for Ministerial accountability to Parliament via Written Parliamentary Questions are swiftly established and prioritised in the process of forming new departments, or in those departments affected by Machinery of Government changes.

Quality of answers

16. Following several complaints from Members in the 2019–21 Session regarding the content and quality of responses to WPQs, we wrote to the then Leader of the House with recommendations for improvements to the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Parliamentary Work.²⁶ Our recommendations for areas for improvement were as follows:

Recommendations for changes to the Guide to Parliamentary Work

17. In our last report, we noted that no changes had been made to the guidance over the six months since the then Leader of the House had accepted our recommendations.²⁷ We are pleased to report that, despite the initial delay, our recommendations for changes to the Guide to Parliamentary Work have now been incorporated into the Cabinet Office’s revised edition, published in November 2022.²⁸

18. However, concerns remain that, despite improvements to the guidance, the quality of some answers to WPQs continue to fall short of the standard we would expect, and that in some instances, there is an impression that timeliness appears to be being prioritised over quality of response. During the 2022–23 Session, the Chamber saw at least eight separate points of order relating to the quality of the content of WPQs, five of which were raised after the publication of the updated Guide to Parliamentary Work incorporating the changes we recommended.²⁹ Additionally, we have received examples of written answers which Members feel have not been satisfactory in content.³⁰ Interestingly, several departments that were flagged in the Chamber and directly with us for having provided inadequate WPQ responses have in fact maintained a satisfactory timeliness rate throughout the Session, namely the Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet Office, and HM Treasury.³¹ While we note that Members are encouraged to bring concerns regarding the quality of responses to the attention of the Table Office as an initial step,³² this is also something which we are keen to monitor on an ongoing basis in order to identify and examine any underlying issues or emerging patterns.

19. Equal weight should be placed on prioritising high-quality answers to Written Parliamentary Questions as to providing answers on time. Given that it is Ministers that are ultimately accountable to Parliament, it is incumbent upon them to embed a culture of transparency and cooperation with Parliament within their departments, setting a tone that underscores the importance of providing detailed—as well as timely—answers to Written Parliamentary Questions from Members of Parliament.

20. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the updated guidance and engage with departments bilaterally where it is found that the guidance is not being followed effectively.

21. We propose that our successor Committee in the new Parliament investigate the quality of answers to Written Parliamentary Questions in more detail, including investigating the 2023–24 Session as the first Session with the new guidance in place for the entirety. Members should be encouraged to provide examples of alleged poor-quality responses and identify areas for improvement to the Committee, so that it can identify and examine any underlying issues or emerging patterns swiftly.

Conclusions and recommendations

Timeliness of answers

1. Ministers and their departments should regard timely responses to Written Parliamentary Questions as a crucial means for maintaining transparency and ministerial accountability to Parliament. We expect all departments—particularly those we have identified as having issues in the 2022–23 Session—to demonstrate a sincere commitment to improving their answering performance and meet the cross-Whitehall performance standards. Should departments fail to live up to this expectation, we and our successors will continue to hold them to account for their failure to show proper regard for the importance of transparency and accountability to Parliament via Written Parliamentary Questions. (Paragraph 7)

2. While we note that it is neither alone, nor the worst performing department, across the 2022–23 Session, it is disappointing that the Department for Health and Social Care remains unable to meet the expected cross-Whitehall performance standard for Written Parliamentary Questions despite the repeated interventions by this Committee. (Paragraph 9)

3. We recommend that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care write to us within 28 days of publishing this report, setting out in detail her long-term plans to address the chronic challenges regarding the department’s answering performance to Written Parliamentary Questions to ensure sufficient and consistent responses across the entirety of the current Session and beyond into the next Parliament. (Paragraph 10)

4. We recommend that our successor Committee in the next Parliament closely monitor the performance of the Department for Health and Social Care over the course of this Session when they come to perform their analysis, and, if performance issues persist, for the relevant Secretary of State to come before the Committee to explain the steps they are taking to address these issues. (Paragraph 11)

5. As shown by the commendable performances of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, unsatisfactory answering performance is not an inevitable outcome for newly established departments, or those departments affected by Machinery of Government changes. It is important that new departments are equipped with adequate resourcing and training from the point of their establishment to ensure a high level of WPQ answering performance from day one. (Paragraph 14)

6. As the department with policy oversight of Machinery of Government changes, we recommend that the Cabinet Office put in place processes and procedures to ensure that mechanisms for Ministerial accountability to Parliament via Written Parliamentary Questions are swiftly established and prioritised in the process of forming new departments, or in those departments affected by Machinery of Government changes. (Paragraph 15)

Quality of answers

7. Equal weight should be placed on prioritising high-quality answers to Written Parliamentary Questions as to providing answers on time. Given that it is Ministers that are ultimately accountable to Parliament, it is incumbent upon them to embed a culture of transparency and cooperation with Parliament within their departments, setting a tone that underscores the importance of providing detailed—as well as timely—answers to Written Parliamentary Questions from Members of Parliament. (Paragraph 19)

8. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the updated guidance and engage with departments bilaterally where it is found that the guidance is not being followed effectively. (Paragraph 20)

9. We propose that our successor Committee in the new Parliament investigate the quality of answers to Written Parliamentary Questions in more detail, including investigating the 2023–24 Session as the first Session with the new guidance in place for the entirety. Members should be encouraged to provide examples of alleged poor-quality responses and identify areas for improvement to the Committee, so that it can identify and examine any underlying issues or emerging patterns swiftly. (Paragraph 21)

Annex: Timeliness of Answers by Department (Session 2022–23)

Table 5: Departments listed alphabetically

Source: data from the Q&A system provided by the House of Commons Table Office

Table 6: Departments ranked by the number of questions for ordinary written answer received

Source: data from the Q&A system provided by the House of Commons Table Office

Table 7: Departments ranked by proportion of questions for ordinary written answer receiving substantive response within five working days

Source: data from the Q&A system provided by the House of Commons Table Office

Table 8: Departments ranked by number of questions for written answer on a named day received

Source: data from the Q&A system provided by the House of Commons Table Office

Table 9: Departments ranked by proportion of questions for written answer on a named day answered on the day named

Source: data from the Q&A system provided by the House of Commons Table Office

Formal minutes

Wednesday 8 May

Members present:

Dame Karen Bradley, in the Chair

Nickie Aiken

Kirsty Blackman

Sir Christopher Chope

Patrick Grady

Andrew Western

Written Parliamentary Questions: Departmental Performance in Session 2022–23

Draft Report (Written Parliamentary Questions: Departmental Performance in Session 2022–23), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 21 read and agreed to.

Annex agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 134.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Monday 13 May at 4 pm

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.

Session 2023–24

Session 2022–23

Session 2021–22

Session 2019–21

Footnotes

1 Procedure Committee, Third Report of Session 2008–09, Written Parliamentary Questions, HC 859, paras 103–104

2 Questions accepted by the House of Commons Table Office

3 See Table 1

4 See Table 2

5 Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2022–23, Written Parliamentary Questions: Departmental performance in Session 2021–22, HC 385, para 3

6 Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2022–23, Written Parliamentary Questions: Departmental performance in Session 2021–22, HC 385, Table 3

7 Table 3

8 Secretary of State for the Home Office to the Chair of the Committee, 1 November 2023

9 Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the Chair of the Committee, 30 October 2023

10 Attorney General to the Chair of the Committee, 16 October 2023

11 Secretary of State for Education to the Chair of the Committee, 24 October 2023

12 Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Chair of the Committee, 25 October 2023

13 See Table 3

14 Chair to the Secretary of State for the Home Office, 25 September 2023; Table 3

15 Chair of the Committee to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 25 September 2024

16 Chair of the Committee to the Attorney General, 25 September 2023

17 Chair of the Committee to the Secretary of State for Education, 25 September 2023

18 See Table 3

19 See, for example, Correspondence from Sarah Olney MP to the Chair of the Committee, 21 March 2024.

20 All correspondence is published on the Committee’s website.

21 Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the Chair of the Committee, 30 October 2023

22 Table 3

23 Chair of the Committee to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, 25 September 2023

24 Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the Chair of the Committee, 30 October 2023

25 Table 3

26 Chair of the Committee to the Leader of the House of Commons, 10 November 2021

27 Procedure Committee, Second Report of Session 2022–23, Written Parliamentary Questions: Departmental performance in Session 2021–22, HC 385, para 5

28 Cabinet Office, Guide to Parliamentary Work, 14 November 2022, p 52–58

29 HC Deb, 8 June 2022, col 820 [Commons Chamber]; HC Deb, 18 July 2022, col 725 [Commons Chamber]; HC Deb, 9 November 2022, col 295 [Commons Chamber]; HC Deb, 9 February 2023, col 1050 [Commons Chamber]; HC Deb, 6 March 2023, col 71 [Commons Chamber]; HC Deb, 26 April 2023, col 753 [Commons Chamber]; HC Deb, 9 May 2023, col 236 [Commons Chamber]; HC Deb, 15 June 2023, col 473 [Commons Chamber]

30 Sir Christopher Chope to the Chair of the Committee, 14 April 2024

31 See Annex

32 MP’s Guide to Procedure, p 66