Procedure Committee
Wednesday 24th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:15
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Good afternoon. Good morning and welcome to this public session of the Procedure Committee. Written parliamentary questions, or pqs for short, are an important tool for MPs in raising matters of public interest and dealing with much of their constituency work. And over the past few months, we've been inquiring into the whole WP system. So we've taken lots of interesting evidence so far. And today we're putting some of that to the leader of the House of Commons to hear more about the government's views.
So therefore, we're very pleased to be joined this morning by the leader of the House, Sir Alan Campbell. Good morning to you. Before we begin, would you introduce yourself for the record?
So therefore, we're very pleased to be joined this morning by the leader of the House, Sir Alan Campbell. Good morning to you. Before we begin, would you introduce yourself for the record?
10:16
10:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you for your time. As is traditional, the first question comes from me, and that is Erskine May gives the purpose of Pqs as being to seek information or press for action. And I just wonder, do you think that this is what they're still used for today, or has the underlying purpose of Pqs changed?
10:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, first of all, for inviting me. And thank you for your inquiry, which I look forward to seeing the conclusions of, because I think it will inform a wider debate about Pqs. Of course, it's really important that members are able to ask written parliamentary questions, and I think the fundamental importance, as set out by Erskine May remains the same about obtaining information and pressing for action, but I think I share a wider concern that the system clearly is has expanded significantly and probably beyond the original definition of what they for what they're for from Erskine May.
I think it's expanded for all sorts of reasons, but I think, particularly in recent times, it has. The numbers have increased considerably. And that would suggest that the purpose is altered.
I think it's expanded for all sorts of reasons, but I think, particularly in recent times, it has. The numbers have increased considerably. And that would suggest that the purpose is altered.
10:17
10:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I didn't use them widely. I would use them as part of a wider campaign, perhaps over a longer period of time, in order to get information in a timely fashion, almost exclusively about my constituency. Matters and looking across, not necessarily asking the same question, but looking at what people are asking about their constituencies and getting ideas for campaigns to run. And I think that was widely used. But in terms of the numbers of Pqs, I don't think people put down enormous numbers of questions until much later, after I joined the House, really.
But I think the nature of the role of an MP has altered significantly in that time, too. And I think for all sorts of reasons, um, that has, has had an effect on written parliamentary questions.
But I think the nature of the role of an MP has altered significantly in that time, too. And I think for all sorts of reasons, um, that has, has had an effect on written parliamentary questions.
10:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And one of the things that's changed probably in the time that you've been a member of the House is that I think historically it was seen that the member themselves would be the one that would take the lead and table them. And now we have the um, members hub system where we can nominate a proxy, a member of our staff to table questions on our behalf. And I just wondered whether or not you think that's appropriate or you think that should change.
10:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think one thing that shouldn't change is the fact that members should be responsible for the questions that are asked, whether they put them down themselves or someone in their office who acts as a proxy for them. I do worry slightly. Um, I have no evidence for this, but I do worry slightly in case it spread beyond proxies and that members were using parliamentary questions, um, to do other than just their constituency work and their constituency office. But I have no evidence of that.
But that's, I think one of the suspicions that is around, but it's very important that MPs take responsibility for that. But I also think, and it might not be what lots of members want to hear, but I also think that members need to focus very carefully on using written parliamentary questions and making sure that they're using them, um, for want of a better word, in a responsible way, not least because I'm sure we'll explore some of these points later. Um, it's not without a cost to the taxpayer.
And one does wonder when you look at some of the written parliamentary questions, whether or not they are, if people were looking from outside, whether they're actually worth the money that it costs to answer them.
But that's, I think one of the suspicions that is around, but it's very important that MPs take responsibility for that. But I also think, and it might not be what lots of members want to hear, but I also think that members need to focus very carefully on using written parliamentary questions and making sure that they're using them, um, for want of a better word, in a responsible way, not least because I'm sure we'll explore some of these points later. Um, it's not without a cost to the taxpayer.
And one does wonder when you look at some of the written parliamentary questions, whether or not they are, if people were looking from outside, whether they're actually worth the money that it costs to answer them.
10:20
10:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think entirely inappropriate. I think it would be wrong. And I think people would have to be careful that it didn't fall foul of the other rules of the House. As I say, I've got no evidence of that. But I think one of the one of the features of, um. Modern MPs is they're much more focused on campaigning than perhaps was the case three decades ago. And therefore parliamentary questions are very much seen as part of that.
I think. Um, and also I think there are aspects of the written parliamentary question system that, that allow people to be able to pile in and ask lots of questions. And some of those issues might need to be addressed. But I also think the expectations of MPs have changed as well. I sometimes think there's a bit of a questions arms race which takes place, which is the more questions you've asked, the better you are as an MP. That's just not true.
And I think, if anything, we should focus on the quantity. Sorry, the quality of questions rather than the quantity of questions. And I think MPs and their offices should need to make that decision before they embark on a some what looks like sometimes a fishing expedition.
I think. Um, and also I think there are aspects of the written parliamentary question system that, that allow people to be able to pile in and ask lots of questions. And some of those issues might need to be addressed. But I also think the expectations of MPs have changed as well. I sometimes think there's a bit of a questions arms race which takes place, which is the more questions you've asked, the better you are as an MP. That's just not true.
And I think, if anything, we should focus on the quantity. Sorry, the quality of questions rather than the quantity of questions. And I think MPs and their offices should need to make that decision before they embark on a some what looks like sometimes a fishing expedition.
10:21
10:22
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes. I mean, I think, again, I have no concrete evidence for this, but I think it's certainly worth considering and it's not a criticism by any means, but a figure which I quoted before is that 80% of members of the House of Commons have got less than six years experience. I can't remember a time when there's been such a churn in the number of MPs, and that that means, of course, as people are trying to find their feet and trying to find the issues that they want to concentrate on, maybe they're using written parliamentary questions as a way of making that happen.
I think we also have to consider, um, whether or. Not members and their offices have sufficient information about really what a written parliamentary question is for, to make sure that if they are using them, they're using them to some extent sparingly. I also think there are traditional forces at play, and I don't use this as a criticism because we've done it in the past. You know, there is a bit of a trick when you're in opposition, which is to put down as many written parliamentary questions as you can get, because one of the purposes of opposition is to tie the government out, is to tie a ministers out.
And therefore, when I was a minister in the Home Office, I'd make sure that no parliamentary question that was asked of me went out without me saying it, without me signing it off. And I still think that is the best way of doing it. Imagine a situation if you're a health minister, where the number of pqs that you've got on the last sort of two years has doubled, or whatever the numbers are. So I think there are all sorts of things that used to be at play which have maybe are still there, but I think there are new factors too.
I think we also have to consider, um, whether or. Not members and their offices have sufficient information about really what a written parliamentary question is for, to make sure that if they are using them, they're using them to some extent sparingly. I also think there are traditional forces at play, and I don't use this as a criticism because we've done it in the past. You know, there is a bit of a trick when you're in opposition, which is to put down as many written parliamentary questions as you can get, because one of the purposes of opposition is to tie the government out, is to tie a ministers out.
And therefore, when I was a minister in the Home Office, I'd make sure that no parliamentary question that was asked of me went out without me saying it, without me signing it off. And I still think that is the best way of doing it. Imagine a situation if you're a health minister, where the number of pqs that you've got on the last sort of two years has doubled, or whatever the numbers are. So I think there are all sorts of things that used to be at play which have maybe are still there, but I think there are new factors too.
10:23
10:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think it's had a big effect on government, but I think it also had an effect on the House, too. And I don't think they're separate things. I think, um, working out what's best way forward for written parliamentary questions is a challenge for government. But it is also a question for the House as well. And I'm not here to answer specifically in detail questions for the House, because I'm sure they'll be looking at their procedures, but from a government point of view, um, we're very keen and your committee is very good at helping us on this, pointing out, particularly where the performance of departments isn't very good.
And you might ask with what effect, but I'm constantly saying to departments that you need to improve your performance. And of course, and I think you've had evidence from ministers have actually acknowledged this because some of the responsibility does lie with departments. Um, and I think there are a number of reasons. Departments need to look at what they do. In my experience, since I became leader of the House and I've dealt with various aspects of departments from permanent secretaries down to parliamentary um clerks.
Uh, but the volume of questions just means I think that departments are being to somewhat overwhelmed by it in some cases. But I also think we need to look at the the, the system of answering questions and see if there's anything that can improve. Because if there is an increased flow, then we can do things to perhaps stretch that flow out. So you don't get the huge increase in volume at particular, how things can improve across government without losing sight of where we started, which is the right of members to ask to ask questions.
But I also think we need to look at the the, the system of answering questions and see if there's anything that can improve. Because if there is an increased flow, then we can do things to perhaps stretch that flow out. So you don't get the huge increase in volume at particular times, which if I was a minister, I'd be horrified to open my red box and see, you know, hundreds of parliamentary questions.
And you might ask with what effect, but I'm constantly saying to departments that you need to improve your performance. And of course, and I think you've had evidence from ministers have actually acknowledged this because some of the responsibility does lie with departments. Um, and I think there are a number of reasons. Departments need to look at what they do. In my experience, since I became leader of the House and I've dealt with various aspects of departments from permanent secretaries down to parliamentary um clerks.
Uh, but the volume of questions just means I think that departments are being to somewhat overwhelmed by it in some cases. But I also think we need to look at the the, the system of answering questions and see if there's anything that can improve. Because if there is an increased flow, then we can do things to perhaps stretch that flow out. So you don't get the huge increase in volume at particular, how things can improve across government without losing sight of where we started, which is the right of members to ask to ask questions.
But I also think we need to look at the the, the system of answering questions and see if there's anything that can improve. Because if there is an increased flow, then we can do things to perhaps stretch that flow out. So you don't get the huge increase in volume at particular times, which if I was a minister, I'd be horrified to open my red box and see, you know, hundreds of parliamentary questions.
10:25
10:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah, I was just just on that point that you made. And if this is to become the new sort of business as normal, um, the amount of questions that we're getting through, you just touched on it there, Alan, about, um, what adaptions will be being made across Whitehall. Can you tell us a little bit more about what actions are already being taken to try and address that?
10:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I don't think we should accept that necessarily this is business as normal, because if we do, then I don't think uh, meeting today, it will necessarily be the high point of PMQs in terms of volume. I don't know whether this this increase can continue. So I do think we need to address some of the structural aspects of PMQs. And that's why I do look forward to your report. We are seeing to departments and ministers that they are responsible for dealing with the PCCs that are coming through the door, but I'm sure that you've had ministers coming to you, setting out the ministerial view point of all of this, and I do think we should be, to a large extent, sympathetic to what they're doing.
I also think we need to look at the House, needs to look at how it deals with questions to, um, there was a time, uh, I seem to remember, without rose tinted spectacles, when the table office was a bit more of a filter, I think, than it maybe is at the minute. It's not a criticism of the clerks, but if they're dealing with a high volume of questions coming in, it used to be much more it seemed more difficult to get your parliamentary question actually onto the order paper and get an answer than it appears to be.
Now, I don't think they're choosing an easy option, but but it does seem that it's it's relatively straightforward. And members and members offices will, you know, look at that and think, well, this is an opportunity to, um, you know, see where I can get to see what see what I can get back by going down that route. So I think a whole government response, looking at it and holding departments to account. But ultimately it's also about how departments are set up and how ministerial teams make answering questions of priority.
But that's part of a wider issue about how departments and ministers and the government sees Parliament.
I also think we need to look at the House, needs to look at how it deals with questions to, um, there was a time, uh, I seem to remember, without rose tinted spectacles, when the table office was a bit more of a filter, I think, than it maybe is at the minute. It's not a criticism of the clerks, but if they're dealing with a high volume of questions coming in, it used to be much more it seemed more difficult to get your parliamentary question actually onto the order paper and get an answer than it appears to be.
Now, I don't think they're choosing an easy option, but but it does seem that it's it's relatively straightforward. And members and members offices will, you know, look at that and think, well, this is an opportunity to, um, you know, see where I can get to see what see what I can get back by going down that route. So I think a whole government response, looking at it and holding departments to account. But ultimately it's also about how departments are set up and how ministerial teams make answering questions of priority.
But that's part of a wider issue about how departments and ministers and the government sees Parliament.
10:27
10:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Unfortunately, I can't give you that answer, and I'm slightly frustrated about that. I know that the Cabinet Office is looking at it and is going to come up with, I think, with a better answer to the question. All we've been able to do so far is to take the £164 and see what it would mean in in today's money, if you increase it by inflation. So the figure that we're working at is around about 230. The other figure, of course, which comes into play is 850, where if it costs more to actually answer them, then that's the case.
Even if you take 230. My suspicion is that's a bit low, actually. I think it'll be more than that. If you multiply that by the number of questions that the Department of Health and Social Care get every year, it gives you an eye watering figure. And I think my constituents who are waiting, although waiting lists are coming down, who are waiting for an operation, might be asking the question, why is it costing millions of pounds?To answer all of these questions, rather than actually that money being used differently?
Even if you take 230. My suspicion is that's a bit low, actually. I think it'll be more than that. If you multiply that by the number of questions that the Department of Health and Social Care get every year, it gives you an eye watering figure. And I think my constituents who are waiting, although waiting lists are coming down, who are waiting for an operation, might be asking the question, why is it costing millions of pounds?To answer all of these questions, rather than actually that money being used differently?
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'd like some, um consistency. Across that I think um, I'm. I'm not sure that's where the vast increase in questions are actually coming from. Um, I think, I think part of that is and we're heading towards a summer recess, I think where those limits are taken off causes a problem, not least because in the way some departments naturally will work and then it will be a while before ministers will actually, um, see the answers that are going out in their name. And therefore there will be a big bulge in that.
I think there is a case, but it's up to you to um, come up with recommendations. I think there's a case for having a similar amount, whether the house is sitting or um, it's in recess. Um, I don't know whether the number of 20 is, is too many. Um, but I. Wonder whether there's a case for again equalising the number that you need to physically hard copy go in and deliver compared to what, what is done electronically. I think look, we live our lives by electronic means in some cases.
Even if I don't understand it all. Um, and I think that has an effect on the number of questions that can go down and the ease with which that can be done. But it also has an effect as well on the way in which people perceive that they can get answers back. And I just think we need to pause and have a look at that.
I think there is a case, but it's up to you to um, come up with recommendations. I think there's a case for having a similar amount, whether the house is sitting or um, it's in recess. Um, I don't know whether the number of 20 is, is too many. Um, but I. Wonder whether there's a case for again equalising the number that you need to physically hard copy go in and deliver compared to what, what is done electronically. I think look, we live our lives by electronic means in some cases.
Even if I don't understand it all. Um, and I think that has an effect on the number of questions that can go down and the ease with which that can be done. But it also has an effect as well on the way in which people perceive that they can get answers back. And I just think we need to pause and have a look at that.
10:31
10:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I mean, this this started, of course, and 1 or 2 members, very few members around the the committee will remember. But this whole debate started when the then young John Bercow arrived and put down half £1 million worth of questions in the first few months, I think. And at that point the brake was applied. And we've kind of um, we've to some extent, uh, lived with that system since. So whether or not the brake needs to be applied again, I don't know.
But I would reflect not just on the, the quality aspect, but I think whether or not we're getting value for money. And I will, I will say, um, that I find it hard to justify even if the figure is £230, I find it hard to justify spending £230 to find out which budget the catflap for number ten came from. I think that is. I think we need to look at that. Um, I know what's happening. We all know what's happening because, you know, as I said before, people are fishing to see if there's tomorrow's headline, but I'm not sure that's the best use of money.
But I would reflect not just on the, the quality aspect, but I think whether or not we're getting value for money. And I will, I will say, um, that I find it hard to justify even if the figure is £230, I find it hard to justify spending £230 to find out which budget the catflap for number ten came from. I think that is. I think we need to look at that. Um, I know what's happening. We all know what's happening because, you know, as I said before, people are fishing to see if there's tomorrow's headline, but I'm not sure that's the best use of money.
10:32
10:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Can I just point?I mean, the leader of the house makes an interesting point, but the leader of the House also knows that I could put in an FOI request on the cat flap. So, you know, you can't really have a situation where you have a disparity. So, you know. Do you do you you know, a member should be able to establish, um, that otherwise you're saying that members should be less equal in terms of their access to information.
10:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
No. I mean there is obviously I don't know whether we're going to get on to it. There is an interesting discussion around whether or not PCU root or FOI root and why there is a discrepancy. And we can we can talk about that later. I'm also not naive. I'm also not naive that if there is a, a not a closing down of. Because that's exactly what we don't need to do is to shut down written parliamentary questions.
But I do think it's time to look at them. Uh, if an office is sitting thinking, well, I've got my quarter of written parliamentary questions for this week, what can I do to find out more about a constituency case that I've got?I'm going to write to a minister. Let's not pretend that that's an easy thing to do either, because I get complaints in business questions regularly about getting not just timely responses to correspondence, but sometimes getting a response to correspondence and getting it in in good form.
So I do I take your point. Exactly. And I just think people looking at this from outside might ask the question, is money which is being spent actually being spent properly?Um and should MPs be thinking, have I got, if there's £230 to spend on a question, is it the best use of that for my constituents to ask about the number ten cat flap. Mhm. I think that's a reasonable question for them to ask.
But I do think it's time to look at them. Uh, if an office is sitting thinking, well, I've got my quarter of written parliamentary questions for this week, what can I do to find out more about a constituency case that I've got?I'm going to write to a minister. Let's not pretend that that's an easy thing to do either, because I get complaints in business questions regularly about getting not just timely responses to correspondence, but sometimes getting a response to correspondence and getting it in in good form.
So I do I take your point. Exactly. And I just think people looking at this from outside might ask the question, is money which is being spent actually being spent properly?Um and should MPs be thinking, have I got, if there's £230 to spend on a question, is it the best use of that for my constituents to ask about the number ten cat flap. Mhm. I think that's a reasonable question for them to ask.
10:35
10:35
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
You've touched on this a little bit already. We wanted to probe a bit around the PCU situation during recess, because some of the evidence we had is about these dramatic rises that we get in that period, which you've already touched on. Um, and you indicated, I think that you kind of felt that a limit during the recess period might be a good idea. So just sort of clarify that I've understood you correctly on that.
10:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think looking at, I don't see why we should. Well, no, let's start again. I think there's a case for saying that there shouldn't be a difference necessarily between recess and when the House is sitting, partly because if there is a self-imposed, um, responsibility aspect to all of this, then that should apply whether it's in recess or not. I do think that MPs and their offices now, by and large, um are. Probably um. Use recess differently to the way that it was 30, 40 years ago when we came in, in 97 and there was still, you know, the long summer recess without the September return.
So you would leave in July and you'd come back after the after conferences. No disrespect to MPs at the time, but I suspect they saw it as a break to get out and meet people in their constituencies. I'm not sure they saw in the campaigning way that MPs see it now, and I think MPs now, therefore, are looking to continue how they work outside when the House is sitting. I think they're looking to continue that as well. But I can't see unless there is a good case.
I can't see the case for saying that should account for a massive increase in written parliamentary questions over the recess. I just don't see why that should necessarily be the case.
So you would leave in July and you'd come back after the after conferences. No disrespect to MPs at the time, but I suspect they saw it as a break to get out and meet people in their constituencies. I'm not sure they saw in the campaigning way that MPs see it now, and I think MPs now, therefore, are looking to continue how they work outside when the House is sitting. I think they're looking to continue that as well. But I can't see unless there is a good case.
I can't see the case for saying that should account for a massive increase in written parliamentary questions over the recess. I just don't see why that should necessarily be the case.
10:37
10:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. I mean, I think if you looked at it across the whole recess and there was a number one of the other things, I think if we're going to look at recess and say, well, it's recess, because recess for MPs isn't, you know, you finish on July the 16th and you don't do any politics until whatever it's going to be September the 1st. That's just not how MPs work. You're entitled to an annual break, but it's not how MPs work. And it hasn't been for some time, frankly.
Um, so, um um, I don't see why they shouldn't be consistency about when the house is sitting or not sitting. I do think there's a case for looking at when replies come during recess. Actually, I do think there should be more stop, maybe more stopping off points when answers would be published or whatever else, because ministers don't disappear for the summer either. Um, you know, they're at least in touch with their departments if they're not in their departments. So they are able to continue to do this.
I think if we see it as an annual thing rather than a broken down into bits, then I think part of the answer lies there.
Um, so, um um, I don't see why they shouldn't be consistency about when the house is sitting or not sitting. I do think there's a case for looking at when replies come during recess. Actually, I do think there should be more stop, maybe more stopping off points when answers would be published or whatever else, because ministers don't disappear for the summer either. Um, you know, they're at least in touch with their departments if they're not in their departments. So they are able to continue to do this.
I think if we see it as an annual thing rather than a broken down into bits, then I think part of the answer lies there.
10:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
There's a case for that. I think there's a case for that. And actually, if I was in a department, I think I'd probably, um, welcome that, uh, because the reality is that when I come back after recess, uh, to start the new term, I'm going to be faced with a mountain of, of peaks, but they're going to start again. The new batch is going to start again. So the bath is pretty full, but the tap starts again. So I do think there is a case for looking at that.
10:39
10:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, absolutely. I mean, that's that's that is the issue with with timely responses to correspondence. It's not just about the, um, the decency of going back to your constituents and getting them a timely response. It's whether or not the timely response is timely in the context of why it was asked in the first place. Um, and the world does move on and it moves on politically quite quickly. So I do think, yeah, I think there's a case for looking at that.
I mean, it's entirely up to you what conclusions you draw, but I think there's a case for looking at it.
I mean, it's entirely up to you what conclusions you draw, but I think there's a case for looking at it.
10:40
10:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I think there's a case, but I don't have a strong view. I think there's a, I think there's a case for looking at whether or not we need the distinction between name day questions and ordinary questions. Um. Because I think I don't know whether that given the increased volumes, I don't know whether that distorts the performance of departments where if you're working to that sometimes artificial deadline, there will be opportunities. The problem with my argument there is how do you get the quick answer?Because if you said, well, we'll have ten days or 20 days or whatever it was to get an answer.
If I wanted to get an answer really quickly, then I'm not sure. I would probably go down a name day route. It's quite interesting when you look at some MPs, they only do name day questions. There are 1 or 2 MPs who literally only do name day questions. Now, I don't understand whether or not the rules haven't quite got through or whether they've got, you know, 200 really timely things that they need responses on. Maybe they're using it responsibly.
But I think it's interesting that there's an inconsistency about the way in which people are do that. So I think there's a case for that because of course in the Lords it's different. And in other legislatures it's different as well. So it's not just about the quantity, it's about um to some extent the equality of them too. What was the other part of your question?
If I wanted to get an answer really quickly, then I'm not sure. I would probably go down a name day route. It's quite interesting when you look at some MPs, they only do name day questions. There are 1 or 2 MPs who literally only do name day questions. Now, I don't understand whether or not the rules haven't quite got through or whether they've got, you know, 200 really timely things that they need responses on. Maybe they're using it responsibly.
But I think it's interesting that there's an inconsistency about the way in which people are do that. So I think there's a case for that because of course in the Lords it's different. And in other legislatures it's different as well. So it's not just about the quantity, it's about um to some extent the equality of them too. What was the other part of your question?
10:41
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. I mean, I think, I think it's, um, I think there's a case for being more, um, strict, uh, about what needs to go through, particularly if the answer can be easily found somewhere else. You know, if I was going to the table office and putting down questions, I'd expect to be able to, to be told, well, actually, if you walk along the corridor to the library, you can get that answer from that. There's a huge resource here. Uh, and of course, their offices are a resource too.
There are lots of ways in which you can get answers to questions. So I would expect there to be a fairly tough approach to that. If PCAs get through, then they need to reach maybe a slightly higher bar than they are now, I don't know.
There are lots of ways in which you can get answers to questions. So I would expect there to be a fairly tough approach to that. If PCAs get through, then they need to reach maybe a slightly higher bar than they are now, I don't know.
10:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. Um, so it's quite interesting. And you mentioned about the sort of higher bar and you get a lot of backbench MPs that would say actually the table office are almost too restrictive. Um and so they'd probably put a counterargument for one that you'd sort of push forward yourself, but often what you have is a specific complaint about the requirement for WPQ to have a concrete factual basis. And one of the sort of tensions is, um, and, you know, I've been in government, you've been in government, you actually have what is quite obviously a government briefing into the newspapers.
Um, um. And which has been reported on because a special adviser has briefed it into the newspapers. I mean, it's not unheard of, I think, in any sort of government that that sort of it's sort of pre trailed. Um and, and this is classed as not counting as a factual basis, even though it's maybe been on the front page of the times. Do you think that's, you know, um. Do you think there's a danger that parliament's been stymied, even though it's obviously come from the department and the minister?
Um, um. And which has been reported on because a special adviser has briefed it into the newspapers. I mean, it's not unheard of, I think, in any sort of government that that sort of it's sort of pre trailed. Um and, and this is classed as not counting as a factual basis, even though it's maybe been on the front page of the times. Do you think that's, you know, um. Do you think there's a danger that parliament's been stymied, even though it's obviously come from the department and the minister?
10:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, putting aside the wider argument, which I know the speaker is particularly keen on, which is if departments are going to make an announcement, they should be made to Parliament first or at the earliest. Opportunity, I think, is probably where we're going to get to. Um, and therefore that's what urgent questions and statements are therefore too. So there are other ways of doing that. Uh, but I suppose the bottom line is that if you read something in the times about what a government department, uh, intends to do, it isn't necessarily a fact, is it?Um, so it is a reported.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So are you, I don't know, I'd speculate a bit here is if, if one of the purposes of putting a question down is to press for action, um then could you not construct a question which was around, given what I've just read in the times. Um I want to know, you know, what the government intends to do about X. Would that not pass the bar.
10:45
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well there's been there's been challenges with members who have been using the basis of something that is looking as if it's an intent and a direction of ministers, and that not quite passing the bar. And the danger is because I think you make some very important points about making sure that the question process is, is valid. And if something is being reported in the media quite widely, as this is a direction of government or a policy that's going to be taken, it's you know, we don't want to sort of close off the abilities for members to make sure that the questions are valid and current.
Do we.
Do we.
10:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Know we don't?Absolutely. Right. Which is why there's a balance in here, which is why, you know, when the committee looks at this, I think not for me to tell you a job, but but I think establishing where that balance is is really important. I'm not I'm not ducking your question directly, but I suppose I am indirectly. I'm not sure that's at the forefront of my mind actually, because if you give me that example, I would probably agree with you, um, that maybe, you know, that could be looked at.
I'm talking about things which are blatantly unnecessary as a parliamentary question. If I want to find out how many primary, how many GP surgeries there are in Tynemouth constituency, I can find out without putting a question down to the Department for health, if I want to know. Well, I don't want to know how much the cat flap cost, frankly. So there are things which I think we could start with.
I'm talking about things which are blatantly unnecessary as a parliamentary question. If I want to find out how many primary, how many GP surgeries there are in Tynemouth constituency, I can find out without putting a question down to the Department for health, if I want to know. Well, I don't want to know how much the cat flap cost, frankly. So there are things which I think we could start with.
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:47
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Yeah. Um, just picking up on Gavin's question. There. Certainly the. World of academia has had very much updated how it reflects and how it, how it takes on arguments that come via that, particularly from social media or from, of or from various web sources. Is it time to update Erskine May so that it's more it's more reflective of what the current information sources are rather than. Rather than where it probably is already sitting, which. The more traditional sense.
10:47
10:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Again, I'm not sure the answer to that. I mean, I am in favour, if necessary, of looking at this, to see whether or not the parameters around questions are. I'm not just about constraint, I think. I'm also is whether or not it's it's relevant and whether or not. We need to, because we do need to reflect the outside world out there too. Uh, but we can't get away from, um, the, um, the prism of the MPs offices and the MPs role in all of this.
Um, I would be slightly I know you're not suggesting this. I'd be slightly nervous about opening it up so that, um, other people that think other than MPs offices think, well, this is a good way to get the information I want. Really?I'm not sure that's an answer to your question.
Um, I would be slightly I know you're not suggesting this. I'd be slightly nervous about opening it up so that, um, other people that think other than MPs offices think, well, this is a good way to get the information I want. Really?I'm not sure that's an answer to your question.
10:49
10:49
10:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Okay. I mean, the, the idea of blocks is a long standing, uh, process. Response, particularly where there are repetitive questions and I think it's right that they, they are there. If people can be pointed elsewhere, then I think that's, that's right. That they do. So I always think there's a case for, um, more information rather than less if, if, if it helps. And I think explaining perhaps why there's a block or why it's been blocked is something that's interesting to explore.
But the fundamental question, I think Mary is one for the committee rather than for me, which is, um, uh, you know, how can the government provide that clarity, um, on the use of blocks?Um, because, um, it's probably easier to say than to do, I think, uh, but I do think it's one of the things that the, it'd be interesting to see the committee considers that, but my answer in a wider sense is it's better to have more information out there than not, because people are able to, if necessary, adapt their behaviour to that and learn lessons.
If they go down that particular route, it's not going to get them anywhere.
But the fundamental question, I think Mary is one for the committee rather than for me, which is, um, uh, you know, how can the government provide that clarity, um, on the use of blocks?Um, because, um, it's probably easier to say than to do, I think, uh, but I do think it's one of the things that the, it'd be interesting to see the committee considers that, but my answer in a wider sense is it's better to have more information out there than not, because people are able to, if necessary, adapt their behaviour to that and learn lessons.
If they go down that particular route, it's not going to get them anywhere.
10:50
10:50
10:51
10:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
There is of course a concern, uh, or a. Really whether AI is being used to generate questions in the first instance and going back to the very beginning, that may be one reason why we're getting more and more, questions. Um, in terms of government responses, the government, government departments have, uh, a. Let's call it an AI playbook, which sets out exactly what it is that government departments are able to do, including, I assume, um, aspects of. Uh, questions. But ultimately it is the responsibility of the minister about what goes into that question.
Uh, and it is for the Department to make sure that somebody else isn't generating and, and signing off the questions. Ultimately, it's a question for the minister. Look, we all use, I assume you do even me to some extent, uh, use AI and we're going to be using it in the future. It would be odd to say that government departments can't or don't use AI. I would expect them to, in fact, to some extent, modernising public services, of which we're a public service, I'd expect AI to be playing a role, and I'd expect it to increase in the future.
But it's not a substitute for ministers and therefore, you know, getting that information, getting it into the right form, and then ministers signing off is the right way forward.
Uh, and it is for the Department to make sure that somebody else isn't generating and, and signing off the questions. Ultimately, it's a question for the minister. Look, we all use, I assume you do even me to some extent, uh, use AI and we're going to be using it in the future. It would be odd to say that government departments can't or don't use AI. I would expect them to, in fact, to some extent, modernising public services, of which we're a public service, I'd expect AI to be playing a role, and I'd expect it to increase in the future.
But it's not a substitute for ministers and therefore, you know, getting that information, getting it into the right form, and then ministers signing off is the right way forward.
10:52
10:52
10:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think the answer is, and I think it. I expect ministers to do this now. I think ultimately they are the person that agrees. The sign off of the letter and. All right. You know, it might be, um, a fairly swift process. Trust, trusting your office in the to to put something in front of you that you're going to sign off. But ministers need to write that response and be cognizant and maybe ask, where did this come from?Where did the source come from?Um, because, uh, whatever a minister signs off, uh, a copy of that is kept.
That information stays there. Um, and they're responsible for that, uh, going forward. So a responsible minister won't just sign off or have, in effect, have something signed off for them. They'll do it themselves. They're the final arbiter. Uh, and the final judge on what goes out.
That information stays there. Um, and they're responsible for that, uh, going forward. So a responsible minister won't just sign off or have, in effect, have something signed off for them. They'll do it themselves. They're the final arbiter. Uh, and the final judge on what goes out.
10:54
10:54
10:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I think it might well be a decision, uh, a reason for a delay. Uh, and if I'm being, um, entirely frank, I don't think government, not just this government, but I don't think government does this particularly well. Uh, and I think given the increased volume of questions, I think it's increasingly a challenge, uh, because if people are going to complain, uh, that the question that they put down has, has been transferred and it shouldn't have been transferred or it's been lost in the system for a while.
If there's an increased number of pqs, then the number of times that's going to happen, it'll have increased significantly as well. I don't think we've got this right across government. I think government, well, government is looking at how best that can be done. I think at least it should be departments working better together and being, um, perhaps more receptive if something comes in and it's borderline, then I think they should take it. It's easy for me to say sitting here, but I think that's where department should be, whether there needs to be anything more systematic, uh, to that so that we make sure that it gets to the right place.
That's a matter for not just the the government, but it's a matter for the House as well. But I do think it's one of the areas that needs to be considered.
If there's an increased number of pqs, then the number of times that's going to happen, it'll have increased significantly as well. I don't think we've got this right across government. I think government, well, government is looking at how best that can be done. I think at least it should be departments working better together and being, um, perhaps more receptive if something comes in and it's borderline, then I think they should take it. It's easy for me to say sitting here, but I think that's where department should be, whether there needs to be anything more systematic, uh, to that so that we make sure that it gets to the right place.
That's a matter for not just the the government, but it's a matter for the House as well. But I do think it's one of the areas that needs to be considered.
10:55
10:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
But but earlier on in the process, perhaps if the wording of the question was clearer, it would be clearer where the question would go to. But if you're putting down a question, uh, which cuts across a number of departments, and there are issues across department, and there are obviously across departments and government deals with them in policy making terms in all sorts of different ways, then don't be surprised if it becomes something which either is passed between departments or more likely, work out which department is most responsible for that answer, and the natural instinct of department is, not surprisingly, may well be not us unless it proved that it is their.
10:56
10:56
10:56
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Okay. We've talked quite a bit about the quantity of Wpcs coming in. Um, but let's turn to the quality of responses coming back out. So some members have obviously raised concerns in their evidence to us about this. For example, um, answers that either just don't directly address the question at all. Um questions that might be missed when they're grouped for response, um, or questions falling between the gaps of departmental responsibility. Why might we be getting these concerns.
Why might there be quality issues arising from the responses to wpcs.
Why might there be quality issues arising from the responses to wpcs.
10:56
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I. Suppose the easy answer, but nevertheless it might be true is that is the pressure which is built, given the number of pqs that are coming in. And there is no doubt, as I've said previously, some departments feel under much more pressure and are having to find a way of dealing with that. But look, the quality of answers provided to members is of equal importance, at least as the timeliness of the response. That's the reality they should be answering timely in a timely fashion, but they should also be answering, in my view, in a full and frank as frank away as they possibly can.
And we constantly I constantly am reminding departments, particularly where they're not performing particularly well, that that is their responsibility. Um, it shouldn't be the case. I don't think that a WP queue looks for the or whoever is dealing with it looks for the easiest way to avoid it. So just because the information is not available, uh, sorry is available elsewhere is not necessarily a very good answer for not putting it into an answer to a written parliamentary question, but it may be a quick version of saying, well, I've got all of these to do.
How many can I push over here to somebody else, or just put an simple answer?Um, we talked a little bit about grouping and where you do have the same question or a similar topic. Then of course, grouping has always exists, but that shouldn't be used again as an excuse for not answering a particular question, because specific inquiries from members should be addressed in responses. And then we've talked a little bit, I think, about cross-cutting that should not be um. That should not be an excuse for that particular department not to take the question and make a full response as we possibly can.
I think it's about the culture of answering and the culture of how people and how departments see, uh, this place and how they see MPs and the work of MPs. And there is still some work to be done in kind of, uh, getting departments up to speed on that, I think. But given the volume of pqs, it must just be seen as, you know, of an avalanche. How on earth do we deal with all of this?Some departments don't have that problem, but in some departments do.
And we constantly I constantly am reminding departments, particularly where they're not performing particularly well, that that is their responsibility. Um, it shouldn't be the case. I don't think that a WP queue looks for the or whoever is dealing with it looks for the easiest way to avoid it. So just because the information is not available, uh, sorry is available elsewhere is not necessarily a very good answer for not putting it into an answer to a written parliamentary question, but it may be a quick version of saying, well, I've got all of these to do.
How many can I push over here to somebody else, or just put an simple answer?Um, we talked a little bit about grouping and where you do have the same question or a similar topic. Then of course, grouping has always exists, but that shouldn't be used again as an excuse for not answering a particular question, because specific inquiries from members should be addressed in responses. And then we've talked a little bit, I think, about cross-cutting that should not be um. That should not be an excuse for that particular department not to take the question and make a full response as we possibly can.
I think it's about the culture of answering and the culture of how people and how departments see, uh, this place and how they see MPs and the work of MPs. And there is still some work to be done in kind of, uh, getting departments up to speed on that, I think. But given the volume of pqs, it must just be seen as, you know, of an avalanche. How on earth do we deal with all of this?Some departments don't have that problem, but in some departments do.
10:58
10:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Okay, let me get to that in a moment. I've said that it's a departmental responsibility to do this properly, and that should remain because departments to some extent are, you know, they're part of government, but they have their own independent role to play. As we've already said, the Cabinet Office is looking at this because ultimately they're going to be looking at performance, uh, across the piece. I do hold individual departments to to account. Uh, I frequently, um, say to. Them whether or not it's to all of the.
Them at the same time or whether it's individual departments that your performance isn't good enough. One of the best ways, of course, which people have worked out how to get an answer to a particular WPQ is to come along on a Thursday morning and ask me at business questions, because by and large, most of the time I think that please don't take that as an encouragement for people to come. P Q. But that but that can help. I mean, my, my, you know, proper answer to that is it shouldn't it shouldn't come down to that actually.
Because if you can get an answer, to WPQ uh, because somebody got up and business questions the previous Thursday, it's not right is it, that they're not getting that answer. It sounds as if it was ready. So I don't think it's for me alone to do that. Um, I think it's departmental responsibility. I think there's a cross-government responsibility, and the Cabinet Office will continue to want to look at that. But frankly, it's a responsibility to which is why I really very much welcome this inquiry.
Them at the same time or whether it's individual departments that your performance isn't good enough. One of the best ways, of course, which people have worked out how to get an answer to a particular WPQ is to come along on a Thursday morning and ask me at business questions, because by and large, most of the time I think that please don't take that as an encouragement for people to come. P Q. But that but that can help. I mean, my, my, you know, proper answer to that is it shouldn't it shouldn't come down to that actually.
Because if you can get an answer, to WPQ uh, because somebody got up and business questions the previous Thursday, it's not right is it, that they're not getting that answer. It sounds as if it was ready. So I don't think it's for me alone to do that. Um, I think it's departmental responsibility. I think there's a cross-government responsibility, and the Cabinet Office will continue to want to look at that. But frankly, it's a responsibility to which is why I really very much welcome this inquiry.
11:00
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
And then finally from me. Sorry, I had to block you. You mentioned that you think it's of equal importance to have a good quality response and a timely response. Um, obviously that is a tricky balancing act. Um, how in your view, does the government, um, make efforts to achieve that balancing act?And is there anything you think it could do better to achieve that balance?
11:01
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It is tricky. And I mean, there are, um, you know, there are timelines and, you know, if people fall foul of that, then they are held to account for that. It is tricky. Um, but I would gently say to colleagues, um, that if there was a rush to get something out the door, uh, and it's not really an answer to the question. It's going to come back, isn't it?It's going to come back either as another question. So it's a bit short sighted or it's going to come back as a question in the chamber, or it's going to come back as a piece of correspondence.
Uh, it's not going to go away. So the best that you can get to easy for me to say, look, I get, uh, WPQS and, but they're a fraction compared to other departments. And we do very well, but we're not coping with that volume. And I would say to colleagues, it's short. They're not doing it deliberately, but it's short sighted. If the information that goes out there is not a full, not a full answer, it's just short sighted.
So you need to do the best that you can. However, going back a bit, if we can moderate the tap, uh, filling up the situation, then people might get better answers.
Uh, it's not going to go away. So the best that you can get to easy for me to say, look, I get, uh, WPQS and, but they're a fraction compared to other departments. And we do very well, but we're not coping with that volume. And I would say to colleagues, it's short. They're not doing it deliberately, but it's short sighted. If the information that goes out there is not a full, not a full answer, it's just short sighted.
So you need to do the best that you can. However, going back a bit, if we can moderate the tap, uh, filling up the situation, then people might get better answers.
11:02
11:02
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah. Just following on, can I just start off by saying thank you?Uh, because you mentioned don't don't look too uneasy, but. You know, I think as as backbench MPs, I think we all appreciate the opportunity sometimes at business questions to use your good offices to give things a nudge and a bit of a help. So even though it probably sometimes feels a bit of a thankless task, and especially for your officials who have to then chase some of these things up, it is appreciated.
The one thing I'm slightly curious about and, you know, sort of seeing it from the other side, um, you know, departments. Yes, of course they have an awful influx of questions and everything else. And we ask a minister to come along and explain on the poorer performing departments. And as Secretary of State, you usually select the minister. You care the least about or is usually the most junior to sort of trot along to the committee. But possibly. The issue is also one of resourcing and you know as well as I do that actually the junior minister for whatever has very little say over the overall resourcing, especially when things it comes to out of their area, which it largely will be because this will be a secretary of state decision and a permanent secretary decision.
Do you think it would be useful, instead of asking the Minister of the Department to come along and respond, maybe also to have sat beside that junior minister, also to have a permanent secretary of the Department sat alongside, because actually they are there and often put. Civil servants don't always put as as much as we value their work, don't always put as much of a priority in terms of dealing with parliamentary matters. And we sometimes seen this issue in terms of the development of bills and other sort of, uh, I imagine you have the same challenges I used to have in PBL.
Um, um, and that might bring a sharper focus to prioritisation, just as an idea as to how to make things work better.
The one thing I'm slightly curious about and, you know, sort of seeing it from the other side, um, you know, departments. Yes, of course they have an awful influx of questions and everything else. And we ask a minister to come along and explain on the poorer performing departments. And as Secretary of State, you usually select the minister. You care the least about or is usually the most junior to sort of trot along to the committee. But possibly. The issue is also one of resourcing and you know as well as I do that actually the junior minister for whatever has very little say over the overall resourcing, especially when things it comes to out of their area, which it largely will be because this will be a secretary of state decision and a permanent secretary decision.
Do you think it would be useful, instead of asking the Minister of the Department to come along and respond, maybe also to have sat beside that junior minister, also to have a permanent secretary of the Department sat alongside, because actually they are there and often put. Civil servants don't always put as as much as we value their work, don't always put as much of a priority in terms of dealing with parliamentary matters. And we sometimes seen this issue in terms of the development of bills and other sort of, uh, I imagine you have the same challenges I used to have in PBL.
Um, um, and that might bring a sharper focus to prioritisation, just as an idea as to how to make things work better.
11:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm slightly. Nervous because I used to get a lot of the, um, questions. To answer in the home office. So clearly I wasn't liked by the Home Secretary. That's just not true. I mean, in that where are they now in that in that situation, it was it was spread across ministers. And I think that is a I think that is the the right approach to take.
11:04
11:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
No, no, no, but but but I'm I'm in regret. I'm saying this. If I meet up with permanent secretaries. But I agree absolutely with what you're saying. Uh, because I think it's really interesting. We've got some great permanent secretaries, don't get me wrong. Um, but I think, uh, it's to do with the way in which, um, MPs Parliament as regarded, uh, by government, not the government, any government. Uh, and I think that's a constant battle that we need to have.
Uh, and I think, um, it's just a case of sometimes explaining to them how. Things are, are seen by MPs and how MPs ultimately can be very helpful in these situations. They're doing what they've been sent to do on behalf of their constituents. And my view is you get better government if you open in that sense, and you engage with MPs, and you certainly get better policy. One of the things that I did notice when I pulled together, for example, the parliamentary teams, the people that will spend their time not just on legislation, but but answering questions too, is that the not with respect to them.
They came out kind of blinking from the dark and cave. Nobody had asked them any before about what did they do?You know, what can be done to make their lives better. And they've got enormous experience across government. And it sometimes comes down to resource. It does come down to resource. Uh, and a secretary of state will have enormous pressure on it, you know, enormous pressure on their departments. And to be able to say, you know, we're going to have to look carefully at the school's budget because we're going to be spending half £1 million over here answering MPs questions is, is, is tricky.
Um, but there needs to be a balance, which is, which is struck. So I do think it would be interesting if you're inviting ministers to get officials along with them. It's the same thing because again, we've, uh, you know, you were a chief whip and you would want your ministers across to vote and getting ministers across to vote and get past the diary secretaries, wonderful people, though they are, is an enormous challenge. Sometimes it's because the chasm between government departments and parliament is much more than just the physical distance.
It's about getting departments to understand that ministers are accountable to this place. And sometimes you end up with ministers who buy into that too, and ask the question, why?You know, I don't really understand why these questions have to be answered. That's because that's because that's what MPs need to be able to do their job. But it is. On the other hand, one of the great benefits of where ministers are MPs and therefore they have seen this and they should have some empathy, uh, to what is happening over here.
But I think that's a really good idea. Really good idea. It's challenging. I've said it before, it's challenging the culture. They're not bad people. They haven't invented a culture to avoid scrutiny. Well, not entirely, but they haven't. They're good people. They. But it's not their priority. Well, let's make it more of a priority for them and at the same time be able to explain to MPs why it can't.
The perfect world can't be the way that it is, because secretaries of state have got lots of other things tackling emergency situations, coming up with legislation, all of those things they've got that to do and it's a better understanding, I think.
Uh, and I think, um, it's just a case of sometimes explaining to them how. Things are, are seen by MPs and how MPs ultimately can be very helpful in these situations. They're doing what they've been sent to do on behalf of their constituents. And my view is you get better government if you open in that sense, and you engage with MPs, and you certainly get better policy. One of the things that I did notice when I pulled together, for example, the parliamentary teams, the people that will spend their time not just on legislation, but but answering questions too, is that the not with respect to them.
They came out kind of blinking from the dark and cave. Nobody had asked them any before about what did they do?You know, what can be done to make their lives better. And they've got enormous experience across government. And it sometimes comes down to resource. It does come down to resource. Uh, and a secretary of state will have enormous pressure on it, you know, enormous pressure on their departments. And to be able to say, you know, we're going to have to look carefully at the school's budget because we're going to be spending half £1 million over here answering MPs questions is, is, is tricky.
Um, but there needs to be a balance, which is, which is struck. So I do think it would be interesting if you're inviting ministers to get officials along with them. It's the same thing because again, we've, uh, you know, you were a chief whip and you would want your ministers across to vote and getting ministers across to vote and get past the diary secretaries, wonderful people, though they are, is an enormous challenge. Sometimes it's because the chasm between government departments and parliament is much more than just the physical distance.
It's about getting departments to understand that ministers are accountable to this place. And sometimes you end up with ministers who buy into that too, and ask the question, why?You know, I don't really understand why these questions have to be answered. That's because that's because that's what MPs need to be able to do their job. But it is. On the other hand, one of the great benefits of where ministers are MPs and therefore they have seen this and they should have some empathy, uh, to what is happening over here.
But I think that's a really good idea. Really good idea. It's challenging. I've said it before, it's challenging the culture. They're not bad people. They haven't invented a culture to avoid scrutiny. Well, not entirely, but they haven't. They're good people. They. But it's not their priority. Well, let's make it more of a priority for them and at the same time be able to explain to MPs why it can't.
The perfect world can't be the way that it is, because secretaries of state have got lots of other things tackling emergency situations, coming up with legislation, all of those things they've got that to do and it's a better understanding, I think.
11:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. Um, you'll be aware that this is one of our two inquiries we currently have open interests in parliamentary questions. We do a regular inquiry, which is more of a numbers exercise whereby we recognise that some departments um are much better at answering questions in a timely manner than others. And every time um we bring before our committee the, the worst offenders, the ones that are struggling the most come before our committee and explain themselves. And I just wondered if you had any sense about why you think some departments have an all departments have seen a huge rise in the numbers of.
Wpcs. And yet some departments seem to be still be able to meet the timely response part of that. And other departments are really struggling. I just wondered what your thoughts were and what you thought might be the solution there.
Wpcs. And yet some departments seem to be still be able to meet the timely response part of that. And other departments are really struggling. I just wondered what your thoughts were and what you thought might be the solution there.
11:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I mean, first of all, I think it is important with respect that you continue to do that because even if some of them are struggling, knowing that there are clear targets about what they should be doing is important until the targets change or the situation changes, it's uncomfortable for ministers, presumably, and departments, but it's really important that you continue to do that because that's an important check in the, uh, the system. I think the answer to your question is, is we've discussed some of the aspects here. Really.
Look, there is a problem. There is a problem with the in that sense, for some departments with the quantity of questions that are coming through, if there's been a 93% increase in, you know, the previous 12 months, that's an incredible, um, situation. Which departments will find it difficult if every department was faced with a similar situation?Um, then, um, you know, there would be um, um, maybe an easier way through, but they're not, some departments are just, um, inundated with questions and therefore looking at, um, how they handle that.
Um, and at the same time fulfil their commitments is a challenge for individual departments as well. Even if your recommendations get to a situation where the flow slows a little bit and some of the, um, I don't know, um, some of the rule changes mean that it's more straightforward, uh, in the way that they do it. There will still be some issues in departments that will be institutionally, I suspect, poorer performers. And that's about the department. It goes back to what uh, Gavin.
Said earlier, really, it's about letting departments know that they're going to be held to account for this, and they need to improve their performance, not because they're coming in front of us or you alone, or that should be an incentive to improve their performance, or they're going to be named and shamed. They should just be doing it, frankly.
Look, there is a problem. There is a problem with the in that sense, for some departments with the quantity of questions that are coming through, if there's been a 93% increase in, you know, the previous 12 months, that's an incredible, um, situation. Which departments will find it difficult if every department was faced with a similar situation?Um, then, um, you know, there would be um, um, maybe an easier way through, but they're not, some departments are just, um, inundated with questions and therefore looking at, um, how they handle that.
Um, and at the same time fulfil their commitments is a challenge for individual departments as well. Even if your recommendations get to a situation where the flow slows a little bit and some of the, um, I don't know, um, some of the rule changes mean that it's more straightforward, uh, in the way that they do it. There will still be some issues in departments that will be institutionally, I suspect, poorer performers. And that's about the department. It goes back to what uh, Gavin.
Said earlier, really, it's about letting departments know that they're going to be held to account for this, and they need to improve their performance, not because they're coming in front of us or you alone, or that should be an incentive to improve their performance, or they're going to be named and shamed. They should just be doing it, frankly.
11:11
11:11
11:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I can't give you examples of where the best practice is. Sorry. Where that sharing of information is, but there will be, I mean, not least because to some extent, although there is a flow of ministers from one department to another, and I think it's interesting when you look sometimes within departments as well as between departments, why some ministers manage to answer 80% on time and others struggle to get 50% on time. So there's a battle within departments as well as between departments. Is there a handbook on best practice?I haven't seen it.
If there is, should there be one?
If there is, should there be one?
11:12
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Um, I think we've touched on this in a previous answer to Gavin, but we've heard from witnesses about concerns about getting information via an FOI request, not getting it via a written PQ answer. And in the government's response to the written evidence, the government acknowledged some inconsistencies in this area. Is that something that you could expand on?And do you have any thoughts about why this continues to happen?
11:13
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah. First of all, there shouldn't be inconsistencies. And let me be absolutely clear about that. There shouldn't be. Whether it's a written question or whether it's information giving under under an FOI. But as you say, the government has recognised that there is inconsistency. And we do again, remind departments of their obligations in this regard. I did enquire with my team about some of the reasons why that might happen, and, um, again, to some extent because there are two separate systems.
The way in which they're dealt with and also sometimes the, the time limit is different. So if it was a name day question, which has however many days, and then an emoji, which has an increased number of days, it wouldn't be surprising if there was a difference in the information which was provided, because in the first instance it would be what you could put together in four days, and in the other instance you'd have a bit longer. Uh, but I don't think that should be the case, but it's just a practical reality.
I think of where we are, the interaction between that is set out in the Guide to Parliamentary Work, which is produced by my office. So department should know about that. Um, and we have worked with this committee on this in the past on the guidance, so I would be quite happy to continue to do so. With that.
The way in which they're dealt with and also sometimes the, the time limit is different. So if it was a name day question, which has however many days, and then an emoji, which has an increased number of days, it wouldn't be surprising if there was a difference in the information which was provided, because in the first instance it would be what you could put together in four days, and in the other instance you'd have a bit longer. Uh, but I don't think that should be the case, but it's just a practical reality.
I think of where we are, the interaction between that is set out in the Guide to Parliamentary Work, which is produced by my office. So department should know about that. Um, and we have worked with this committee on this in the past on the guidance, so I would be quite happy to continue to do so. With that.
11:14
11:14
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Maybe it's that lack of consistency, isn't it. Which which might be done that. Well let's be um, let's be honest because we'll pretend we're. This is just between us. Um, there are some questions that will go into departments where you need to be a bit more careful about the answer that you're putting out there, isn't it?It just is. It's just, it's just the reality of the world in which we work. My answer to that would be get stuff out there, get as much out there.
And you know, um, help MPs in, in their work, uh, in that regard. But there will be some departments that will think, well, hang on a minute. Um, how much of this information do I need to put out as opposed to what's my reason for not putting everything that I've got out there?Maybe I should. Have said that, but I think that's probably the reality.
And you know, um, help MPs in, in their work, uh, in that regard. But there will be some departments that will think, well, hang on a minute. Um, how much of this information do I need to put out as opposed to what's my reason for not putting everything that I've got out there?Maybe I should. Have said that, but I think that's probably the reality.
11:15
11:15
11:16
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think there'll be examples of that. I think there'll certainly be examples of that, which is why I mentioned earlier. I think it's an interesting it's up to you, but it's an interesting discussion as to whether or not there needs to be a distinction. However, as I said before, I think getting timely answers, if name day questions are used in order to get quicker answers. And we've talked about the the situation changing, uh, altering before and the context altering before the answer actually comes out.
So I think that's a bit of a dilemma. Um, really. Um, but yes, I do think that will probably happen. Um, but again, if it's not a name day question, it'll be something else. Um, but to some extent that's the work. When, when the speaker, when somebody gets up and makes a point of order to the speaker and says, Mr. Speaker, um, you know, I asked this question, I haven't got an answer or whatever else the speaker will say, usually the honourable gentleman, the honourable lady, has been here long enough, and they know the procedures of this place in order to get an answer.
And he's right, because whether they have been here long enough or not, there's usually a procedure to get the answer that you want. And for somebody to drag their heels in. All of this is a bit short sighted, if I'm honest, because it's going to lead to a name day question, or it's going to lead to asking me business questions or that boost, uh, supercharge it or a departmental or an on the record question. Or as I've said before, an email to the department or a letter to the department saying, yeah, thank oh, simply a resubmission of the question.
It's not going to go away. MPs are like terriers with bones sometimes, aren't they?They're not going to give up in that regard. Um, and therefore the, you know, they'll get a better answer at some point. Yeah.
So I think that's a bit of a dilemma. Um, really. Um, but yes, I do think that will probably happen. Um, but again, if it's not a name day question, it'll be something else. Um, but to some extent that's the work. When, when the speaker, when somebody gets up and makes a point of order to the speaker and says, Mr. Speaker, um, you know, I asked this question, I haven't got an answer or whatever else the speaker will say, usually the honourable gentleman, the honourable lady, has been here long enough, and they know the procedures of this place in order to get an answer.
And he's right, because whether they have been here long enough or not, there's usually a procedure to get the answer that you want. And for somebody to drag their heels in. All of this is a bit short sighted, if I'm honest, because it's going to lead to a name day question, or it's going to lead to asking me business questions or that boost, uh, supercharge it or a departmental or an on the record question. Or as I've said before, an email to the department or a letter to the department saying, yeah, thank oh, simply a resubmission of the question.
It's not going to go away. MPs are like terriers with bones sometimes, aren't they?They're not going to give up in that regard. Um, and therefore the, you know, they'll get a better answer at some point. Yeah.
11:17
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Okay. And just thank you for that. And just, just more broadly, um, and you may not have any more to say on this, but obviously name day questions are there with the intent that it's a really important question on behalf of a resident constituent that you want answering really urgently. Do you think MPs are using name day questions with the original intent, or do you think there's something else that drives their their use of them?
11:18
11:18
11:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I've no doubt. Some will be for the very reason that you've given, I suspect for some people, as I said before, I mean, I've seen lists of people put down questions and they've just put down name their questions or 95% of what they're doing is named er, questions. And as I said before, that may be because they are dealing with that number of cases and they do need urgent answers. That might be true. Uh, but I suspect when you look at the numbers that that's probably not true, um, I don't know whether there's a lack of awareness of the different routes and therefore what they ought to be doing.
Uh, so are we, is it an education question about whether or not people need to be made more aware of that?Or is it simply a case of, is there a better way of doing it?Is there a better way of doing it which has an equal in the House of Lords, where I don't think they have this distinction?Um, I'm not sure. It'd be interesting to know whether or not what, what effect that has had on when questions are answered, uh, whether or not everything drifts sideways because there's no name day deadline or whether or not the question is answered anyway in that.
Do you know what I mean?It's answered timely anyway. I don't know the answer to that. Thank you very much. There are other things, by the way, and there's a question that modernization will be looking at. I think there are other ways, of course, in which you could think about raising issues that you might put a queue down for, which you could actually raise on the floor of the House. There are a number of parliaments where there's a part of the day where you can basically get up and ask a question and get an answer there.
It's an interesting, you know, outside of urgent questions and whatever. It's an interesting question.
Uh, so are we, is it an education question about whether or not people need to be made more aware of that?Or is it simply a case of, is there a better way of doing it?Is there a better way of doing it which has an equal in the House of Lords, where I don't think they have this distinction?Um, I'm not sure. It'd be interesting to know whether or not what, what effect that has had on when questions are answered, uh, whether or not everything drifts sideways because there's no name day deadline or whether or not the question is answered anyway in that.
Do you know what I mean?It's answered timely anyway. I don't know the answer to that. Thank you very much. There are other things, by the way, and there's a question that modernization will be looking at. I think there are other ways, of course, in which you could think about raising issues that you might put a queue down for, which you could actually raise on the floor of the House. There are a number of parliaments where there's a part of the day where you can basically get up and ask a question and get an answer there.
It's an interesting, you know, outside of urgent questions and whatever. It's an interesting question.
11:20
11:20
11:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And so following on from that, um, in the government's written evidence to the committee on this, you talked about this simplification of the system. And last week we had the Education Minister, Josh McAllister, before us, and he was advocating sort of abolishing the idea of name day and just having ordinary questions. And I just wondered if I could ask you, like, when you talk in your written evidence about simplification of the systems, like what does that involve?And would that potentially involve removing that distinction between name day and ordinary?
11:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Could do, but that's a matter for this committee with respect to consider and think. Is that a good idea or not?I don't have a hard and fast because of what I've been alluding to, which is if I was an MP and I am an MP, but if I was an MP who wanted an urgent answer, I'd be slightly worried if if people took the longer timescale as the norm now, rather than the shorter timescale for name day questions, I don't know whether we'd just go back and reinvent the wheel again and end up in the same place.
Um, but it's something which I, I think Josh is. Right. To the extent that it, it should be looked at, I think be interesting to get from it. And he gave you a departmental view, I suppose. So I'm answering my own question. Interesting to get the response from departments as to whether or not they thought, uh, it would make a difference to what they're doing, or whether there are some more fundamental or institutional reasons why it wouldn't matter whether you got rid of that distinction, you'd still end up struggling with to get answers out there on time.
Um, but it's something which I, I think Josh is. Right. To the extent that it, it should be looked at, I think be interesting to get from it. And he gave you a departmental view, I suppose. So I'm answering my own question. Interesting to get the response from departments as to whether or not they thought, uh, it would make a difference to what they're doing, or whether there are some more fundamental or institutional reasons why it wouldn't matter whether you got rid of that distinction, you'd still end up struggling with to get answers out there on time.
11:21
11:22
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I just got very excited about your innovation that you were proposing. And on the, uh, on the sort of p q sort of side of things. And if you were given like a bit of freedom to sort of, because sometimes we fall short on days in terms of business and everything else like that. And we could have a long debate as to whether the backbench Business committee properly programs things as well as a sort of should do. But we best not sort of trample on that just here.
If you did something like that, how would you envisage it working?Would you would it be something spontaneous or would it be something that would be a little bit more controlled?
If you did something like that, how would you envisage it working?Would you would it be something spontaneous or would it be something that would be a little bit more controlled?
11:22
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It's not an innovation in the sense that any decisions have been made by a long shot. But but it is something that I think is going to be pitched to the modernisation at some point in the future, to look at, uh, because we're doing a study on the use of time, which at the minute we're concentrating on backbench business. And the chair joined us yesterday as part of that was very welcome. But also the Petitions Committee as well, because there is this issue around, and you and I have seen it, um, where topicality is really important.
It's always been important, but it seems to be more important now with a changing news cycle and the media cycle and everything else. This is why we've got topical questions, except if you look at topical questions, they're not, I suspect, topical in the way they were envisaged to be. I have no concrete examples to give you, except that I have been told that in some of the parliaments, there's part of a day where people can raise whatever is the. I suppose we call it business questions on a Thursday, frankly, where you can raise just about anything you want.
However, if there was part of a day. But we can't just keep adding to the day. Part of looking at the use of time is to look at how we use time better. And there are things that were set up in order to give that topicality, to give that immediacy to what we're doing, um, which are not necessarily, uh, working in the way that we thought that they would. Okay. And I think, I think where I hope to get to and this might be in the mix is to come up with some options about what a day might look like.
So that sort of MPs and it might, it might prevent a situation where MPs have to find an ingenious way in to get into a debate, to make the points that they want to make. Um, you know, if you want not you personally, but if MPs want the minute or the 90s for social media that day to demonstrate they've been um, campaigning on behalf of their and raising issues on behalf of their constituents, there are many ways in which they can do that.
It's always been important, but it seems to be more important now with a changing news cycle and the media cycle and everything else. This is why we've got topical questions, except if you look at topical questions, they're not, I suspect, topical in the way they were envisaged to be. I have no concrete examples to give you, except that I have been told that in some of the parliaments, there's part of a day where people can raise whatever is the. I suppose we call it business questions on a Thursday, frankly, where you can raise just about anything you want.
However, if there was part of a day. But we can't just keep adding to the day. Part of looking at the use of time is to look at how we use time better. And there are things that were set up in order to give that topicality, to give that immediacy to what we're doing, um, which are not necessarily, uh, working in the way that we thought that they would. Okay. And I think, I think where I hope to get to and this might be in the mix is to come up with some options about what a day might look like.
So that sort of MPs and it might, it might prevent a situation where MPs have to find an ingenious way in to get into a debate, to make the points that they want to make. Um, you know, if you want not you personally, but if MPs want the minute or the 90s for social media that day to demonstrate they've been um, campaigning on behalf of their and raising issues on behalf of their constituents, there are many ways in which they can do that.
11:24
11:24
11:24