Procedures Committee, 11 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 11, 2002

Official Report 166KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Questions

The first item on the agenda—which has, of course, become the second—concerns another report from the Scottish Executive about monitoring the volume of parliamentary questions. I welcome the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Patricia Ferguson, to the meeting.

Patricia, I ask you to introduce your team to the meeting, although we know them well, and to make some preliminary remarks.

This morning I am joined by Michael Lugton and Andrew McNaughton, both from the Scottish Executive.

We are grateful for the opportunity to give further evidence to the committee on behalf of the Executive in connection with the committee's continuing inquiry into parliamentary questions and related issues. I also welcome the continuing co-operation and joint working between Executive officials and Parliament staff with regard to making progress on the many important matters that are under consideration.

As we undertook to do, we have provided the committee with an annual review covering the use of the Executive staff directory by MSPs and Parliament staff. I will be happy to answer any questions that committee members have about the directory and about monitoring and management of parliamentary questions. First, however, it might be helpful if I make some comments on the topics.

As the chamber desk's recent report shows, the Executive continues to receive a significantly high number of parliamentary questions. During the last six months—November to April—that are covered by the report, there was an increase in the number of questions lodged. There was a record high of almost 1,100 questions to the Executive in January—an increase of 49 per cent on the number that were lodged in January 2001. Despite that increase, I am glad to say that the Executive's performance has remained high, with an average of 74 per cent of questions being answered on time during the period November 2001 to April 2002. Our best performance was in March 2002, when an impressive 90 per cent of questions were answered on time.

We are keen to sustain that overall improvement and we continue to take steps to maintain our performance. One of the aims of phase 2 of the parliamentary question tracking system, which is being developed, is the provision of more easily accessible management information. More immediate management information will allow progress on individual questions to be monitored more closely by departments and ministers and will enable any rectifying action to be taken quickly in relation to outstanding parliamentary questions. When phase 2 of the tracking system is implemented, we expect fewer questions to be outstanding for long periods. Our latest information shows that, as at the close of business yesterday, there were 197 PQs for which answers were still outstanding. However, less than a quarter of those have been outstanding for more than four weeks. In addition, as a result of the recent public holidays, fewer than 10 working days were available for formulation of answers for 92 out of the 197 questions.

The chamber desk's figures show that a significant number of questions are still being lodged during recesses. For example, during July and August last year, more than 1,120 questions were lodged, which was an increase over the number lodged in the equivalent period in 2000. Although the extension of the time period that is allowed for answers immediately prior to and during recess has eased the burden, it would be helpful if the committee, as previously discussed, could reconsider the situation with regard to activity during recesses. The committee will be pleased to know that we are not looking for a moratorium, but it would be useful if the committee could re-examine the time that is allowed for answering questions at such times. It would be helpful if the extension of the time that is allowed for answers to be formulated could be increased by another week before the recess period, in which case the 28-day period would start two weeks ahead of the recess. Alternatively, consideration could perhaps be given to extending the 28 days to 35 days, which would make a significant difference.

I mentioned the impact of the recent public holidays on the number of questions that we were in a position to answer on time last week. It would be helpful if the committee considered written parliamentary questions in relation to public holidays. Currently, in the case of questions that are lodged prior to a public holiday, the date for reply does not make allowance for the public holiday's falling within the 14 days for answering the question. For example, questions that were lodged between 22 May and 30 May were, in effect, due for answer only seven working days later. There were three days of public holidays at the end of May and beginning of June, which were, in effect, lost to officials and staff when preparing answers to those questions. There would be benefit all round if rule 13.5.2 of the standing orders was changed to refer, instead of to calendar days, to working days. That would allow us to overcome such problems. I would be grateful if the committee considered that matter.

I will touch quickly on an issue that might be worth pursuing in the longer term—the admissibility of PQs and motions. A number of PQs and motions have recently been accepted, which relate to reserved matters or to matters for which the Executive is not responsible. There seems to be a degree of flexibility as far as those are concerned. We understand that and in most cases can accept it, but it is important that there is some restraint and that we do not stray beyond the recognised boundaries of what is acceptable. The more accurate, detailed and precise questions are, the easier it is to provide an answer. The clearer the questions' intentions, the easier it is to get appropriate answers from the Executive. The committee might usefully consider that matter later. I am happy to provide a list of questions or motions in relation to which there might have been problems.

Committee members will have had the opportunity to examine the findings of the annual review of the Executive business directory. The review provides an analysis of how the arrangements for making the directory available to MSPs and Parliament staff have operated in practice. Our conclusion is that there are no significant changes from the findings that were reported previously in the eight-month review. From the Executive's point of view, the system appears to be working satisfactorily and without significant problems or misuse.

During the course of the year—April to April—136 inquiries were logged. The majority of those, 69 per cent, were dealt with on the day that they were received. At the meeting of the Procedures Committee on 12 March, I undertook to report back to the committee on how and why the facility is being used and whether callers have had difficulty in locating or accessing the system. I am pleased to report that, in the main, callers adhered to the guidance when making calls and generally found the directory to be easy to use.

It is worth noting, however, that MSPs and their researchers should approach Executive staff only when the urgent factual information that they seek is not readily available from another source. It would be helpful if such approaches were always made to the head of the branch and, when possible, in writing. We propose to consider the use of that facility and to monitor it for a further period.

I hope that that is useful to the committee. I shall be happy to answer any questions that may arise.

Okay. Thanks very much. I appreciate that we are slightly out of synch in some of our exchanges on these matters. I am happy for members' questions to range fairly freely over all the issues that Patricia Ferguson raised. I presume that, if there are other issues that members want to raise, the minister will be happy to give an interim response.

Let us begin with monitoring of parliamentary questions. Why are there such striking variations? You picked out March as a period of excellent performance, when 87 per cent of questions were answered within the specified time and another 8.3 per cent were answered within another couple of weeks. That is a high percentage. In September to October 2001, a 99 per cent response rate was achieved—there is a wee bit of an arithmetical error in the categories for questions answered in four to six weeks and eight weeks and over—which is also a high percentage. However, in other months that level was not attained. What explains those fluctuations? I take it that the reference to public holidays covers the figure of 59.4 per cent in the most recent period. Even accepting that as being due to exceptional circumstances, the level of attainment seems to vary quite a lot. What factors govern that?

There are probably several factors, not least of which is the fact that there have been two Cabinet reshuffles in the period in question. The percentages dropped in the reckonable period immediately following those reshuffles. I am not sure what happened in September and October. Nonetheless, that is my understanding of what happened in the run-up to this reckonable period. We seem to have got over that glitch.

Although the percentages might sometimes be lower than we would all like, the overall number of questions has increased and the percentage pertains to more questions. The percentage is increasing and we are trying to ensure that that increase continues, despite the fact that the number of questions is also increasing. There is a constant struggle to keep up with questions, but we are doing reasonably well.

I recognise that there is a trend improvement in the figures over the long term, and I am sure that the committee is very pleased to see that. Has the Executive set any target for itself regarding the percentage of responses that are given within the specified time, and are we getting close to that?

We strive constantly to increase that percentage; it would be wrong of us not to. We continue to review the procedures and practices that we employ to ensure that we can give the best information and that we can intervene early if there is a logjam or bottleneck. However, such situations arise less and less frequently nowadays, and we are beginning to clear them. The system has worked well in enabling us to do that, and the improvements to the system are making a difference.

If you track the figures from the point at which we started to change the system to the current percentage of questions that we are managing to answer on time, you will see that there is a correlation. We aim to answer about 90 per cent of questions on time; we always want to achieve the best figure that we can. We continue to do that, despite the increase in the number of questions. It is a matter of trying to keep the two things in balance.

For clarity, do the statistics include holding replies?

I think that they are included in the total. [Interruption.] No, they are not. Sorry.

The figures relate to substantive answers. If holding answers were included, the figure would be 100 per cent.

The complaint that I receive most often from colleagues is that they lodge a question, are given a holding reply and then, in due course, receive a reply that they feel could have been written in two minutes. Examples of such replies are "We do not have any information", "It is a reserved matter", or some other, totally bland reply. That is an issue. Ministers and their advisers could perhaps think twice before using holding replies when they are not necessary.

I am not sure whether you are thinking of such a situation, but I can think of at least one situation in which I was unhappy with a draft answer that I was given to check. When I read the question, however, it was so vague that I could understand why the answer was also vague. At my insistence, my office phoned the member in question and asked whether it would be possible to obtain some more information about what the member was trying to tease out, because it was not at all clear, but the member did not think that they could provide that. When we pushed the issue and said that because the question was so vague, the member would receive a bland and vague answer in return, the questioner indicated that that was fine and that they would just lodge another question.

Such behaviour does not help anyone, particularly if ministers go out of their way to find out exactly what the questioner is looking for. Most ministers would do that in an effort to provide what the questioner needs in their response. Sometimes the questions are so vague that, even though a minister does a bit of digging, there is still insufficient information to allow them to provide a proper answer. It is a case of swings and roundabouts.

I find that helpful. What Patricia Ferguson says is admirable and I hope that all her colleagues do the same sort of thing. It would seem to be sensible to ask the member what on earth they are on about.

Lest I stand accused of producing vague questions, on two or three occasions when I have lodged very specific questions, our good friends on the chamber desk, for whom I have a high regard, have phoned me and said that my question was really not on. That has resulted in emasculation of the question and, therefore, in emasculation of the answer. I am not blaming the minister or the chamber desk for that, but it is sometimes an issue. One of the questions to which I refer alluded to some document in Wales which, for practical purposes, did not exist: the document did exist, but I was not allowed to mention it. Such technicalities do not help.

In general, the performance is not bad and I would have no objection to some relaxation of the time scales for answers. I would, however, object to questions being rationed during recess, which was suggested previously.

We will certainly talk about the matter later on. I should have said that Hugh Flinn from the chamber desk is with us. I should have introduced everyone. Please accept my apologies, Hugh—you are an important part of the operation. Are there any other questions on questions and answers?

We need to be practical and to take a commonsense approach. The move to working days rather than calendar days makes sense and we should consider the recess extension.

The targets are being met. There has been an increase in questions and an increase in the percentage that are answered on time. That deals with volume, but there is an issue about quality, which I want to pursue. Have you embarked on any changes to the procedures or the checking mechanisms that are associated with answering questions since the new operation came in? Is there a danger that the same checking mechanisms for answers are not being applied or are you able to guarantee that the quality of answers is the same as it would have been prior to setting targets?

I will deal first with Donald Gorrie's final comment. In such situations, it is always possible to write to the minister or to meet the minister to discuss the matter in more detail. Sometimes, members forget that those opportunities are open to them and that questions have a specific purpose and are not necessarily the best way of obtaining a quantity of information.

As far as the quality of responses is concerned, to some extent the quality of the answer will depend on the quality of the question, as I said to Donald Gorrie. In a number of instances I have spoken directly to a member, or have had my staff speak to members. On one occasion I asked a member what he was trying to elicit from me and he told me that he did not know. It is difficult to answer such questions, to which members will receive bland answers that probably do not serve the member's purpose. More elucidation would make it easier to answer questions.

Ministers take quite a lot of time over questions—they consider what is being asked. No one wants to provide an answer that is not helpful to the member or that does not provide the required information, so the quality of answers is considered carefully. Ministers take a lot of time over them and frequently send them back for revision or ask for additional information to be included. Quality is not a general problem; I certainly hope that it is not.

I appreciate your answer on what ministers do, but before ministers receive draft answers they might have gone through a number of hoops and checks and balances; for example, to check accuracy and so on. Have the internal procedures for that process changed in recent times?

Ultimately, ministers are responsible for answers, so the process is their responsibility. I am not sure whether there is any form of quality control in the internal processes; perhaps my colleagues can help.

Staff are encouraged to make sure that the points that are raised in questions are answered. The parliamentary clerk arranges seminars to train staff, not just at junior level but at senior civil service level, to make sure that quality is a consideration in the preparation of answers. From the minister down, the aim is to ensure that the answer is fit for the purpose.

On quality control, do you perform customer checks with MSPs? Obviously, you are checking with this committee, but do you check with MSPs to see whether they are happy?

Yes, in a sense we do. We are aware when members say, "I refer to the answer to an earlier question" and seek further elucidation when we might have failed to provide the answer that they were after. Beyond that, we are conscious of concerns only when they are raised with ministers or departments. I cannot say that many concerns have been raised in that fashion.

It is excellent that the trend is improving, in particular given that the number of questions is increasing. It is rather worrying to think that the number of questions will go on rising.

I have raised the point previously that I often use letters rather than questions, on the basis that one can explain the context of the subject that is being raised. It is my perception that, with few exceptions, the speed of answering letters is also faster. Do you have any information on that? Is a similar system in place to monitor the speed of answering letters?

Yes. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I can provide the committee with more information, which I will pass to the convener after the meeting. Kenneth Macintosh is right that the statistics are also improving for responses to letters. We monitor the situation closely and regularly. Private offices and departmental staff are given training seminars on and constant reminders of the importance of providing timeous responses to members. Kenneth Macintosh's observation is correct: we strive to respond quickly and we hope to increase the speed of response.

On questions that remain unanswered for more than eight weeks, you referred to Dennis Canavan at one point—perhaps that was in relation to an earlier point. Do you have a mechanism for picking up exceptional parliamentary questions that go unanswered for more than eight weeks, which must be a thorn in your side, as well as being quite embarrassing for everybody?

It is fair to say that we sort of know where everything is in the system. When such questions arise, action will be taken to ensure that answers are expedited. The tracking system allows us to do that and we are working to develop it even further.

What does the tracking system track? Does it track only questions or does it analyse throughput by departments or ministers' offices? Is performance pretty even across all the various headings that you use to analyse data? Tom McCabe has discussed with the committee the way in which resources have been moved from department to department to try to equalise performance. Have you been able to do that and to beef up the departments that were struggling?

Private offices have a responsibility in the matter because they work directly with ministers, helping to get ideas across. Each department has its own tracking mechanism, but there is also an overall tracking mechanism. We know exactly where everything is and what its status is at any given time. A lot of information is held to allow us to intervene if a problem arises.

There is usually a logical reason for time being taken to answer a question; it happens, perhaps, because research is required or because of a difficulty in the question's phrasing that requires clarification from the member. That happens quite a lot. When there is a delay, we always know about it and steps are always taken to move things on as quickly as possible.

So, over the piece, every department and every private office would produce answers at approximately the same rate as all the others.

There might be differences because some departments receive more questions. At one time, things were fairly different from department to department but I think that that has changed.

The management group, which is chaired by the permanent secretary and which consists of all the heads of department, receives regular reports on parliamentary questions performance and ministerial performance. The group sees its role as being to manage the whole operation at official level, to spot where blockages occur and to ensure that those are unblocked as quickly as possible. A conscious attempt is made to consider the issue over the piece and to identify where particular problems occur. As Mr McCabe said, we do all that we can to move resources around to unblock the blockages, if necessary.

I believe that the minister has asked for a couple of things. Donald Gorrie referred to consideration of working days instead of calendar days, as per rule 13.5.2 of the standing orders. I see nothing unreasonable in asking for that.

I agree that it seems a bit silly to use calendar days when additional holidays will upset the apple cart. Is there a recommended number of working days? At the moment, the standing orders use calendar days, so do you want a reduction in the number of days?

No. We want to change the wording to "working days", but to keep the numbers the same.

Would not that increase the number by four days? Exclusion of weekends will result in quite a hefty extension. We might need to consider that.

I assumed that that would be compensated for in the setting of targets. I wanted to establish whether the committee thinks that we require flexibility. We can ask Hugh Flinn to produce as quickly as he can some kind of report for us that includes a form of words that would allow us to change the standing orders. We cannot do that today without notice, but we can ask for a report so that we can consider the practical implications. What Gil is talking about would be picked up at that stage. If members are happy with that we will commission a report.

That would be good.

Another standing orders issue that we cannot deal with today but which I would like to consider in principle is the question of the extra week before the start of recess in which it is proposed that the 28-day rule would apply. I am not unsympathetic to the idea in principle and, if a case were made that it would help the Executive to meet targets, I would be willing to relax the rule, as we have done before. However, I would like a little bit of reasoned explanation as to why rolling that forward for a further week would make an appreciable difference. If you are not briefed to do that today, I do not mind if we receive that explanation at a later date.

As a slight caveat, I mention the fact that, last summer, around 13 per cent more questions were asked than were asked the previous summer. Some flexibility would therefore be welcome. The committee said that it would re-examine the issue when the evidence of three summers was available, which it now is. It would be useful if the committee could consider giving the Executive that extra week or extending the number of days that we are allowed to answer questions from 28 to 35. I will drop you a note with more background information at a later date if you want to take the issue forward.

That would be helpful. I am not saying that a request from the Executive is not a sufficient reason for us to consider doing something, but we have to produce a report for Parliament and justify our recommendation and there may be some members who will be unhappy with it. We would therefore like to know what the statistical and management basis is for the request. However, if a case is made, our track record shows that we will be willing to take it on board.

I see the point of changing the rules at the beginning of the recess, but perhaps the quid pro quo should be that a question that was asked in the last week of the recess would not still be subject to the extended period for answering, as we would expect staff to be fully functioning once they had returned from their holidays.

Again, minister, you might not want to give an instant answer to that suggestion, but it is useful in relation to the case that must be brought forward.

We will produce as quickly as possible a report on the two instances in which the Executive has asked us to consider changing the standing orders.

Minister, you asked about the admissibility of certain questions but I was not quite clear about what you were specifically asking for. Did you want the chamber desk to exercise more rigour in ruling out inadmissible questions or were you simply asking for greater tolerance of unhelpful answers that are given as a result of the fact that the question should not have been admitted?

We would hope that the Parliament would be a little more rigorous in how it weighs up the admissibility of questions. Some questions are so vague that it is impossible to answer them in a meaningful way. Also, the nature of some questions ensures that the response will not be helpful to the member—if the question is on a reserved matter, the answer could almost be predicted in advance. Similarly, a recent motion was amended by an amendment that, frankly, had nothing at all to do with the original motion. There are various categories of difficulties that need to be tackled in different ways.

Your final example would seem to relate more to your protocols and working arrangements with the chamber desk. We cannot pass a standing order to say that inadmissible amendments are inadmissible because, by definition, they already are.

I was careful to say that I thought that the Parliament as a whole could find ways of dealing with the problems and that there were various ways of doing so. As I said at the beginning, we know that the committee has a heavy work load and so do not expect it to consider the issue immediately, but we could provide some examples in writing to clarify what we mean.

It would also be helpful if you could clarify what the committee could do. I appreciate that it is frustrating to have people ask questions when it is not clear what they are after, but I honestly do not know what we can do about that. It may be beyond even the remit and power of the Procedures Committee. However, we will consider what we can do about the situation.

I want to ask for clarification on a philosophical point. What powers do members have to seek out information about reserved matters that impinge on our constituents and on devolved matters? We need to take account of the political reality. There is no problem where the Westminster member is of the same party persuasion as the MSP, as one can then just pick up the phone and get him or her to ask the question. We all understand the problems that may arise when the MP and MSP are of different parties. Where is the dividing line between idle curiosity and legitimately seeking political information?

Our problem is not with that philosophical point but with whether we have the primary sources of information to be able to provide the answer. Sometimes members would get much clearer information and a more accurate response to their questions by writing to the appropriate minister at Westminster. The issue concerns the expectation of the member who asks a question along those lines.

Let me clarify that point by taking one example out of the air. If a member was interested in railway services between London and Edinburgh or Glasgow, he or she might lodge a question to ask how many trains were late and how often. Are you saying that the Executive would have no objection to answering such a question but that it might not have the information that would enable it to do so?

We would be able to answer only for the areas in which we had responsibility. Donald Gorrie is probably more aware than I am that railways are a particularly difficult issue because the boundaries are not so clear cut. We would not be able to answer for areas in which we do not have responsibility. That would be obvious in the response given. In that case, the member would be best to direct some of the question to Westminster.

Donald Gorrie will just need to try to get a Lib Dem MP in a Central Scotland constituency who could ask his questions for him.

The minister is concerned about questions being asked on reserved matters, but there are instances where such questions might be helpful. The questions that have been asked on reserved matters have often been on issues, such as asylum seekers and fuel poverty, for which there is joint responsibility. Fuel poverty is a good example of joint working between the two Administrations. The problem is that, as MSPs do not get minutes of the joint meetings on fuel poverty, the only way that we can find out information is by asking parliamentary questions. The answers that come back simply say, "We regularly have discussions with our UK colleagues." Such a response does not help anyone. It might be useful if the Executive created a mechanism whereby members could elicit information—it might be by question or by letter—at least on the Scottish part of that joint working.

That comes back to my earlier point about the use to which questions are put. Sometimes the use of parliamentary questions is a temptation. I am sure that in the past I have been guilty of asking a question when, in my heart of hearts, I knew that I would get a better response if I were to write a letter. However, I knew that a question would probably get a quicker response that would allow me to use the information obtained. There is a need to manage members' expectations.

If a question is one that we can answer, we will answer it and we will give as much information as we can, but there will be questions that relate to reserved matters that we cannot answer because we do not have the information or it is not our responsibility.

In her introductory statement, the minister talked about the directory and I am happy to spend a few minutes on that now. Her view was that the conclusions in the 12-month review did not show any appreciable difference from those in the 8-month review. There has been internal correspondence in the committee about the directory and the advisory cost limit. We will discuss those issues at our next committee meeting, but I am happy for any member to take advantage of the minister's presence by asking about the directory. I think that the committee thought the same about the 12-month report as the minister did.

As I said at the beginning that I would regard the field of questioning as flexible, I will mention that the minister will be aware that later in the year we will consider the formula for question time in Parliament. I do not want to pre-empt that discussion, but does the minister have any view on the use of a half-hour slot for First Minister's question time in Aberdeen? I ask that with a purpose, because I thought that extending it from 20 minutes to 30 minutes meant that there were more topical supplementaries and that there was a greater opportunity for back benchers to get in. I thought that the 30-minute question time was a better experience than the 20 minutes is sometimes. Is there a view in the Executive about whether the exercise was a success and whether the 30-minute slot should be adopted?

The First Minister was pleased with the supplementaries that he received. His one criticism, which I share, was that not as many opportunities were given to back benchers to come in as were given to the leaders of the Opposition parties. Both leaders got four supplementary questions, which is an increase on the norm. The First Minister would have preferred it if more back benchers had been allowed to ask questions than did so, although a significant extra number did get that opportunity. From my brief conversation with him about the matter, I think that that was his feeling about it.

Does any member want to raise a point that is pertinent to questions, or are we all content?

We are in the unusual circumstance that everyone is content. I thank the minister and her team and Hugh Flinn for coming this morning. No doubt we will meet again in the pursuit of those issues and others.