Procedures Committee, 20 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000

Official Report 191KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Questions

That brings us to the last item on the agenda, the draft report on written parliamentary questions. The document is substantial and raises a lot of issues.

Questions have been the centrepiece of one of the most irritating areas of friction between parliamentarians and the Executive, and I do not think that it will be easy to resolve all the points. Hugh Flinn is with us this morning, so if we hit any difficulties he will be able to explain how the chamber desk tries to cope with the problems that have arisen. Iain Smith will of course take full responsibility for everything that the Executive does or does not do.

The report is in front of you. I am sure that you have all read it and thought about it and would now like to take advantage of this session to have your say.

At the heart of the matter is the way in which the Executive handles an increasingly large volume of questions and whether it is legitimate for further resources to be allocated to handling them. The other important question is whether any members abuse the system—overworking the system might be a better way of putting it. We need to know whether there are methods or procedures that could be put in place to avoid such overwork.

There is a bit of tension here, but the real issue is that members need information and want responses reasonably quickly, and the Executive is clearly worried about the volume of work arising from that demand.

I would like clarification that appendix 1 on page 39 shows the number of written questions lodged per MSP per month. Is it physically possible to lodge 330 questions in a month?

I do not think that that is a monthly total. This is not our document, but an Executive paper.

That is a monthly total.

Three hundred and thirty questions in a month? Surely not. It must be a cumulative total.

There have been months in which more than 1,000 questions have been asked.

But that makes 3,665.

You have done a quick mental calculation, have you?

I just read the total at the bottom of the list.

I see; you looked over the page.

What does this page refer to? I assumed that it was a monthly total.

It is the number of questions lodged in the period up to the end of January.

It covers the first nine months of working. Paragraph 2 of annexe F on page 38 explains that, in the first nine months, 3,665 questions were lodged.

So the document should be reheaded?

That is right.

Thank you for clarifying that. We have talked about people asking questions requesting information that is already in the public domain. Some of the answers, certainly in recent months, have said, "This information is available from . . . " Is there a case for providing training for clerks, so that they can advise members about that? I accept that there may be some MSPs whom clerks might not be happy to advise to go to the Scottish Parliament information centre or to other sources of information for an answer, but we could probably cut the number of questions.

Reading some of the questions, I find it amazing that some members ask for information that is readily available. That applies only to the issues that I know about off the top of my head; I am sure that other information is available if one digs a bit deeper. Is there a case for giving clerks some sort of training to advise members about that?

We shall raise that point with Hugh Flinn. Has the chamber desk or SPICe done any work to identify whether a proportion of the burden of questions could be readily resolved without asking the Executive?

SPICe has done some analysis of how many questions over a certain period it could have answered wholly, and the result was a very small number indeed. There was a rather larger number of questions for which SPICe could have provided some information, but not the whole answer.

I appreciate that inspired questions do not involve the same work load, because they relate to something that the Executive is doing anyway. Was an estimate made of the proportion of inspired questions in this total?

No.

Does the Executive monitor that?

The Executive monitors the overall number of questions, but it does not have any specific information on inspired questions.

The paper is well drafted and of great interest, but it is a sort of holding report. It does not take us very far down the road in one direction or the other. It is carefully balanced between the position that some in the Executive take—that there are plenty of nuisances out there who are asking an awful lot of nuisance questions that could be answered elsewhere—and the position of some SNP members, with which I have more sympathy. They feel that the Executive will often do anything to avoid answering a question.

These are still early days. The report's proposal to examine the issue again before March 2001, when we have fuller information on how we are doing, is not a bad one. At the moment, written questions do not specify the date on which they were lodged, which would be a good reference point. Every time an answer was published—holding or otherwise—it would enable us to see when the question had been lodged. That would allow people to make their own assumptions, because if a question were recorded as lodged today, 20 June—days pass so quickly that I had almost forgotten the date—and the answer was published in September, it would be clear that it had taken a long time for that answer to appear. That is one small technical adjustment, which we could make immediately and which would help us to analyse the statistics. Instead of having to go back to the source documentation, the clerks would be able to tell at a glance when the question had been lodged.

Scrutiny and asking probing questions to get answers that constituents or organisations need are important activities. However, a quick tally shows that six members on the list have a total in three figures; the rest of us are in two figures or less. The coverage that this issue has had in the media and the airing that it has been given in the chamber and elsewhere may act as a braking mechanism on some of the people who are asking questions.

No way.

I see Mike Russell's reaction, and I may be being optimistic—

The media coverage should not act as a braking mechanism.

I disagree. I have a problem with a member asking 330 questions. If Mike Russell would like, we can go through those questions to ascertain whether they could have been asked elsewhere, whether they were valid questions and whether the member could have found out the answers by other means, at less cost to the Parliament and to the taxpayer. We can argue about the pros and cons, but there are six people who have asked 100 questions or more—

Seven.

I have been corrected by my colleague. The rest of us have asked somewhere between zero and 99 questions. The number of questions asked by some members is exceptional. We need to identify ways of dealing with that. When asked by the press to comment on this issue, I have always defended members' right to ask questions of the Executive, and I will continue to do so. However, there is a clear suggestion that some members are asking an excessive number of questions. We need to address that.

I want to pick up on Andy Kerr's point about the cost. How are we to get questions answered? Are we supposed to go to a book shop for the answer and to get it to invoice us, even when the staff to answer questions are already in place? I am confused by the point that the Labour party constantly makes about how much it costs to answer questions. Is it suggesting that we should not ask questions so that we can sack people whose role is redundant? That would not happen. Those people would be rolled into working for the Executive.

That is pathetic

No, it is not pathetic. This is what the Parliament is about—we are talking about the checks and balances in the Parliament. The opportunity to question and hold the Executive to account is limited in any case, although sometimes an awful lot of questions need to be asked to get an answer. I raised that issue before. The quality of some of the answers that we receive beggars belief.

I am all for people being responsible—that is a reasonable demand to make. I am very responsible in the questions that I ask. It is not responsible to ask no questions or few questions. If we are doing our job correctly, criticism should be focused on someone who does not ask any questions. According to the figures, we seem to be doing quite well. Parliamentary questions cost Westminster £267 each whereas they cost the Scottish Parliament £100 each. However, I do not agree with that figure of £100. The people are in place—if they are not answering questions, what are they doing?

That is a bit unfair. I agree that some of the calculations are a wee bit suspect, as the staff are all in place. However, the work is clearly done at a cost, as staff who answer questions are not doing other things that make up their work load. That must be taken into the equation when considering the practical aspects of the system. I am less impressed by the figure that is being bandied about than I am worried that people might be tied up in carrying out unnecessary work.

I draw members' attention to paragraph 4 on pages 5 and 6 of the paper. We do not have a detailed calculation, but we tried to make a comparison between what happens at Westminster and what happens in this Parliament. Here, one member has asked 330 questions, while another member has asked two questions. However, the average number of questions asked in this Parliament seems to be pretty well in line with the number that are asked at Westminster. What has changed with this Parliament is that the volume of work that is being done by the Scottish Executive has increased.

At our previous meeting, we received evidence of the fact that the number of letters that are being written and answered has also increased. That is either to be regarded as a problem or as one of the successes of devolution. That is what devolution was meant to achieve: the opening up of one of the remoter Westminster departments to effective scrutiny. Therefore, let us strike a balance and see the strength in the system as well as the weakness. Let us try to identify a way in which to overcome the difficulties in the system. I have ranted on a wee bit. Sorry, Iain.

I understand the point that is being made about the average number of questions that are being asked. However, it should be borne in mind that the Westminster Parliament has responsibility for a broader range of areas on which questions can be asked, including social security. As well as increasing the number of questions, that widens the responsibility for answering them, which makes it easier for ministers.

The Executive welcomes the general thrust of this report and is keen to improve its performance in answering questions. Nevertheless, we should consider whether some of those questions need to be asked. If people are genuinely seeking information, asking formal questions is not always the quickest and easiest way of getting that information.

Some questions are also blatantly stupid. I do not want to name the member concerned, but one member recently asked whether the Executive would support the establishment of a Scottish office of the Financial Services Authority. The answer was that there is a Scottish office of the Financial Services Authority—the member simply had not done any basic research. I will not embarrass the member by naming her here. That sort of question does not need to be asked. It takes up everyone's time unnecessarily, when all the member had to do was look in the phone directory to find the address and telephone number of the organisation.

We must ensure that the questions that are lodged genuinely seek information that is not available from other sources and hold the Executive to account; they should not be an exercise in political machismo. Members must consider that. Unnecessary questions clog up the system and make it more difficult for members with genuine questions to get answers, as the system has to deal with all questions and not just the essential ones about ministerial responsibilities.

The Executive will do its best to answer questions as quickly and fully as possible—the clearer the questions are, the easier it is to answer them. That is another issue, as some questions are not very clear about what they are seeking. There must be a balance, and this paper tries to ensure that both sides will use the system correctly and effectively.

I see that several members want to speak.

First, before we leave the issue, is the Executive conscious of the point that was raised about the quality of answers? Without naming names, it is clear that some ministers give precise and detailed answers, but others give terse and almost evasive answers. Some ministers do not appear to co-operate, while others treat answering questions as an important part of their job. If we are talking about levelling up the quality of the questions, it is also legitimate to talk about levelling up the quality of answers. Without asking him to name names, I would appreciate Iain Smith indicating whether the Executive attempts to provide good quality responses.

If members want to give me—not in this meeting—specific examples of questions that they feel have not been properly answered, those will be looked into. The Executive tends to receive comments about answers being inadequate, but we do not get specific information that would enable us to check what the position is on those questions.

Frankly, some of the questions are not clear—the answers might not be clear because we did not understand what the question was about.

Do you ever go back in those circumstances and ask for clarification?

I do not think that we can do that. If a member lodges a question, it has to be answered. That is the rule.

If, however, you were unclear about what is being asked, it would be sensible to phone the member to ask for a manuscript amendment.

I do not want to upset the person who was involved, but I was impressed by a civil servant who rang me to seek clarification on a question that could have applied to two areas. I received a good answer because of that. The incident was so rare as to be worth commenting on.

The matter is about the need for balance, which the convener tried to strike in his comments.

I want to respond to Gil Paterson's comment. I prefaced my remarks by stating that individual members have a right and responsibility to hold the Executive to account and to ask questions that they want to ask. I suggested that several members ask more questions than others do, but the discussions that the committee is having and the coverage that the matter has had might act as a brake on those members. As I said, I do not wish to limit or inhibit the powers and responsibilities of members to ask questions, but seven members have been able to ask many more questions than others have.

I welcome especially the informal agreement—in annexe D on page 33 of paper PR/00/8/8—on having a regular report on the timetable of questions. That issue featured in a previous paper of mine. My proposal was not exactly the same, but I think that the suggestion is a great step forward.

I am flattered to be quoted in a footnote on page 18. There are two aspects to a question: a questioner will genuinely want information, but they might also know or suspect the answer to their question and want the minister to say it, if they are not an unqualified admirer of the Administration. Part of the democratic process is to embarrass the Administration in some way, to get action.

We all work in different ways—my questions tend to arise from visits. I talk to people in colleges or voluntary organisations who might tell me that they are having a difficulty about something. I come back to Parliament and put down a question about their difficulty. I might not know much about the issue and some of the information might be available in the public domain, but it is not a huge effort for the department concerned to say that the information that was requested is in the annual report of Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire or whatever. That is not a huge waste of people's time.

It would help if we had a seminar—a seminar for researchers is suggested in the paper. MSPs and civil servants could have a civilised discussion in which we could explore those issues—although that might break all the rules. Like Michael Russell, I have had one or two telephone calls from people seeking clarification of what a question meant. That is helpful and could be done more often. There is a sort of Chinese wall between members and civil servants on many issues. We could do without it. If we could have a decent discussion, we might be able to begin to break down those walls. I hope that we will push the informal agreement that is suggested on page 33. I also suggest that we have some informal discussions between interested parties in order to improve the system.

That point is extremely pertinent. The third recommendation is that MSPs be given details about Executive departments' structures, people's names and telephone numbers. It is clear that it would be helpful for us to establish an open door for members who are looking for information that they think might be in the public domain and which needs simply to be gathered. The Executive could—if it is genuinely willing to assist—be more proactive in advertising the ways in which members can access information that is in the public arena. We have heard from Hugh Flinn that SPICe's work suggests that very few parliamentary questions can be answered using only information that is held by SPICe. The superior resources of the Executive might be able to assist members in accessing information quickly. That would reduce the number of questions in the system. Only civil servants and their managers will know whether that would be a better use of their time.

I want to draw attention to paragraph 22 on page 12, which says:

"This does not mean of course that the increased numbers of questions is a negative development. On the contrary, a high number of pertinent questions of high quality and relevance might be seen as good evidence of a well-engaged and hard working Parliament."

The quality and relevance of the questions might also be seen as evidence of a "well-engaged and hard working" MSP, such as the committee convener, who is one of the seven guilty men who have been mentioned, but not named by Andy Kerr. According to the statistics, the convener has lodged more than 100 questions.

We must treat the issue responsibly, but questions are not just about seeking information; as Donald Gorrie has said, there are several reasons why members lodge questions. One might ask a question to make a political point, to get an admission or to gain information to build a case that might be put to use months later. We should welcome questions in all those circumstances, as long as we believe that the system is being used responsibly. If it is not being used responsibly, we ought to know, but I see no evidence of that so far. If we are going to approve the paper, we must do so on the bases that it represents an attempt to make the system work better and that we will return to the matter. The paper is not the last word and there is considerable dissatisfaction on all sides. The issue has been flagged up and we must wait to see what statistics emerge.

Being called one of the seven guilty men is one of the least poisonous epithets that has been thrown at me. I have asked only 30 parliamentary questions more than the average number per member—which seems reasonable. Most of my questions refer to my transport brief. I am not defending myself—rather, I am simply making the point that many members use questions extensively to get at information and to make points about Executive policy and the way in which it goes about its business. I would not like the work of the Procedures Committee to be seen as an attempt to curb that. As Andy Kerr said, some members ask an awful lot of questions and some of that information could be found elsewhere. In the cases of one or two members there might be an argument for restraint, but I repeat—even if one or two members could ask fewer questions, members of the Parliament do not ask, on average, a huge volume of questions. We are entitled to continue to work with the Executive to see how it reorganises and reallocates its internal resources to handle questions.

Questions are only the tip of the iceberg; letters must also be answered. Sometimes we are asked to write letters instead of ask questions, but I am not sure about that. Answering a question—especially if it is a simple, silly one that can be answered easily with information that is on the record—is much less demanding than dealing with many letters. We could do with a discussion about the implications of writing letters, but exchange of letters is not done in public. It is not monitored and we cannot evaluate it—the Executive can. It might be an interesting exercise for the Executive to show why it believes letter writing is a superior means of receiving and giving information.

For the record, I do not want to be associated in any way with the comment "guilty men"—I did not use it. It was Michael Russell's comment.

Absolutely. Michael Russell is much more allusive when bandying around such comments than Andy Kerr is. You are very circumspect.

I plead guilty, but not to asking more than 100 questions. I have been a sluggard in that matter.

There is more than one way to make mischief around Parliament, Michael.

I will not take that remark as being in any way directed at me.

That is a judicious response—[Interruption.]

Mr Jackson always has a comment to make—unfortunately I missed that one.

It would be nice to have Gordon Jackson on the record on the matter.

I find the debate about Michael Russell's point to be disingenuous. He cannot believe seriously that the number of questions lodged by some members is appropriate. I have watched members—Michael Russell, Donald Gorrie and many others—who have a huge interest in the affairs of Parliament and who have asked 30, 40 or 50 questions. There are, however, members who have asked 250 or 300 questions. I cannot bring myself to believe that that is justified. About 35 per cent of parliamentary questions have come from seven people—the top three members have asked almost 23 per cent of questions. Michael Russell says that that might indicate that they are good parliamentarians and the rest of us are not.

I did not say that.

That must mean that we should all ask that number of questions. Imagine if all members were self-indulgent to that degree. The situation would go completely berserk. Of course one cannot make rules that say that members must ask 20 questions, but Michael Russell must know that members are being inappropriately self-indulgent in their use of the questioning system.

I say to Gordon Jackson that that is unfortunate—I never said that the figures prove that some members were better or worse than others were; I said that for a member to ask many questions might—in the words of the report—

"be seen as good evidence of a well-engaged and hard working"

member. There are many other ways in which to be well engaged in Parliament, but asking a lot of questions is not necessarily a sign that one is disruptive and difficult.

I am not saying that it is disruptive or difficult. I am not attributing such a bad motive. Nor am I using the phrase "guilty men". When a member has asked hundreds of questions, there might be a case for the member to step back and say, "Do I really need to put this amount of stuff into the system?" It is not unfair of me to suggest that.

That is a fair point. One must always remember, however, that the question might be valid in the eyes of the questioner. One of my colleagues was treated abusively in one of the tabloid papers for asking an allegedly ridiculous question. He had asked a question about geese on Islay. Imagine anybody asking a question on that. Of course, it is the main issue on Islay and it was a highly pertinent question. The metropolitan reporter in question—I am sure that the person is not here—simply failed to grasp the purpose of the question. One must always think, "What is the questioner after? Is that legitimate from the questioner's point of view?" I am sure that Gordon Jackson realises that. I am merely trying to introduce some balance.

I am not criticising individual questions. We all miss things and we can all ask questions in total innocence. We can all make the mistake—as Iain Smith pointed out—of asking whether an organisation exists, when it does. That can happen to anybody. I would not criticise individual questions, but there is a feeling something is going out of step because some members have asked hundreds of questions and other members have asked nowhere near that number. I put it no more strongly than that.

Do not say "hundreds". Say "two hundred" or "three hundred".

I am happy to debate that matter with Gordon Jackson, but I would do so from the basis of protecting the rights of individual members. If a member thinks that a question is necessary, that is that.

That is not being challenged.

If someone who is a lot cleverer than I am could tell me what the right number of questions is, I would listen to them. I do not think that there is a correct number—there will always be members who ask few questions and others who ask many. I do not know who are most guilty—those who ask fewer questions or those who ask more. They are doing their jobs.

As far as I am concerned, the way in which Parliament works is that if someone wants to ask 300 questions, they are entitled to do so. I would not bar members from doing that. The matter must be handled through self-regulation. Members are accountable, but not to the committee.

I am happy to answer Gil Paterson's first question about the right number of questions. The right number is 108 in nine months. [Laughter.]

No, the right number is somewhere between 22 and 32.

Having heard our discussion, does Hugh Flinn wish to say anything from the point of view of the chamber office, particularly given the work load of that office's staff? Here is an opportunity to encourage greater understanding among MSPs of the difficulties that chamber office staff sometimes face.

I have no factual comments to add. Our experience of the volume of questions is that there was a significant increase in the period to March 2000, when over 1,000 questions were lodged. Since then, with the obvious exception of the recess, questions have continued to be lodged at about that rate, so there might be some grounds for thinking that a plateau has been reached.

Members must bear in mind that sometimes questions of admissibility are not absolutely straightforward. I think that, by and large, members appreciate that. We have had some difficulties of interpretation, particularly relating to complex issues such as benefits and asylum seekers, which are reserved matters whose administration falls within the Executive's general responsibilities. If I have a plea, it is that members bear with chamber office staff when we examine those issues before admitting a question.

There are three recommendations on pages 22 and 23 of the draft report. The first is that we note and approve the agreement between the Parliament and the Executive, which can be found in annexe D of the document. That agreement is a clear statement of good intent that working practices and so on be worked on and improved.

Can we consider, as part of that agreement, that the date on which a question is lodged is also noted on the question? That would create no difficulties for the chamber office and it would give everyone a reference point.

We will kick that suggestion into the system. If there are no difficulties with it, I am sure that the committee will not object to the suggestion. Perhaps some member will raise a problem that we have not anticipated, in which case we will reconsider the matter.

Another manuscript amendment?

Yes—another one, Donald.

The second recommendation is that we consider the possibility of holding a seminar on framing questions, which would be geared in particular at the research staff who do that work. Apparently, quite a lot of questions are framed by staff rather than by members.

The third recommendation is a repetition of the request for internal Executive telephone directories—I am sure that those are in the pipeline and are likely to appear in any event. However, the recommendation is included as a plea for assistance to members in getting hold of officials who can give them easy answers, which will avoid unnecessary questions.

Does the committee agree to those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

The headline tomorrow might be something like "more questions than answers".

On the second recommendation, in addition to holding an informative seminar, would it be useful for members and researchers to have informal discussions with relevant civil servants from the Executive and with some of those members who ask questions more frequently, in order to explore the issue?

Are you asking whether we should send the boys round to see certain members? [Laughter.]

No. It should not be like being sent to a headmaster's study—

If members come to the seminar, they might be encouraged to write more questions—like a sort of virus.

If some of the more critical comments were taken seriously, there would be a risk of showing certain members how to frame more pertinent and searching questions, which would cause greater difficulty. Do not rise to that comment, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the conclusion of our business.

Before the meeting, we tried to see whether any information was available about possible committee changes, but we were unsuccessful. We have come to the end of the term, for the committee, at least. I wish to thank all members for their contributions. I want to make that point in case the rumoured further committee changes makes it impossible for me to say that to members face to face in this particular formulation.

Aw.

I am sure that that will not happen, but if it does I wanted to take this opportunity of thanking all members for the good humour that has been shown in our exchanges, even when they have been reasonably sharp. I also thank the committee's ever-changing staff for all their work during the past year. I do not know how long Mark MacPherson will be with us—[Laughter.]

I close the meeting.

Before the official reporters stop recording the meeting, I propose a vote of thanks for the convener, which will be passed unanimously.

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much.

Meeting closed at 11:20.