Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Let us get cracking.
I am not sure about the direction the paper is taking on the issue of holding questions. If you look at paragraph 6, the Executive's response proposes publication of the date when the holding reply is issued rather than the date when the question is lodged at the start of the process.
I was also curious about that. I see from paragraph 14 that the chamber desk agrees with the Executive on that suggestion. I wonder if Hugh Flinn, who is with us for this item, can explain why the chamber desk is prepared to do it that way rather than use the original date.
It is a practical issue. The chamber desk and the Executive use templates for parliamentary questions which include the date when the question is due to be answered rather than the date when the question is lodged.
Of course, if we do it that way we will need to know that the question has taken an extra two or, if lodged during the recess, three weeks over and above the dates shown.
That is not how it reads in the paper. I surmise that the majority of questions are answered in two weeks so it might seem ridiculous to date those, but what if a holding answer is given in five, six, seven or eight weeks? The proposal would work only if a definitive time was placed on the period within which the holding answer must be given. In other words, it would work only if the Executive say that either the answer or a holding answer will be given within two weeks. Are you saying that the time lost at the beginning waiting for the holding answer should, at the end of the day, be added on to the time taken for the question to be answered?
No, my point was that when the answer appeared in the relevant parliamentary publications, it would be dated from the date of the holding answer. To work out how long it had taken, you would need to allocate the notional two weeks extra during which the question had awaited a holding answer, or three weeks if the question had been lodged in the recess. I do not think that those additional weeks are much of a problem, given that some questions sit for six months or more. Allowing an extra two weeks for the ministerial response—and that is not on the record—I do not think that the additional weeks are a serious concern. Do you, Gil?
It is just not accurate. If a holding answer is given after five, six or seven weeks, the time between the holding answer and the answer itself is just not as clinical as it should be.
That could be covered, presumably, by having a footnote somewhere on the front page of each volume of written answers to note which questions had been given holding answers and which had been answered directly within the two weeks. Would that be possible?
I will just clarify that one point. If a holding answer is given, it is always given exactly 14 days after the question is lodged or, when the question is lodged during the recess, exactly 21 days after. There is no issue about holding answers being given five or six weeks after.
Is that a rule? Is that a definite always?
That is a definite always.
That definite always is definitely news to me—it changes things.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the five, six or seven weeks for the substantive answer to be given.
No. I must say that two weeks' wait for a holding answer is not my experience, but I may be wrong. I am willing to accept that I may be wrong on this matter.
If you check that from now on, you will find that you will always get a holding answer. I know that because I get so many holding answers. I wait for a mistake to be made and it never is.
The clarification that Hugh Flinn has supplied answers my problem.
Oh, that all of our problems could be answered so readily and so straightforwardly. Thank you, Hugh.
We have no detailed information on that.
That will obviously come out in the course of the discussions.
We have not had any.
That again is something that will come out in the course of discussing the report.
I want to make a point about what paragraph 15 says under the heading "Quality of questions and answers". There is a perception that poor answers ask for more questions. The questions may not be good but the answers are poor. The paper seems to have got it round the wrong way. It seems to state that the quality of the question leads to the quality of the answer. Many members find that they have to ask more questions because they did not get a full answer in the first place.
I have sometimes thought that some ministers create more work for themselves, but there are probably faults on both sides. If we all bore that in mind, it would help the temper of exchanges in those matters.
We will examine that.
Do we agree the paper and the recommendations at the end—
Next
Correspondence