Procedures Committee, 25 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 25, 2002

Official Report 184KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Questions

Item 3 concerns a draft letter that I have worked up, largely with John Patterson, to try to pick up the committee's points from our long but useful session with the Minister for Parliamentary Business in March. I did not want to shove the letter off as solely my response or as something drawn solely from the committee meeting, because I was conscious that I had developed various points and done further work on them since the committee meeting, for example on the issue of grouping questions in the context of applying an advisory cost limit. Rather than send the letter off, I thought that I should bring it to the committee, because there may be issues that committee members wish to incorporate.

Members might not agree with some of the questions that I have asked, although I think that they are straightforward. The draft letter contains a response on three issues: advisory cost limits; the use of the Executive directory—not the "Executive Director", as the letter states; and questions to non-departmental public bodies. Do members have any points to raise?

I am most excited by the NDPB issue. The letter raises some good points, but I do not understand why ministers should not reply to questions about NDPBs. I assume that, if members ask why Scottish Enterprise Forth Valley does not support X, the minister's staff can contact the office of the director of the enterprise company to get an explanation. From my feeble grasp of constitutional theory, I understand that the quangos are responsible to us via ministers. We should be able to insist that ministers reply, albeit with information that the NDPB has provided, on issues that are of public interest.

Ministers feel that arm's-length bodies that are, to a degree, independent from ministers should answer questions directly. The point that is made in the draft letter, which was developed from our discussion, is that the mechanism exists for direct agencies—and ministers routinely give answers—but arm's-length bodies tend to respond to questions through a letter to the individual member. The thrust of the discussion that we had in March was that, in that situation, information about which it is legitimate to ask questions and which should be in the public domain remains the property of one member only and is not accessible to other members or to the public. The letter pursues that issue.

The Executive has defined different categories of arm's-length body. The point in the letter is that information that is obtained ought to be shared with everyone. We should follow the Westminster model, whereby such information is placed in the House of Commons library. The letter also pursues the central issue of whether answers ought to be provided. We are trying to push the Executive on that, but it takes the view that certain agencies should answer for themselves. We are trying to reach a compromise on that. The letter is part of a process; it is not meant to be the end of the matter.

If your suggestion were accepted, that would be a great improvement. Dealing with arm's-length bodies should not be a Pontius Pilate exercise—someone has to be responsible, and that is the minister. Arm's-length bodies may have been created for perfectly good reasons, but if they make a hash of things, the minister must answer. I think that the suggestion would be a great step forward, so I will go along with it, but I am unhappy about the readiness of ministers to wash their hands of matters.

Ministers have pointed out that there are two types of NDPB. In the case of advisory bodies, ministers are responsible for the advice that they accept and act on. Many matters that are raised in relation to executive NDPBs tend to be minor administrative and routine matters, questions about which the agencies can answer themselves. In the discussion on 12 March, Patricia Ferguson pointed out that if major policy issues arise in relation to NDPBs that have a more executive function, "Ministers are ultimately answerable". Ministers will respond on the broad policy points.

That is reasonable, but on the lesser, routine or administrative matters, all members should note the responses to members' questions. If members feel that the Executive is ducking out of policy answers using the screen of administrative measures, they can pursue the matter. The Executive's case was that most of the issues raised related to low-level, routine stuff, which should not be dealt with through questions. I cannot challenge that. However, if that sort of stuff is in the public domain, we have more information and we have a better chance of understanding how the Executive and the arm's-length agencies work and whether they are genuinely accountable. If we send a letter, we get a reply. I suspect that we could go on working in this area ad infinitum.

The committee has explored this point a couple of times. The continuing reform of quangos is pretty crucial and we need to find an appropriate mechanism for holding the various NDPBs to account. If ministers cannot tell NDPBs what to do, it is slightly unfair of us to ask ministers to explain their actions. The trouble is that ministers produce guidance, which is used to instruct—although it is not instruction as such. The relationship is complex, and I think that it needs to be reformed. The reform of that relationship will have a bearing on our procedures.

I am concerned about the nine-page letter that we have drafted to the Minister for Parliamentary Business. I appreciate that it is being written on behalf of all of us, but I am not entirely sure that it reflects my view. Many of the points in the draft letter are arguments, which leave a question at the end. I am not quite sure why we are sending the letter.

I agree that we are engaged in an on-going process, but we seem to be picking up on a number of rather finicky points and I am not sure why. We want to make the business directory work, we want PQs to NDPBs to happen, and we have expressed a view on an advisory cost limit on parliamentary questions—although we have perhaps not done so firmly. Why are we asking all these detailed questions, especially bearing in mind the fact that we have had two visits recently from the minister?

Perhaps the convener will comment on the letter. I feel that it contains some things that he could have a session with the minister on. I do not think that it reflects the discussion that the committee had about the issues. I am not against anything in the letter as such, but I do not feel that it reflects any of my concerns.

Let us take the stuff on the advisory cost limits on questions, for example. I thought that the committee was a wee bit sceptical about the whole principle of such limits.

Absolutely.

I think that the points that I have raised reflect that. In addition, the minister raised a point about applying the advisory cost limits to groups of questions. She gave the examples of two groups of questions from two named members. I went away and looked at those questions. I thought that the minister's point was interesting, and my response was to ask the minister what is meant by a group of questions. Are 65 questions asked in a single day a group of questions? Could a member get round any problems with grouping them by asking them over a week or by farming them out among colleagues? The minister said, I think quite legitimately, that the member might usefully seek a meeting with the minister in question.

If one group of questions involves replies from six different ministers, is the member entitled to invite six ministers to a meeting? I have seen no guidelines on when members may commandeer ministers' time to attend meetings with them. The discussion raised a number of issues, but it did not tie those issues down. The purpose of developing those issues is to get greater clarity about the Executive's thinking. I agree that much of the detail of the letter does not reflect the tenor of the meeting—it reflects some of my thoughts after the meeting. However, it is not inconsistent with, or hostile to, what we discussed on the day—it is in tune with that discussion.

We had a session at which we asked questions and in my view, although I may be wrong, the letter simply probes further the lines of questioning that we pursued. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that we have discussed what we think about those issues. We are simply trying to gather more information. The points in the letter reflect the lines of questioning that took place.

I suggest that, as well as writing to the minister, it might be helpful for us to write to different groups of NDPBs to see whether they have internal guidance on dealing with written parliamentary questions. It might be helpful to hear from the horse's mouth how those NDPBs deal with things.

Was that point not covered in the paper that we received? I do not remember.

It is fine if we already have the information, but—

We will clarify that point.

I am trying to recall whether we received the information.

I am not certain whether those bodies operate within the Executive's guidelines or whether they have their own guidelines. I would have thought that they operate within the Executive's guidelines.

Can we find out?

Andrew McNaughton, my source in the public gallery, is not giving me a clear steer.

The third or fourth bullet point in the section of the letter that covers NDPBs says that we will be in touch with officials about that sort of issue. A couple of bullet points further down, the letter talks about work to produce

"concrete proposals about PQs to NDPBs"

and says that a paper will be produced later in the year. Therefore, parliamentary officials will work to keep lines of communication open with Executive officials.

We will get information about that.

Yes. If we send the letter, that is what will happen.

We did not spend a huge amount of time talking about the business directory on 12 March, but I looked at the directory again and I do not find it easy to use. I tend to click on a generic e-mail address that I have for an Executive official, take it out of my contacts file, insert it into an e-mail, delete his name and paste in the name of the official whom I am trying to contact. I may do that using several versions of the name. I have used the James-or-Jim routine, in order to find out the correct e-mail address. That is a cumbersome process to expect people from outside the Executive to use.

I am still confused about how the Executive wants us to use the business directory. When Patricia Ferguson was at the committee a fortnight ago, she stressed again that it should be used to obtain urgent information, yet when I told her in March that I use the business directory to obtain non-urgent information, such as contact information for planning officials—I go to people who have the information that I need—she said that that was okay. If the purpose of the directory is to minimise the number of questions—rather than to reduce the number of questions—I would have thought that the Executive would want more routine matters to be dealt with through the directory. I am a bit perplexed about what the directory is meant to achieve to make the process work more smoothly.

Although I described the paper as my paper, the last two bullet points were points that Susan Deacon raised about the number of contacts that are made when officials are preparing answers to questions and the inclusion of overheads in the costing of answers. I am quite happy to expand the letter to include anything that members think I missed. We could include points that were raised on 12 March or today, or that arise from our discussion of a fortnight ago, or that members may have thought of since and that relate to any of those matters. We can sit on it for a couple of weeks—people will be away on holiday anyway.

I anticipate that the letter will get a response that will then be the basis for further discussion, because the Executive expects a response from us on advisory cost limits. There is clearly more work to be done on the non-departmental public bodies. We could let the Executive directory go, except that I do not think that it is all that wonderful, so it is worth exploring whether the Executive itself is totally satisfied with it. It is not nearly as user-friendly as our directory. The Executive may have every intention of upgrading it for its own internal reasons. Whether that is worth pursuing is a matter for the committee.

The number of hits shows that few people use it.

I thought that the questions on the business directory were perhaps not the most appropriate ones to ask. What the convener has said is helpful. Rather than asking all those questions, we should be asking, "What is the business directory for?" As I recall, the Executive wants us to direct our e-mail inquiries to particular named civil servants, rather than just any civil servant. We must ask what the Executive wants the business directory for and what we want it for. We have not had a proper chance to discuss the matter, but we may have such a chance at a future meeting.

The business directory is there to take the pressure off some of the rather cumbersome and formal procedures that are used. Some of the question systems do not aid understanding but get in the way. A simple phone call or e-mail would circumvent the need for those systems and would avoid the need for such formal parliamentary procedures. If we are trying to open up government and make systems more transparent, I welcome that move. The detail of the questions seems to suggest that the convener is heading off in a different direction.

I tried to address that in the final bullet point on the business directory, but your comment is helpful and I would be quite happy to rephrase that point, perhaps reversing the order of the bullet points to make that the principal point. You are quite right to say that the stuff about the names is just a detail, although it is not insignificant in terms of the system's user-friendliness.

If you have a system, it has to work. I appreciate that.

I have another general point, which you have captured in the paper, although there are so many points that it is captured and obfuscated at the same time. We are concerned about the accountability of NDPBs and we need to do further work on that. I think that we are just unhappy full stop about any advisory cost limit, and we would welcome further explanation. Westminster has a cost limit, and there was an explanation of that. However, given that no question has ever exceeded a cost limit so far, it seems a bit over the top to introduce a cost limit at all.

Perhaps we should make the first point on NDPBs a prefatory statement rather than a bullet point, because its overall thrust is that we are concerned about the perceived lack of scrutiny and the other points that derive from that. That might highlight more clearly where we are coming from. We should also include the Official Report of this discussion with the letter, so that the helpful additional points that members have made will amplify its meaning.

The Executive may claim that answering all your bullet points will exceed the advisory limit.

That would create an interesting issue for us to discuss when we have the response.

Is not the point that the advisory limit is the Executive's problem and not ours, but the Executive is trying to make it the Parliament's problem?

Indeed.

Does it come out of your allowance? That is what I want to know.

No. It comes out of yours.

Oh well, do not even bother asking the question.

Will we send the letter with the amendments that we have discussed or should we leave it a week or a fortnight for members to raise other points that may have been missed?

No.

In that case, we shall just send it. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.