House of Commons

Procedure Committee

E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written answer

Eighth Report of Session 2010–12

HC 1823

HC 1823 Published on 21 February 2012

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£0.00

House of Commons

Procedure Committee

E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written answer

Eighth Report of Session 2010–12

Report, together with formal minutes and Appendix

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 8 February 2012

The Procedure Committee

The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations.

Membership during the Session

Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) (Chair) Karen Bradley (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands) Mrs Jenny Chapman (Labour, Darlington) Nic Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Sir Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet) Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland) Mr James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Tom Greatrex (Lab/Co-op, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) John Hemming (Liberal Democrat, Birmingham Yardley) Mr David Nuttall (Conservative, Bury North) Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative, North East Somerset) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Andrew Percy (Conservative, Brigg and Goole) Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Sir Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South) Mike Wood (Labour, Batley and Spen)

Powers

The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Huw Yardley and Anne-Marie Griffiths (Clerks) and Rowena Macdonald and Carolyn Bowes (Committee Assistants).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is proccom@parliament.uk

1

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3 

E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written answer 5 Experiment with restrictions on e-tabling 5 Impact of the experiment 5 

Views of Members 5 Conclusions of the Table Office 6 

Our conclusion 6 Upgrade of the e-tabling system 6 

Conclusions and recommendations 7 

Appendix: Report to the Procedure Committee from the Table Office—Changes to e-tabling: findings from the pilot 8 

Formal Minutes 14 

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 15 

3

Summary

On 13 October 2011 the House agreed to a 3-month experiment with restrictions on the number of questions which could be tabled electronically on any one day and an earlier deadline for their submission. The Table Office has provided us with a memorandum assessing the impact of those changes, and recommending that the experiment be made permanent.

We agree with the Table Office’s conclusions and recommend that the restrictions on e-tabling which have been piloted should continue. We also recommend that the consequent upgrade to the e-tabling system include improvements such as the introduction of a basket in which to keep PQs prior to their submission, if and when they prove technically feasible.

5

E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written answer

Experiment with restrictions on e-tabling

1. On 9 March 2011 we published our report Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny, which considered three issues: select committee amendments; explanatory statements on amendments; and written parliamentary questions.1 Our recommendations were debated in the House on 13 October 2011.2

2. Following that debate, the House agreed to our recommendation that “for an experimental period of three months the deadline for submitting written parliamentary questions electronically be set at 6.30 pm every sitting day from Monday to Thursday and 2.30 pm on sitting Fridays and that a daily quota of five e-tabled written questions (named day or ordinary written) be imposed on Members.”3 The experimental period started on Friday 21 October.

Impact of the experiment

3. Towards the end of the three-month period we received a memorandum from the Table Office assessing the impact of the experiment. That memorandum is appended to this Report. Its key findings are as follows:

• there has been no significant change in the overall number of written PQs submitted;

• use of e-tabling for written PQs has declined;

• PQs that would have been e-tabled after 6.30 pm are arriving earlier in the day instead;

• Tuesdays remain the busiest days in the Table Office, and there has been some displacement of PQs from Mondays to Tuesdays and Wednesdays;

• PQs delivered to the Table Office are less likely to be queried.

Views of Members

4. The Table Office also reported to us on views expressed by Members. Its memorandum states that “there has been no significant level of concern expressed over the five-Question limit on e-tabling”. Only two Members expressed an objection in principle. An EDM expressing opposition to the changes attracted no supporters apart from the tabling Member. The Office received nine specific representations on the e-tabling changes. All

1 Second Report of Session 2010–11, HC 800.

2 HC Deb, 13 October 2011, cols 515-556.

3 Second Report, para 50.

6

expressed concern about the 6.30 pm cut-off, which, it was argued, restricted the ability to work in the evenings. Some Members expressed the desire for the e-tabling system to have the ability to store PQs, which could be released in batches of five over a number of days.

5. A few Members expressing concern to individual members of the Committee have raised the same concern about the 6.30 pm cut-off time, but have otherwise been reassured when it has been explained that there is no restriction on the number of PQs which may be tabled in person or by post.

Conclusions of the Table Office

6. The Table Office’s conclusions were as follows:

• There has been no significant overall effect on PQ numbers tabled.

• The reduction in the proportion of PQs tabled after 6.30 pm has enabled the Table Office to process PQs more efficiently.

• There is evidence that an increase in the number of Members delivering their PQs to the Office in person has reduced the need for requests to Members to visit the office to discuss problems with their proposed PQs. This was described as the biggest overall benefit realised.

• Members are largely indifferent to the limit: there is no evidence that there are any widely held feelings that it has reduced their ability to hold the Government to account.

The Table Office’s overall recommendation was “on balance, because of the advantages of Members taking more personal responsibility for tabling PQs and thus enabling better dialogue between the Office and Members on problems arising from PQs, to the advantage of both sides, plus the modest improvements to the balance of peaks and troughs over the day and the week which enable a more efficient service, [...] that the experiment be made permanent.”

Our conclusion

7. We agree with the conclusion of the Table Office and recommend that the arrangements for restrictions on the number of questions which may be e-tabled should continue.

Upgrade of the e-tabling system

8. We note the comment by the Table Office that

Were the arrangements to be made permanent, an upgrade to the e-tabling system would be needed as the temporary arrangements are sustainable only in the short-term. If the system was upgraded it would be sensible to use the opportunity to address the demand from Members for features such as a basket in which to keep PQs prior to their submission.

7

We recognise the inconvenience to some Members of the inability to store questions in the e-tabling system when they cannot be submitted for tabling either because the limit of five questions has been reached or, in particular, because it is after 6.30 pm. If the House agrees with our recommendation and makes permanent the restrictions which have been piloted, we recommend that the necessary upgrade to the e-tabling system include improvements such as those noted in the Table Office’s memorandum, if and when they prove technically feasible. We recognise that “some scoping work would need to be done to establish the exact requirements and how best [any upgrading] could be integrated into existing work on the IT systems that support PQs.”4

Conclusions and recommendations

1. We agree with the conclusion of the Table Office and recommend that the arrangements for restrictions on the number of questions which may be e-tabled should continue. (Paragraph 7)

2. If the House agrees with our recommendation and makes permanent the restrictions which have been piloted, we recommend that the necessary upgrade to the e-tabling system include improvements such as those noted in the Table Office’s memorandum, if and when they prove technically feasible. (Paragraph 8)

4 Table Office memorandum

8

Appendix: Report to the Procedure Committee from the Table Office—Changes to e-tabling: findings from the pilot

Introduction

On Thursday 13 October 2011 the House approved the Procedure Committee’s recommendations on e-tabling of PQs for written answer. These provided for a three-month trial period during which limits were imposed on the submission of PQs electronically. The changes came into effect from the rising of the House on Friday 21 October. There were two principal elements to the changes. First, the number of PQs for written answer that a Member could table electronically was limited to five a day. Second, there was a cut-off of 6.30 pm imposed (2.30 pm on Fridays) after which any e-tabled PQs would no longer be accepted. These limitations were lifted during recesses. No changes were made to the rules relating to PQs for oral answer. The limit of five PQs per day for written answer on a named day was unchanged. No overall quota of PQs for written answer was imposed: it remained open to Members to table as many PQs for written answer as they chose to. Methodology

A baseline exercise was conducted from 21 March to 21 May 2011 in which the number of PQs received each day was counted and categorised as follows: • delivered by hand to the lower office, or in the letter box outside before 6.30 pm;

• delivered by hand to the lower office, or in the letter box outside after 6.30 pm;

• e-tabled before 6.30 pm;

• e-tabled after 6.30 pm;

• received by post; and

• tabled following a discussion with the Member or their office after the Table Office had sent a card because a PQ as originally submitted raised some problems which required resolution in conversation with the Member.

9

The PQs were also categorised as to whether or not they had been ‘carded’5 or highlighted as readily available. Since the implementation of the changes to e-tabling, the same counting has taken place during each day of the pilot. The figures quoted below are calculated from the data collected during these two periods. Key findings

1. There has been no significant change in the overall number of written PQs submitted. During the baseline period, the average number of written PQs submitted was 308 for each day the Table Office was open. During the pilot, the equivalent number was 309, suggesting no significant change. The number of PQs on any given day is affected by a number of factors, including the business of the House; this makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions by comparing any two periods of time, but it is clear that any effect of the limit on e-tabling on overall numbers was small. 2. Use of e-tabling for written PQs has declined. During the baseline period, 54% of written PQs were e-tabled: during the pilot this fell to 39%. There was a corresponding increase in the number of PQs delivered by hand to the office, from 34% to 51%. 3. PQs that would have been e-tabled after 6.30 pm are arriving earlier in the day instead. During the baseline period, 6% of PQs were brought in by hand after 6.30 pm and 7% were e-tabled after 6.30 pm—13% in total of all PQs tabled on an average day. During the pilot period, the number of PQs brought in by hand after 6.30 pm rose slightly to 7%, but there was a significant fall in the overall number of PQs tabled after 6.30 pm. The table below gives more detail. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Baseline e-tabled 9% 9% 7%

Brought in by hand

12% 9% 9%

Total 21% 18% 16% Pilot Total 13% 9% 6%

5 Queried by the Table Office, which sends a card to the Member asking them to call in at the office to discuss the

problem with the PQ.

10

Thursdays and Fridays have not been analysed because the cut-off for questions was 6.30 pm anyway on Thursday and generally 3 pm on Fridays. Overall the figures show that the proportion of questions tabled after 6.30 pm has roughly halved across the board. This has been quite noticeable in the office, since while the pilot has been running it has generally been possible to clear all the PQs submitted by the time the House has risen. Overall numbers of PQs submitted on Thursdays did not change significantly between the two periods (see table below). The change in question flow across the Monday to Wednesday appears to have had more to do with the 6.30 pm cut-off than the five-a-day limit. 4. Tuesdays remain the busiest days in the office, and there has been some displacement of PQs from Mondays to Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The tables below show the changes in the pattern of tabling over the working week. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Baseline 412 417 271 286 81 Pilot 361 439 350 292 37 Change -51 22 79 6 -44

In the baseline, there is a clear polarisation with Mondays and Tuesdays seeing equally heavy traffic, and Wednesdays and Thursdays being equally less heavy. During the pilot, tabling levels on Mondays has reduced, while Tuesdays and Wednesdays have picked up. Since there were two sitting Fridays in each of the baseline and pilot periods, the proportionately dramatic but numerically small decline in PQs tabled on Fridays seems to be the most marked change likely to have resulted from the restrictions on e-tabling.

Baseline

Pilot

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Que

stio

ns

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

11

The average number of PQs submitted on a Monday has also fallen from 412 to 361 (a fall of 51). This may be because the e-tabling limit prevents large numbers of PQs being submitted over the weekend. The average number of PQs submitted on Tuesdays and Wednesdays has, however, risen significantly, and this has increased the challenge of managing the workflow on Tuesdays, the most challenging day of the week for the office. However, as noted in 1 above, the overall daily average is almost unchanged and there is a slightly more even spread over the first three days of the week, though more is being squeezed into the first four days overall. This is a fairly neutral effect in terms of smoothing the workload of the office and allowing a better service to Members consistently across the week. 5. PQs delivered to the Table Office are less likely to be queried. During the pilot period • 17% of PQs e-tabled were ‘carded’; and

• 13% of PQs delivered directly to the Office by either Members or their researchers were ‘carded’.

During the baseline period 17.5% of all written PQs were ‘carded’, compared to 14.8% during the pilot, representing a 16% fall in the number of ‘carded’ PQs. We conclude that an increase in the proportion of PQs delivered in person has probably allowed issues that would have led to the e-tabled PQ being ‘carded’ being resolved at the time of tabling. Members’ views

Despite the Motion implementing the change to e-tabling having been debated in the main Chamber, and a memorandum having appeared in the Order Paper during the week before its implementation, plus an email to all users of the e-tabling system, a number of Members and their researchers were not aware of the changes to e-tabling when they came into force. There has been no significant level of concern expressed over the five-Question limit on e-tabling. Many of the representations from Members arose from detailed operational issues or as a result of ignorance of the details and purpose of the changes. Only two Members expressed an objection in principle. An hostile EDM tabled by John Mann, describing the limitation as “an affront to democracy”, (EDM 2294) attracted no supporters at all. The Office received nine specific representations on the e-tabling changes. All of these expressed concern about the 6.30 pm cut-off, which, it was argued, restricted the ability to work in the evenings. Some Members expressed the desire for the e-tabling system to have the ability to store PQs, which could be released in batches of five over a number of

12

days. All Members who commented on the new limits were informed that it was a pilot exercise and that findings would be fed back to the Procedure Committee. IT issues

The deadline and the quota imposed during the pilot were achieved by taking a de minimis approach to reprogramming the e-tabling system and using a series of workarounds to operate the deadlines and quotas. Were the arrangements to be made permanent, an upgrade to the e-tabling system would be needed as the temporary arrangements are sustainable only in the short-term. If the system was upgraded it would be sensible to use the opportunity to address the demand from Members for features such as a basket in which to keep PQs prior to their submission. Some scoping work would need to be done to establish the exact requirements and how best it could be integrated into existing work on the IT systems that support PQs. Conclusions

• There has been no significant overall effect on PQ numbers tabled.

• The reduction in the proportion of PQs tabled after 6.30 pm has enabled the Table Office to process PQs more efficiently.

• There is evidence that an increase in the number of Members delivering their PQs to the Office in person has reduced the need for requests to members to visit the office to discuss problems with their proposed PQs. This is the biggest overall benefit realised.

• Members are largely indifferent to the limit: there is no evidence that there are any widely held feelings that it has reduced their ability to hold the Government to account.

In its Second Report of this Session, the Procedure Committee expressed the view that introducing the quota for e-tabled PQs might reduce the overall number of PQs for written answer tabled.6 It does not appear to have done so, though the statistics presented above need to be heavily caveated as we cannot judge securely whether extraneous factors either in the baseline period or the pilot period may have had a distorting effect. But it should be noted in Session 2008–09, the statistics quoted in the Committee’s Report indicated an average of 410 WPQs received per sitting day, and the statistics are currently indicating a reduction in that average of around 13%. The Committee also noted that that these measures might lead to WPQs being tabled earlier in the day which would be helpful to Members since the Clerks would be able to address issues such as sub judice more rapidly, leading to fewer questions being held over for that reason until the following day.7 A similar view had been expressed by the predecessor Committee in 2008–09.8 This hope appears to have been borne out by the trial, to a modest degree.

6 Paragraph 50.

7 Paragraph 48.

8 Third Report from the Procedure Committee, Written Parliamentary Questions, Session 2008–09 (HC 859), paragraph 36.

13

The Committee’s predecessor expressed concerns about the degree of Members’ involvement in the drafting of some e-tabled PQs.9 The Committee concluded:

… tabling questions is an exclusive right and responsibility of Members of Parliament. Members must take full responsibility for the questions tabled in their name, and each individual Member must satisfy him or herself that they have had sufficient involvement in the preparation and tabling of their questions to be able to do so.10

The significant reduction in the number of WPQs ‘carded’ (see 5 above) suggests that the pilot may have had some effect on making this happen. The experiment has not reduced the overall number of PQs tabled. The evidence would appear to indicate that this would be likely to be achieved only through the further imposition of quotas, although the Procedure Committee has expressed concerns about whether even such a drastic change might not generate behavioural changes which would tend to diminish its effect. Nonetheless, on balance, because of the advantages of Members taking more personal responsibility for tabling PQs and thus enabling better dialogue between the Office and Members on problems arising from PQs, to the advantage of both sides, plus the modest improvements to the balance of peaks and troughs over the day and the week which enable a more efficient service, I would recommend to the Committee that the experiment be made permanent. Paul Evans Principal Clerk of the Table Office January 2012

9 ibid, paragraphs 42–50.

10 ibid, paragraph 50.

14

Formal Minutes

Wednesday 8 February 2012

Members present:

Rt Hon Greg Knight, in the Chair

Karen Bradley Mrs Jenny Chapman Nic Dakin Sir Roger Gale Helen Goodman

Mr James GrayJohn Hemming Mr David Nuttall Jacob Rees-Mogg

Draft Report (E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written answer), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 8 read and agreed to.

A Report to the Committee from the Table Office was appended to the Report.

Resolved, That the Report be the Eighth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 29 February at 3.00 pm

15

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

Session 2010–12

First Report Ministerial Statements HC 602

First Special Report Ministerial Statements: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2010–11

HC 1062

Second Report Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny:

(a) Select committee amendments

(b) Explanatory statements on amendments

(c) Written parliamentary questions

HC 800

Second Special Report Improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny: (a) Select committee amendments

(b) Explanatory statements on amendments

(c) Written parliamentary questions: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2010–11

HC 1063

Third Report Use of hand-held electronic devices in the Chamber and committees

HC 889

Fourth Report Reasoned opinions on subsidiarity under the Lisbon Treaty

HC 1440

Fifth Report 2010 elections for positions in the House HC 1573

Sixth Report Lay membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges

HC 1606

Seventh Report

Eighth Report

Ninth Report

Debates on Government e-Petitions

E-tabling of parliamentary questions for written answer

2010 elections for positions in the House: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2010–12

HC 1706

HC 1823

HC 1824