Jan 25 2007
The dying art of answering questions - and Ruth Kelly’s train travel
Many of my constiuents think as an MP I can ask whatever I like in Parliament. If only it were that easy.
If you want to ask an oral quesiton, it has to be about something a government department does, and you have to wait for the one day in the month when that department is available to answer.
If you want to ask a written one, you can only do so when Parliament is in session (another reason this government gives us long holidays) and if the Table office officials think it is a question which a government Minister is likely to answer.
In recent weeks I am pleased to report a welcome mellowing in the Table Office, who now let me table more of the questions I want to.????Unfortunately, we still have Ministers who do not wish to answer.
Take this latest classic from Ruth Kelly:
<em>??"To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many official journeys she has made by train since taking up her position"</em>
The Table office rightly agreed that this was about the Minister’s public activities and so was permissible. There is a clear public interest for three main reasons:
1. Is she active in pursuing her job - does she get out and about meeting Councils as she should?
2. Does she follow the government’s strong advice to use the train wherever possible?
3. Is she spending public money wisely on the organisation of her own time and activities?
The "answer" came from someone called Angela Smith, not from Ruth Kelly herself. Why Ruth is incapable of answering a fellow Privy Counsellor’s legitimate Parliamentary quesiton, when it is about her own programme, is unclear.?? Angela ??Smith wrote to say
"The information requested is not readily available and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
Ministers use public transport wherever possible and practical to complete their journey, taking account of security considerations.
All ministerial travel on official business is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in Travel by Ministers"
It’s typical and outrageous.
1. The information is readily available. Ruth Kelly herself would probably be able to remember how many times she has gone by train, as I suspect it is very few times if any. To jog her memory a quick glance at her diary computer log would soon show her where she went and how she went there. Her diary secretary could tell us within five minutes of being asked in front of her computer. We must assume we are not told because Ruth Kelly does not wish to tell us.Poor Angela was the fall lady who had to send me the brush off. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that it would be costly to answer this.
2. The second statement is difficult to interpret. It implies that security prevents Minsiters like Ruth Kelly from using trains. Of course Ministers at high risk will be given special protection and are likely to go everywhere by suitably protected car, but most Ministers are fortunately not in that category. Most Ministers could if they wished travel by public transport on more official business, just as they safely travel by public transport for private and Parliamentary duties. When I was Secretary of State for Wales I travelled to and from Wales twice or three times a week to balance Parliamentary business with the wish to see everything on the ground that I was having to make decisions about and to meet the many who wanted to talk through issues. I invariably went by train between London or Reading and Cardiff or Swansea.
3. The reference to a set of rules which are not enclosed with the answer is also typical. I did not suggest Ruth Kelly had broken any travel rules. It is a curiously defensive statement, leading the questioner to want to know more about these rules and how they might be broken.
I suspect with this government that the passion for trains rather than cars is another case of do as I say, not as I do. It??is extremely difficult getting out of Parliament on the rare nights when we have to be there to vote for all the Ministerial cars waiting for their bosses. I don’t blame for taking the chauffeured car for many of their journeys, but let’s have less humbug and less cover up about the truth of their travel plans.
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Greg Hands asked a similar question to Mr Blair when making a point about how overcrowded the Underground is. I recall that his “answer” was almost identical to the one you received. The truth is presumably that the Govt is embarrassed to admit that hardly any use of public transport is made by Ministers.
My avowed ambition is to live long enough to actually hear any politician answer a question with a straight answer as opposed to reciting a pre-rehearsed response - I live in hope !
Alan Eaves
I suspect you are right that she isn’t travelling by train to stop global warming. She is quite right not to since the whole GW & trains are more ecological stuff is rubbish but obviously to answer would shop she doesn’t believe this any more than Cameron believes he is saving the world by bicycling & letting his briefcase travel in style.
I doubt if passing it on to the unfortunate Angela was disrespect to you - had Kelly answered it (or more likely signed Angela’s answer) while claiming jogging her memory would be expensive.
Unsurprisingly, Michael Gove often receives identically worded responses to requests about government funding of the Muslim Council of Britain. I am sure other honourable members experience the same thing from this obsessively secretive and unaccountable sham of a Government.
Surely John, it is time to work smarter to make life uncomfortable for these departments that try to evade proper scrutiny for fear it would embarrass them or reveal double standards. I discuss this very issue on the Waendel Journal. It would be interesting to know if using such a tactic will wrongfoot the information officers sufficiently to free up information we should be entitled to examine.