Nov 18 2009
The strangulation of written Parliamentary Questions
Parliamentary Questions used to be one of the prime ways MPs could hold a government to account, keep Ministers on their toes, expose problems and probe mistakes. Labour used to be quite good at them in Opposition. Once in government they decided on their slow strangulation, to prevent the Opposition using them in the way they did.
PQs worked for several reasons. MPs had privileged access to information through them. On behalf of the public they could find out things that others were unable to. The assumption was that if the government knew the answer it had to supply it to an MP unless it compromised national security, commercial confidentiality or was a sensitive matter about an individual. The answer was published in Hansard. The press and media regularly read Hansard answers, often finding good stories from the MPs’ detective work.
The Freedom of Information legislation effectively removed the privileged access for PQs. Anyone can now ask a good question of the government, and have an equal ticket in the lottery for an answer. All will encounter delay and reluctance to part with information, especially MPs with a reputation for asking good or embarrassing questions. A member of the public may draw a better lottery ticket than an MP when trying to get to the bottom of an issue. It may suit the government to let them know rather than the MP, as their answer does not have to be published in Hansard and they may less access to the media than an MP.
Some time ago I highlighted here the large sum of money we gave via the Financial Compensation scheme to Santander to take the retail deposits of Bradford and Bignley. No-one would run this story in the media, as the spin had told them something different.
Recently I revisited this issue, and asked the Treasury
“Whether any public money was provided to Santander in respect of Bradford and Bingley’s deposit liabilities” .
The answer admitted they did make payments, but as always it refused to give away the crucial details:
” Details of the financial support provided to banks in 2008-9, including the amounts involved in the transfer of Bradford and Bignley’s retail deposits to Abbey, are set out in the Treasury’s Resource Accounts for 2008-9″
Notice they not only decline to provide the true answer on the Hansard record, for fear no doubt of it being reported, but they also change Santander to Abbey, presumably because Abbey is a British bank. They do not wish to acknowledge that we financed a very handy large cash injection to a large Spanish banking group at the same time as nationalising a couple of our other banks.
I asked about the highly charged issue of bonuses to bankers in banks subsidised by taxpayers. I asked particularly “How much has been allocated for the payment of bonuses to staff by banks and financial institutions in receipt of public money in a) 2008-9 and b) 2009-10?”
You would have thought they both knew and could answer at least with respect to the year completed six months ago. Instead I was told
“The banks in which the government is a shareholder are managed on an arms length commercial basis by the UKFI…..(followed by guff about eventual publication of details)”
Once again the government had absolutely no intention of answering a straightforward question of great public interest about an issue they are currently proposing to legislate on!
There was a similar refusal to give any figures in a question about the true level of the public sector debt, a refusal to provide any information about the bad debt figures for RBS and the due diligence findings, and a refusal to provide a timetable for the sale of Northern Rock which has been trailed in the media.
I asked why the government plans to buy more shares in Lloyds. This was the pathetic non answer:
“As a shareholder, the government has the option to take up part of the newly issued equity. (of course – it is a rights issue). If we did not do so, the value of the existing taxpayer shareholding would be diminished (if they did not do so their rights would be sold in nil paid form to someone else, and the taxpayer would receive a payment). To protect the value of our shares, we have therefore decided to take up our share of this new capital investing £5.7billion net of underwriting fee” (In other words hasn’t a clue why they are buying more shares)
They have killed the written Parliamentary Question.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
We all knew that the phrase “Freedom of Information” had to be an oxymoron when described by this spin-addicted Labour government. Don’t forget that the Government tried to exclude themselves from it on the basis of “National Security”
The standard trick is to introduce a law with a title that you can’t possibly disagree with (The Availibility of Oxygen Act) which is touted as making sure we all have enough air to breathe. They they put in lots of snide clauses about how there will have to be a ridiculous number of checks, fines and penalties for driving a car, lighting a match, or breathing too heavily. The Whips make sure that the whole badly conceived mess is passed.
Then a whole pointless industry grows up about enforcement, paid for by another new raft of indirect taxation. Anybody who complains about the worst excesses of the Air Improvement Managers (”how can you hit a target without AIM?”) are accused of suffocating babies at birth – you can’t complain when they knock your door down for a snap inspection, because if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. In practice, anyone the spotlight falls on has to prove their innocence, or be bancrupted by the fine.
In the unlikely event that they give something with one hand, there will be at least three other hands taking other things away.
Reply
The answer on Lloyds is the most worrying – it shows ministers don’t understand why they are doing what they are. Probably the civil servants advising them don’t either.
Reply
I am (or was) a B&B shareholder and we’re still waiting to find out if there will be any compensation for having our property taken away from us. B&B never declared itself bankrupt – we still had value in the business when it was taken away and given to someone else. The only party showing any interest in helping us is the Lib Dems – only Lib Dem MPs turn out for the shareholder meetings.
And more on topic, I trust that when the Tories form a government in May next year we will see a full and frank publication of every penny of expenditure that has taken place under New Labour. It should make interesting reading.
Reply
Gordon Riby Reply:
November 18th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Bradford and Bingley were going under. Presumably it’s “value”, as you call it, did not amount to much. Taxpayer money should not subsidise your poor investment decisions. Bottom line. You chose to invest in a company that got run into the ground by the people that ran it. I do sympathise but unfortunately it’s your tough luck.
Reply
re the last part.
So the government is spending £5.7bn in order to not lose more money? In car salesmen terms, whoever sold them that one “saw them coming”.
Reply
Another step on the road to the strangulation of democracy in this country.
Reply
Labour exist in a world of fantasy. The problem with questions is the answers show them the gap between reality and their self indulgent fantasies.
They would deserve pity were they not destroying the future of the country at the same time.
Reply
Ah the classic non-answers
“What day is it today”
“Today is sunny, as a result of labour investment vs tory cuts which would jeopardise the sunshine”
etc etc
Reply
If you are frustrated by the non answers of this government, and who isn’t, why not leak your frustration to the Daily Telegraph? They seem to have done a real service to this nation in recent months.
Reply
I think it’s important to distinguish the case where the governments spins information, and the case where the government refuses to provide it at all. The reference to the Treasury accounts makes more work for those whose duty it is to hold the government to account: you, journalists, and so on. The refusal to provide information about UKFI actually makes it impossible to hold the government to account. It denies voters the information they need when making their decision.
Would you be able to ask a follow-up written question which asked, ‘Is the amount of Treasury financial support to Santander £xyz?’ Presumably they would have to say that it was, and that would get the admission into Hansard.
I didn’t understand the point about the freedom of information legislation. As I’m not an MP, that is the only way I can get information, so it’s valuable to me. Presumably if you ask a question, and I make an FoI request, about the same subject the government is obliged to answer both.
As a non-MP, the thing I find annoying in an answer is a reference to the House of Commons library!
Reply: The government tells the Clerks in the Commons not to accept questions which Ministers do not answer. I expect they will rule I cannot ask for the figures given the answer about UKFI. Ministers are quite determined not to answer this! We know the answer anyway.
Reply
What commitment have the Conservatives given to change this practice? What are you doing, Mr Redwood, to ensure your party does not give us more of the same?
Reply
Its the good old saying.
One rule for you, another for us.
Any Government which refuses to answer sensible questions, has something to hide.
Can only suggest you keep on digging John.
Another reason why we want to see a full publication of UK PLC Accounts as soon as you get in (if you get in)
Also a full list of ALL Tax rises in the past 12 years.
Look they have raised this much extra in increased tax, they have now spent it all, and some more, and we now have increased debt and are in effect broke.
This shower would have difficulty running a bath.
Reply
Labour, never knowingly any good at anything.
Reply
I’d like to see all the bad news published as well as all the good news.
When we get unemployment figures there should be two figures given: those receiving Jobseekers Allowance and those receiving Incapacity Benefit (or those of working age but receiving another benefit, just lump all the other benefits together). No doubt the Incapacity Benefit figures are available but they are never headlined like Jobseekers Allowance figures are. Ask anyone on the street how many people are unemployed in UK today and most will say around 2.75 million.
Gordon Brown’s PFI off-book trickery may seem like a smart idea to him and a way (in the past) to avoid breaking his ‘Golden Rules’ (we never seem to hear about them now, strangely – why on earth call them ‘Golden’ if they are simply expedients?) but government spending should be transparent to the public.
These are two examples, I’m sure there are plenty more.
Unfortunately will probably never happen as in the eyes of the media / political advisors it would give the opposition too much ammunition.
It’s one thing to spin a line to the media or in an interview trying to obfuscate but it’s depressing when the practise is being carried over into the House.
Reply
“Labour used to be quite good at them in Opposition. Once in government they decided on their slow strangulation, to prevent the Opposition using them in the way they did.”
I have noticed Mark Harper’s hard work in picking away at Labours state, using his time well, in asking for the data we really should not have to ask for. I cannot comment on his success in the area. I certainly hope Labour has provided the key data on which our welfare reforms must be based.
“The Freedom of Information legislation effectively removed the privileged access for PQs. Anyone can now ask a good question of the government, and have an equal ticket in the lottery for an answer. All will encounter delay and reluctance to part with information, especially MPs with a reputation for asking good or embarrassing questions. A member of the public may draw a better lottery ticket than an MP when trying to get to the bottom of an issue.”
This is quite true and I do note that when a point is very good, even under Labour the minister has answered the good point directly. Despite a little irritation, which is unhelpful , such points are a civic duty, and that much should always be kept firmly in mind by the Government.
“some time ago I highlighted here the large sum of money we gave via the Financial Compensation scheme to Santander to take the retail deposits of Bradford and Bignley. No-one would run this story in the media, as the spin had told them something different.”
I suppose we should insist on both sides of a spin being aired to the public. I understand though that often, getting a counter spin going is rather hard work.
You John have often been blocked because your truthfulness is seen as a threat to the official line, I believe. Such is the mountain the truthful are often presented with.
“The banks in which the government is a shareholder are managed on an arms length commercial basis by the UKFI…..(followed by guff about eventual publication of details)”
I certainly hope the taxpayer is allowed to make his promised profit on the deal, the Taxpayer has been soundly abused under Labour. “eventual publication of” 60 or more years being the bottom line, and even longer should the need to be great indeed.
“As a shareholder, the government has the option to take up part of the newly issued equity. (of course – it is a rights issue). If we did not do so, the value of the existing taxpayer shareholding would be diminished (if they did not do so their rights would be sold in nil paid form to someone else, and the taxpayer would receive a payment). To protect the value of our shares, we have therefore decided to take up our share of this new capital investing £5.7billion net of underwriting fee” (In other words hasn’t a clue why they are buying more shares)”
So is Government a separate shareholder from “tax payer” , in which case the Government is acting in a manner one would expect from Socialist Dogma.
If Government is acting for “tax payer” it is also what one would expect from Socialist dogma. In other words they are trying to buy up as much of the banks as they can get away with whilst they still can. Of course we will have no choice but to sell the lot off as soon as possible, but I believe we still have to act for the benefit of “tax payer” this being consistent with Conservative dogma.
Reply
I would like John Redwood to ask the following question of the Prime Minister:
“In what substantial ways does the Lisbon Treaty differ from the draft European Constitution rejected by the French and Dutch electorates? The German Chancellor has said that there are no such differences.”
Reply: We did that many times during the Lisbon debates. Labour always say the preamble shows they dropped the idea of a “constitution” and it became just a Treaty. We say nothing of substance changed, and it represented an unreasonable transfer of power.
Reply
Lindsay McDougall Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Yes, I have looked up Hansard on line and read the powerful contributions of yourself, William Hague, David Heathcott-Amery and Peter Lilley in March 2008.
However, the advantage of a PMQ is that it obliges the Prime Minister to put HIS opinion on record. What are his options?
(1) He can say that he has not read the two documents and therefore can not comment.
(2) He can refuse to answer the question, either by answering a different one or by abusing the Conservative Party.
(3) He can invent some spurious differences and appear ridiculous.
None of these options will show him in a good light.
Furthermore, if a different Conservative backbencher were to ask a similar question, with slightly different wording, every week between now and the General Election, that would keep the matter in the public eye. Boring for you, I will admit, but perhaps effective.
Reply
This gives me an idea. Soon after the election civil servants in Whitehall should be required to answer PQs that have been fudged and ignored in an open and honest manner with no political spin as a test of their suitability to remain in employment. Those that fail can be justly sacked for not doing their job.
Reply
You can actually learn a great deal from both the nature of the lie, and way the lie is structured and transmitted. It does not necessarily give you the reality either of the truth or the probabilities, but it may well tell you where to look, and what the chances are.
Reply
And following suit, the Leader and Executive of my District council have killed the question to Council.
Non answers abound. Their favourite is to offer written answers to questions on matters being decided there and then! It would be funny if democracy wasn’t so important.
Reply
JR: Good question to the PM at the Queen’s Speech Debate on how he plans to reduce the deficit. It is a shame that he is allowed to get away with throwing peanuts at the problem and says he is dealing with it.
I suppose what it did show was that he doesn’t have a clue and probably no intention of reducing it.
Reply
I want to say that new Labour has been a resounding success. And it really has.
Tony Blair had ten years in the limelight and he is now a multi-millionaire, possibly President of Europe. John Prescott, once a humble steward on a liner, is now living in lots of houses at once and behaving like the toffs he so despises. He also appears regularly on TV as an expert, which he so obviously likes. Then there is Peter, Lord Mandelson, who, according to Open Europe, (earned good money -ed) from the EU and a lordship to boot. On top of all this, we have the many Lords and ladies with Pantomime names who parade about like Count Arthur Strong. And what about all the MPs? Not bad for a lot of people who were once, like Lady Kinnoch, Primary schoolteachers and College Lecturers.
This parliament is not about answering questions! (Except, of course, “Where DID you get that necklace/wristwatch?”)
It must be heartbreaking for people who really believe in our Island Story. But now, they are history.
Reply
To what extent is this the Government’s doing, and to what extent the government’s? The Labour Government is constantly spinning, for sure, but I also have the impression that it has never controlled the civil service that forms the permanent government, and the permanent official are hugely more powerful than they were. Massive amounts of legislation has been passed to further departmental empire-building agendas in the last decade, whereas the Government has only really shown interest in promoting populist claptrap or constitutional change designed to tighten its grip on power.
MPs are now receiving the same standard of service from the bureaucracy that the rest of us do, which is to say open contempt, and half-concealed bullying.
Reply
I have to echo Julian here, what can be done about it?
Reply
Is the Treasury answer (”If we did not do so, the value of the existing taxpayer shareholding would be diminished”) to the the question about the Lloyds rights issue actually factually incorrect? Should it not be the % size of the taxpayer shareholding, not the value, would be diminished?
Reply
Dear Mister Redwood
This is the first time I have had the pleasure of perusing your little blog and jolly good and largely harmless fun it seems to be. I am greatly in favour of some free speech, which of course many people believe is an essential part of our great democratic tradition. Given that I know that in some circles you have something of a reputation in financial matters, I am also delighted to have the opportunity to correct a couple of teensy weensy errors that have crept into your otherwise witty and amusing piece.
To tackle your first point first: you must know that in my new role as Minister of Information I am jolly keen to keep ministers on their tippy toes. Therefore this is something you really shouldn’t be worrying about. Let me assure you that when I pull a string, those toes go tippity-tippity-tip in a way that you might struggle to believe. In future, if you have an issue with a minister in Your Place you just drop me a line here in the Other Place and it’ll be problem solved! So much simpler than you having to stand up and make all those long boring speeches without any notes to a lot of empty benches (no need to thank me – I’m here to help). Mind you, you do have a point about the lottery system and I will ask Dianne Thompson, who will be joining me here in the Lords as my Junior Information Lottery Minister (a little scoop for you here but again, no need to thank me) to look into it as soon as she has figured out what to do with her Camelot bonus.
Second, a little clarification is needed of your otherwise excellent point about the Freedom of Information Act. At the time this legislation was introduced there were some who were deeply concerned that nasty and embarrassing information related to the government’s underhand activities should be revealed to public view. I am glad to be able to reassure you that under my control the new Ministry of Information will be taking a strong grip on this extremely important area – you should have no concerns about information flows.
Now let me address your points about Abbey and Santander. The problem here, Mister Redwood, is that these are extremely complicated matters. It is inevitable that quite significant mistakes creep in when someone such as yourself, who is, with the very greatest respect, an outsider, attempts to distil the truth into a neat and concise form that cuts to the chase and gives no wriggle room at all, such as you have attempted to do. (Forgive the long sentence but sometimes I find this necessary – if you get my drift.) Now, I could go into great detail about this issue but it would take far more space than is available here to explain why it is that the expenditure that my government is making in the banking sector is both wise and prudent. I’m sure you and your fellow bloggers would soon tire of what are very arcane and difficult arguments. Let’s agree to leave it at that, shall we? I so hate losing my temper.
Your comments on public debt are easier to address. As you well know, we have a comprehensive policy to ensure that public debt is increased dramatically to ensure a rapid recovery in economic indicators. Again, it can be hard to explain these matters to those who are not in the driving seat so let me make a simple analogy. If you keep pumping air into a balloon it will burst. When the balloon has burst you have to fix it so you can pump it up again. Now, not only has my government patched up the balloon but it has added some extra bits to it to make room for lots more air which we are now pumping in vigorously. The key to it is timing. I could add the technical detail but I feel sure you would lose interest quite quickly.
Much as I appreciate your comments I also have a couple of small bones to pick with you. First, it is considerably OTT, as we say in the Upper House, to describe Parliamentary democracy as being “strangled”. This is dangerous talk indeed, and I would warn you to be careful with your language. After all, the touch of larynxial pressure that my government finds it necessary to apply from time to time is nothing close to the “strangulation” you allude to. At this point I see no reason to take further action, but I suggest it would be wise of you be cautious of your phrasing in the future. Small bones, as you know, can be fragile.
Anyhow, enough of the formal stuff. I would just like to say how much I have enjoyed this little discourse. Can I assume that I am free to drop in to this site when I feel like it? Normally of course I wouldn’t need to ask permission as GCHQ can open all sorts of doors these days, but I do dislike bad manners.
Your public servant
Beria-Voldemort
House of Lords, 16 November
PS: I would hate to think that all this ermine would get in the way of informality. In future, shall I call you John if you would call me (Robert? ed)?
PPS: I must apologise for this response being rather tardy; I promise this will change, now I know how to find you.
Reply
dear john,
i can understand your frustration with holding the government to account, but you and more importantly we, should not have to rely on parliamentary questions.
if back benchers showed more independence, if the payroll vote in the government and the opposition parties was limited to less than 25% of members of the house, if select committees had some teeth, if the power to decide business in the commons was handed from the government to a committe of all the house elected by secret ballot at the start of each parliament, if the speaker represented the interests of parliament rather than … then we, and more importantly you, might get somewhere.
holding a government to account by PQs is like that game where you have to find out someone’s chosen identity by asking questions to which they only reply yes or no. it’s a very poor substitute for real accountability.
Reply