§ Mr. SpeakerLast week, I undertook to consider Members' concerns about ministerial replies to questions and to make a statement. It would be unwise for me to express a view on the adequacy of a particular ministerial answer. There are bound to be two views on that, and neither is a matter for me. The same is true of complaints about the transfer of individual questions. So I cannot alter the ruling that I gave last Wednesday and sit in judgment on particular answers. Faced with unsatisfactory replies, Members should seek advice—the Table Office is always ready to help—and then they should persist. One pointed question can, in my experience, achieve more than 20 vague ones. But I believe that the House would expect me to go beyond saying that the impartiality of the Chair makes it impossible for me to deal with individual cases. The House's legitimate expectations are contained in the 1997 resolution on ministerial responsibility. It is the duty of a Speaker to do what can properly be done from the Chair in support of the resolution. It is the duty of Ministers to act in the spirit of the resolution. The resolution says:
Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the Government's code of practice on access to Government information.While it is for the House at large, not the Chair alone, to hold Ministers to those obligations, I can best discharge my responsibilities by suggesting ways in which Members might help themselves. The Procedure Committee is undertaking a wide-ranging inquiry intothe extent to which the current system of questions contributes to effective parliamentary scrutiny".I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be happy to receive chapter and verse if any Member feels that the system is ineffective and scrutiny is being thwarted. The Committee has already sent round a questionnaire, and I am sure that many Members will want to take the opportunity to contribute to the inquiry.Secondly, when Ministers refuse to answer questions, they are expected to indicate in their reply why they have refused by reference to the Government's code. The Public Administration Committee regularly looks into the pattern of answering and makes a report to the House. Again, Members aggrieved at a ministerial refusal to answer might get in touch with the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright).
If Members individually take the appropriate steps to focus their experience through those Committees, and in other ways that may occur to them, the House collectively can make real progress towards better accountability.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)On a point of order. Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will take points of order later. First we must hear the statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.