However, there are two forms of parliamentary discussion in which answering questions is entirely central. One form is interpellation, the other is asking (written or oral) questions.
Interpellations
Are held on topics that are foreign to the order of the day. This means that they are topics that are not on the agenda of the chamber for another reason; for example as a bill or in a memorandum. If a member of parliament wants to interpellate a minister on such a subject, he must first ask permission from the parliament, because the right of interpellation is not a right of individual members of parliament but of the chamber as a whole.
The chamber almost always grants the requested leave and also determines when the interpellation will be held. The member of parliament conducting the interpellation, the interpellant, is obliged to write down his questions in advance and pass them on to the chairman of the chamber. This will then ensure that the minister or state secretary involved receives the text of the questions.
During the interpellation, the interpellant repeats the questions, but he is free to precede his questions with a reflection. The minister can start his answer with his own reflection, after which he answers the questions one by one. The interpellant is entitled to a second period: he can then hold a review again and ask new additional questions, after which the minister may respond again with a review or introduction to the questions.
The significance of the right of interpellation lies in the possibility not only to ask questions but also to give opinions. Moreover, the interpellant has the option to submit a motion after the minister’s first answer and thus request the House’s opinion on the minister’s answer. The other MPs may only speak once; they usually do this after the interpellant has spoken for the second time and before the minister has replied for the second time. In practice, interpellations can develop into quite lengthy debates.
Oral questions
Asking oral questions takes much less time. The questions may only be provided with a brief explanation, but not with an opinion. After the minister has answered the question, the questioner may ask short further questions a second time with a brief explanation, but he may not use more than two minutes of speaking time. Moreover, he may not submit a motion.
Once the questioner has received an answer from the minister for the second time, other MPs may each ask one further question without explanation and they may also not submit motions. In practice, it is common that the questions from the other members are actually the questions that the original questioner wanted to ask, but is no longer allowed to ask.
We often see that the original questioner, during the minister’s answer to his second series of questions, quickly writes a number of questions on loose pieces of paper and hands them out to his colleagues who then often ask a question about a subject about which they know little. of having. Moreover, they sometimes appear to have difficulty deciphering the hastily written handwriting of the original questioner.
No permission from the chamber is required to ask oral questions. Every member has the right to ask questions. However, the chairman of the chamber may withhold certain questions due to the content or form.
The chamber determines a fixed time at the beginning of each year for asking oral questions. It is customary for this question time to be held every week on Thursday. Asking and answering oral questions is generally a lively event. The questions are asked quickly. the minister must answer quickly and concretely, if he remains unclear or evasive, the MPs will try to corner him with further questions.
Written questions
Asking written questions is also not subject to any conditions. Every MP may ask written questions, although here too the chairman may withhold questions if he objects to the form or content. We should not look too much behind this power of the chairman.
it is about preventing sloppy formulations, asking questions that have already been asked by other members; in short, obvious objections. If the chairman were to abuse his authority , he would be reprimanded by the chamber itself.
The intention is for the government to provide written answers to the written questions within three weeks. Questions and answers are published in a supplement to the verbatim record, the appendix to the Acts.
Inquiry law
In addition to the budget right, the right to interpellate and ask questions, the House of Representatives has another option to monitor government policy, namely through the right of inquiry. The right of inquiry is the right of the chamber to conduct its own investigation into certain subjects and, among other things, to hear witnesses under oath. Originally, the right of inquiry had a broader meaning than just a means of controlling the government. Parliamentary inquiries can be requested and set up on a variety of topics.
Parliamentary inquiries are rarely held. This is mainly the result of the fact that the law that further elaborates the constitutional right of inquiry sets a number of requirements that are difficult to meet in practice. For example, the decision to hold a survey must be taken by majority vote. This means that the pro-government factions must also agree to it. But if the survey focuses on actions of the current cabinet, these factions will not be willing to do so, because agreeing to the survey will quickly be interpreted as a show of distrust in the cabinet.