Softball questions from the back benches at Prime Ministers Questions are one of those grim facts of life - like chewing gum on the pavement. They're a slightly sad waste of time, and don't even perform a useful PR function, as they simply annoy viewers.
Today, however, one Government backbencher managed to excel herself in producing a remarkably ridiculous example. I didn't catch the MP's name, and wanted to blog this without having to wait for Hansard to come out with the precise wording, but it went something like this:
"Does the Honorable Gentleman agree with me that the Child Trust Fund has been a great success?"
Gordon Brown, of course, did, and took the opportunity to wax lyrical about how much the Government cares about children - quel surprise. But how on earth can anyone know whether the Funds have been a success or not?
The Funds, which are given to every child when they are born, contain £250 of taxpayers' money. Parents are allowed to top them up with their own money as they wish. However, the scheme applies to every child born after 1st September 2002, and the money cannot be accessed until their 18th birthday.
So no-one knows how the Funds will turn out yet - and nor will we know until the early 2020s when the first tranche of Funds mature with the 2002 generation of children. It might be prove successful, or it might turn out purely to be a way of tying up vast amounts of taxpayers' money for decades.
Prime Ministers' Questions is there to allow the representatives of the people to scrutinise the Government and hold the PM to account. As the Speaker mentioned again today, there is never enough time to fit in all the MPs who want to ask questions. Isn't it time for the Speaker to insist that MPs place probing questions rather than adulatory puff pieces?