Downing Street and other government departments are guilty of providing "substandard answers" to parliamentary questions and of withholding information from MPs, a House of Commons report concluded yesterday.

It recommended that ministers be more open when replying to questions and said secretaries of state should personally ensure that answers are full, regardless of the political persuasion of the MP asking the question.

MPs had a "justifiable concern" that the standards of answers to parliamentary questions varied according to who asked the question and which department replied. In its report, the Public Administration Committee called for more openness after The Independent revealed that that the Department of Work and Pensions had instructed civil servants to check whether an MP was "friendly" before answering.

Ministers were guilty of "a cavalier and unprofessional attitude" to MPs and "serious delays" in answering their questions, the committee said. It accused the Government of failing to heed previous criticisms from the committee and said that its "performance continues to disappoint".

"Parliamentary questions are a crucial instrument of democratic accountability," said Tony Wright, the Labour MP who chairs the committee. "We are determined to hold to account any department, and any ministers, with the wrong sort of approach to questions."

The report singled out a number of departments that refused to answer questions satisfactorily, including Downing Street and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which had declined to provide information to MPs on the Millennium Dome. The report found that the Prime Minister refused to answer 2.15 per cent of questions, compared with 0.41 per cent at the Department of Social Security and 0.75 per cent at the Treasury. Some departments, such as Culture, failed to give valid reasons for refusing to answer questions.

It recommended that MPs should have a better appeals procedure and suggested that ministers who refused to answer questions could be summoned before the committee to explain their conduct. If this sanction does not succeed, an independent appeals body should be introduced.