Written evidence submitted by Rt. Hon. Richard Holden MP
(WRP 06)
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to contribute to this important inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs).
Before beginning, I think it is worth noting that I served as a Special Adviser to five Cabinet Ministers in four departments, during which time I had sight of draft responses to WPQs before ministers. I also responded to WPQs as a Minister in the Department of Transport, and oversaw responses as a Cabinet Minister.
Written Parliamentary Questions remain one of the most important tools through which Members of Parliament can scrutinise Government activity, obtain factual information, and hold Ministers publicly accountable on behalf of their constituents. As the accompanying evidence sets out, my experience suggests that while the purpose and value of Written Questions remain clear, a number of practices and behaviours have become entrenched which risk undermining their effectiveness.
In particular, persistent delays, incomplete or non-responsive answers, and an increasing divergence between what is disclosed through the Written Question process and what is later released under the Freedom of Information Act raise serious concerns about transparency and accountability. Where such practices become routine, they weaken Parliament’s ability to perform its constitutional scrutiny role effectively.
I hope that this evidence assists the Committee in identifying practical reforms that will strengthen the Written Question system, ensure higher standards of responsiveness and disclosure, and restore confidence in Written Parliamentary Questions as a central tool of parliamentary scrutiny.
Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) are an incredibly valuable and important tool for Members of Parliament. In my experience as a Member, I use them for multiple purposes, including scrutinising Government policy and policy changes, as well as pursuing specific issues raised by, or affecting, my constituents in Basildon and Billericay.
In many cases, a ministerial letter would take longer to get a response or is not required. In such circumstances, WPQs play an essential role in ascertaining the Government’s position on specific policy areas and, crucially, in formally placing that information, often briefed to the media, on the parliamentary record. WPQs also frequently serve as a precursor to ministerial correspondence, or as a means of questioning or scrutinising the content of a ministerial letter once it has been received.
Despite repeated interventions by Mr Speaker and clear guidance that answers to WPQs should include any material that would be accessible through a Freedom of Information request, Government departments continue to routinely disregard this instruction.
The Department for Transport was forced to issue an apology on this point, writing to me on 11 November 2025, for failing to provide the appropriate information in response to a WPQ.
A similar issue arose in relation to WPQs 96488 and 97165, in which I asked the Secretary of State for Transport about information held by the DVLA concerning third-party or intermediary organisations acting on behalf of Oxford City Council and Oxfordshire County Council in accessing vehicle keeper data. In both cases, the Minister for Local Transport stated that this information was not appropriate to disclose.
Shortly afterwards, however, the DVLA released under FOI the KADOE contract with Oxfordshire County Council, confirming contractual arrangements involving intermediaries and third-party access, with only personal data redacted.
This issue is not confined to a single department. On 15 December 2025, I tabled WPQ 99967 asking whether the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would publish training modules provided to midwives and health visitors on close-relative marriage and genetic risk, and guidance on the submission of consanguinity and pregnancy data to the Maternity Services Dataset. The Minister for Health Innovation and Safety confirmed that these materials existed but stated that they would not be published more widely. However,
following a Freedom of Information request to NHS England, those same documents were subsequently released.
It is absurd that Members should be required to resort to the FOI process to obtain information from Government that ought properly to be disclosed through a parliamentary question, because of the Government's routine mishandling of the WPQ process.
The distinction between Named Day and Ordinary WPQs serves an important and continuing purpose. Named Day Questions cannot be grouped, which is essential when seeking answers on distinct yet related issues within the same policy area. When deadlines are met, Named Day Questions also ensure that Members receive timely responses to matters that are often urgent or of immediate concern to the public.
Any approach to limiting Members’ ability to submit Written Questions would be a mistake. In my view, there would be merit in allowing an unlimited number of Named Day Questions where those questions are submitted in person at the Table Office, as is already the case with Ordinary Questions.
The act of attending the Table Office in person to submit questions signals seriousness and attaches a clear level of importance to those requests. Unlimited non-named day questions should be maintained, too, if tabled in person.
At the beginning of the Parliament, the Table Office’s processes for handling WPQs were seriously deficient. A high proportion of questions were carded, often on narrow, even spurious grounds.
The Table Office has frequently requested a “basis” for Written Questions. However, it is often impossible for Members to provide such a basis when the purpose of the question is to inquire into Government policy itself. A Member cannot reasonably be expected to supply prior justification for asking whether a policy exists, what its scope may be, or whether plans are in development, when that information is precisely what the question seeks to establish. This arose recently in relation to questions about the Government’s plans for the timetabling and scope of the Railways Bill.
While the situation has improved significantly in recent months, the Table Office should exist to assist Members in exercising their right to scrutiny, not to act as a gatekeeper whose default position is to contest rather than facilitate legitimate questions.
Departmental handling of WPQs frequently undermines their effectiveness. I regularly receive very short answers, many of which omit hyperlinks, despite this being required under paragraph 234 of the Government’s Guide to Parliamentary Work. Data is often provided in formats not requested or not provided at all. In some cases, large volumes of data are supplied in an opaque or unusable form, requiring assistance from the House of Commons Library to interpret.
Delays are commonplace. Most Ordinary Questions are answered several days late, and frequently by several weeks. More concerningly, Named Day Questions are often answered late, sometimes by more than a week, defeating their purpose. Ministers also regularly fail to answer the question asked, instead providing related but substantively different information.
While the Table Office is empowered to card questions and require Members to revise them, there is no equivalent mechanism to challenge poor-quality or non-responsive departmental answers. Given the consistent and systemic nature of these failures, a significant proportion of Written Questions require pursuit. Of a total of Written Questions I have submitted, almost a third were follow-up or “pursuant” questions, submitted solely to obtain information that should have been provided in the original response.
This pattern indicates not isolated shortcomings but a structural weakness in departmental processes, which materially diminishes the effectiveness of Written Parliamentary Questions as a tool of scrutiny and accountability, especially as there is limited or no pushback on answers received from Departments by the Table Office.
13 January 2026