The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) welcomes the opportunity to provide submissions in response to the Committee’s call for evidence on ‘Written Parliamentary Questions’. In these submissions we have limited our comments to the specific term of reference which relates to Freedom of Information.
What is the interaction between Written Parliamentary Questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000? Are there any other recent changes that have impacted on the ability of MPs to gain access to the same, or similar, information via other methods?
FOIA provides public access to information held by public authorities.
It does this in two ways:
The White Paper which proposed the Freedom of Information Bill, Your right to know CM 3818 stated explicitly that “the purpose of the Act will be to encourage more open and accountable government”.
Section 1 outlines:
“(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”
This right is subject to a number of limited exemptions set out later in FOIA.
It has been described by the Supreme Court as a “landmark enactment of great constitutional significance for the United Kingdom” that creates “a prima facie right to the disclosure of information held by public authorities” (Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20; [2015] AC 435 (“Kennedy”) at ¶153. 20, and by the Court of Appeal as “an important, constitutional statute because it enables ordinary citizens to obtain the information held by an authority and thus to know what the authority knows. It follows that any restriction on this right must have constitutional implications” (Dransfield v IC and Devon CC [2015] EWCA Civ 454; [2015] 1 WLR 5316, Arden LJ (at ¶2)).
The right applies to information held by “public authorities”, as defined by FOIA. These are primarily set out in a detailed list of bodies in Schedule 1 of FOIA.
A separate, though related right to environmental information exists as set out in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR), which is also promoted and enforced by the Information Commissioner. There are a number of differences in the scope, procedure and application of the two systems, such as how a request for information can be made, a different set of exceptions, and the public authorities which are subject to the duty.
Despite these differences, in general terms, both FOIA and the EIR are designed to provide the public with information both through proactive publication/dissemination, and through responding to requests for information.
The rights to request and receive information in both FOIA and the EIR are exercisable by any person. They can be and are used by elected representatives, including MPs.
In this regard we note the House of Commons Library Research Briefing on Freedom of Information Requests of 7 April 2025 which helpfully sets out how to make a FOI request and provides an overview of the system.
The rights of MPs to seek and receive information under FOIA and the EIR are the same as any other requester. A key facet of the system is its applicant-blind nature, and therefore MPs are subject to the same time provisions and procedures as other members of the public.
A request for information should ordinarily be responded to by the public authority within 20 working days. There are, however, different provisions for extending the time for considering cases in both FOIA and the EIR.
If a requester believes that an authority has failed to respond correctly to a request for information, there are provisions to seek an internal review and then, if they are still dissatisfied, to make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner. This provides an independent specialist consideration of whether the request for information made by the complainant has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of FOIA or the EIR. There are further rights of appeal through the tribunals and courts.
The information access rights available to MPs under FOIA and the EIR are therefore an additional route available to them to access information, separately from their use of Parliamentary Questions (PQs). In this regard it is important to recognise the systems as being distinct from one another.
Our guidance on What makes a valid request? | ICO and What should we do when we receive a request for environmental information? | ICO are clear that PQs are part of parliamentary proceedings and must not be treated as requests for information under FOIA (or under the EIR); to do so would infringe parliamentary privilege.
That does not, however, prevent a MP from submitting a PQ and a request for information on the same issue. In such a case, however, it is important to recognise the clear distinction between the two processes.
Each of the two processes has different benefits and disadvantages in enabling MPs to obtain information. While the expected maximum timelines for responses to written PQs, especially named day questions, are considerably swifter than those of FOI or the EIR, requests for information have the advantage of an independent review and appeal process. Requests for information can also be made to a much wider range of public authorities than a PQ.
The statutory system of FOIA and the EIR have not been subject to any recent change. However, the government has recently begun a consultation in relation to the extension of FOIA to Tenant Management Organisations which will provide additional rights of access to information in relation to those bodies. Changes to the Information Commissioner by the Data Use and Access Act 2025, including the change from a Commissioner structure to an Information Commission are not expected to have an impact on FOI or the EIR.
While the legislation has not changed, there has been a recent considerable increase in complaints made to the Information Commissioner.
In 2025/26 we are on track to receive over ten thousand complaints, compared to 7,600 last year. This year on year increase is more than the rate of increase we would expect to see over a period of 5 years. Indeed, in volume terms its likely going to be more than we saw in the ten years between 2010 and 2020.
This has had an inevitable impact on the time taken to deal with complaints. Between 2023 and 2025 we closed more than 95% of our cases in less than 6 months, and increased the number of statutory decision notices issued by the office from under 1500 to well over 2000.
However, due to this huge increase in demand in such a short space of time, it is now taking us around 7 months to allocate cases.
Prioritisation is still working but we still have challenges due to level of demand. Cases are now being allocated in around 6 to 8 weeks rather than less than 4 we had previously been achieving.
To address this, in addition to delivering the far higher case closure numbers, we have told government about the pressures we face. This has resulted in some additional funding for the second half of the financial year until this March, although there is no guarantee the same additional funding levels will be offered beyond the 25/26 financial year.
We are also focussing on what tech opportunities can help us, which we also received some extra funding for in this financial year, and which we are using in different ways.
We are currently awaiting our funding settlement for the new CSR period to inform our future planning.
April 2026
5