Written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Sir John Hayes CBE MP (WRP 22)

I am writing as a long-standing Member of Parliament who is amongst those who have tabled the most Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) in recent years. I have experience tabling WPQs both as a backbencher and Opposition frontbencher, as well as answering them as a Minister in multiple departments.

What is the purpose and value of a Written Parliamentary Question, and what do Members of Parliament (or their staff) use them for? Has this changed over time? 

WPQs are highly useful and effective for Members of Parliament, primarily for seeking information either not currently in the public domain or not easily accessible, and for holding the Government and public bodies to account. They are a key part of the Parliamentary and democratic process.

As an MP who has made good use of WPQs over many years, I am aware that they provide useful statistics on a constituency or national level, have helped with comparative analysis, assisted in fleshing out precise details of Government policies which were not spelt out or were left vague, and have helped to draw attention to particular issues, including pressing the Government to focus on certain matters.

In general, it is probably true that WPQs are most useful for parties in Opposition, though I found them an incredibly valuable tool during the years of Conservative Government also, given the difficulty otherwise in obtaining clear instructive answers from Government departments. The ability to ask specific questions to the relevant Minister is, fundamentally, not political, and so an essential aspect of our Parliamentary system that compliments the more partisan debate in the chamber.

Having been first elected in 1997, I have seen the nature of WPQs change over the years. Earlier in my time as an MP more tabled questions were rejected, even when the question appeared perfectly valid, an improvement to be welcomed. I am aware that many more questions are tabled today than 20 or 30 years ago, and that the quality of responses from Departments has generally declined over time, with more questions not being properly addressed as the years have passed.

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? 

As a Member of Parliament, I have not submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, which are typically used more by campaign groups, charities and other organisations. I cannot think of an example where an answer I sought would ideally best be found by FOI rather than via submitting a WPQ. Nonetheless, where FOI responses have led to stories in the media which have triggered a response from Government, there is a useful role in seeking confirmation or further information via WPQs.

I am aware of examples of journalists and campaign groups which have received information from FOI requests that have not been made available in response to WPQs, and I know that other Members are also aware of this. This is an unacceptable discrepancy, and must be addressed by Departments to ensure that Parliamentarians are receiving accurate and up to date information.

What is the purpose behind the distinction between ‘Named Day’ and ‘Ordinary’ Written Parliamentary Questions and is that distinction still necessary? 

I am not sure if the distinction is still necessary. My understanding is that it was a mechanism for managing prioritisation, which feels less relevant as time goes on. In general, my experience is that ‘ordinary’ questions are answered in a timely fashion. An alternative approach might be to make the named day questions more imperative - a strict two or three day limit, for example.

Are the limits on the number of Written Parliamentary Questions that Members of Parliament can submit on any given day appropriate? Are they comparable with the rules in place in other legislatures (both within the UK and internationally)? 

It makes sense to limit tabling to 20 questions a day, and I would not seek to lower or raise that number. There are occasions that I have sought information using identical questions across all departments on a time-sensitive issue, but as this can be spread over two days I see no reason to change the established system.

Are the internal House of Commons processes and procedures for processing and dealing with Written Parliamentary Questions working effectively and efficiently? What changes, if any, may be needed to drive improvements? 

There are occasions where valid questions are ‘carded’, or rejected, by the Table Office as they are deemed too similar to ones already tabled, or because of an apparent lack of basis, despite such basis being a clear matter of interest being discussed in Parliament and reported on in the media. There have been occasions where WPQs have been carded as the basis has been rejected, despite a link being sent to a Government press release or Ministerial speech. This needs to be standardised and improved.

A particular problem relates to WPQs based on statements that the Government has given to the media, ahead of or instead of informing Parliament. WPQs submitted on this basis are routinely rejected as media reports are not sufficient sources in themselves, leading to the situation where it incentivises the Government to make announcements in the media, bypassing immediate Parliamentary scrutiny unless the matter is raised shortly after in an oral Urgent Question or statement.

Overall this process could be improved with clearer guidelines published about what can be tabled, given reports about the higher number of carded questions than in previous Parliaments. I would say, however, that in my experience the Table Office have typically been helpful at assisting with rewording of questions, and generally seek to help find a way to table a question if the initial draft is carded. This best practice should be extended and help given to Members and their staff to understand processes and guidelines.

Are the processes and procedures for processing and dealing with Written Parliamentary Questions in Departments working effectively and efficiently? What impact, if any, have these processes and procedures had on the quality and content of responses? 

My experiences of submitting WPQs and receiving the respective answers have been mixed over the years, with many questions answered reasonably promptly, but the responses themselves vary hugely from department to department, and over time there has been a greater trend towards avoiding providing specific information requested in the question. Given that examples of ‘best practice’ exist, with some departments excelling, this should be used as a baseline in confirming expectations.

There is a growing trend for Departments to respond by pointing towards publicly available, but highly inaccessible, data releases rather than providing the information requested. WPQs should be answered directly, and shouldn’t assume that MPs, and indeed the wider public, can interpret often complex Excel documents of data, if they can even find these statistical releases buried on Departmental websites. Ministers should not be able to avoid scrutiny by not publishing answers in this way, which is interpreted by the public as a cynical attempt to avoid publishing specific information.

Departments increasingly respond to questions saying that information “could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.” I recently received this response to WPQs seeking information about training programmes in a given Department. It is hard to imagine that providing a list of training programmes can only be provided at “disproportionate cost”, but who determines what is disproportionate? And given this approach, how can basic functions of Parliamentary scrutiny proceed?

Furthermore, questions about Ministers meeting with particular groups or individuals, for instance, almost always attract the response that Ministerial meetings are regular published. This does not provide the required amount of detail nor satisfy the public’s right to know the answer, as such publications are hard to find or published a long time after the fact.

There are also a growing number of cases where questions intended for specific departments are routinely transferred to other departments, or where questions are not answered at all, with previous statements on the matter repeated in place of a considered response. I know of Members who have not even had this level of response to WPQs, with some remaining unanswered for many weeks and months.

In conclusion, I hope this submission is useful as part of the Committee’s inquiry, and would be happy to expand up on any points.

April 2026

3