Written evidence submitted by the Green MPs (WRP 23)
Q1: 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?
Green MPs regard written PQs as a hugely valuable and important tool for backbench MPs to scrutinise the Government and hold them to account.
They are purposeful for:
They are valuable because they allow scrutiny without relying on luck; they are available to an MP every sitting day and do not rely on a ballot. This provides a crucial channel to get an issue across a Minister's desk in a timely fashion. Replies tend to be faster than Ministerial correspondence, which makes WPQs invaluable for raising urgent/time sensitive issues at Ministerial level.
Q2: 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?
While FOI requests can be a route to ask for similar information, the lack of resources both at public authority level and at the Information Commissioner's Office itself means that timescales tend to be long. This means any authority or service covered by the FOI Act seeking to hide/avoid releasing information can potentially use these delays to do so. WPQs are an essential way to seek data from the Government in a timely way that is not bound by these growing constraints.
Q3: What is the purpose behind the distinction between ‘Named Day’ and ‘Ordinary’ Written Parliamentary Questions and is that distinction still necessary?
Named day is a simple way of indicating that a Member is particularly concerned to get a timely answer, and the distinction has value for that reason.
Q4: 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)?
Green MPs have not found problems with the current limits. It is important that the system is not overwhelmed or abused, and that MPs have enough WPQs to be able to undertake effective scrutiny. Government departments need to be properly resourced to ensure they have sufficient staff to provide timely, quality replies to WPQs, so the mechanism serves its democratic purpose. At the same time, we are aware that Government departments do not have unlimited resources and that there is a balance to be struck between quantity of questions allowed and the amount of time that officials reasonably need to draft quality answers, and that Ministers need to sign these off.
Q5: 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?
Yes, the clerks are excellent and very helpful with suggested redrafts if a question is not in order. Memberhub is very useful for tracking questions.
Q6: 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?
Sometimes different questions in the same topic area are grouped and provided with the same reply. There can be instances where this is reasonable but in other cases it appears to be a way of glossing over the particular question being asked and this reduces the quality of the answers. The quality of replies can vary considerably. By a good quality answer, we mean answers which directly address the question asked. My colleague Carla Denyer and her office have pulled out some examples to illustrate this:
Examples from Carla Denyer's Office:
Grouping
Examples of grouped answers that avoid directly addressing the question, these on Green Government commitments come to mind – here, here and here. We even did a follow up to push on this and they still gave exactly the same answer.
Examples of answers being grouped reasonably, Carla asked a series of questions on inclusive Relationships and Sex Education that got grouped, but it did seem like they actually went through and gave answers to each one (here, here and here)
Engagement
Examples of evasive answers/answers where there is no engagement with the question, a few below:
Examples of good answers, which do directly engage and respond:
We hope this is helpful. Many thanks again for inviting us to comment.
May 2026