Written evidence submitted by James McMurdock MP (WRP 24)

Introduction

Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) are among Parliament’s most important tools for scrutinising Government activity and representing constituents’ concerns. Their importance is particularly acute for independent Members and smaller parties, who often lack regular access to committee positions, departmental influence, or oral parliamentary opportunities.

The current WPQ framework supports transparency, accountability, and accessibility. However, concerns regarding the quality and substance of Government responses increasingly risk undermining its effectiveness as a meaningful tool of democratic oversight. The observations below are intended to support a more effective and accountable WPQ process.

Summary of Key Points

• WPQs are an essential and accessible mechanism for Government scrutiny and constituency representation.
• They are disproportionately important for independent Members and smaller parties with fewer parliamentary opportunities.
• Published WPQs and answers improve transparency, reduce duplication, and strengthen scrutiny.
• Government responses are increasingly generic, repetitive, inappropriately grouped, or fail to address the substance of questions.
• Parliament scrutinises Members’ questions through the Table Office, but there is no comparable expectation that Government answers meaningfully address them.
• Any reduction in WPQ caps should only follow demonstrable improvements in response quality and wider scrutiny opportunities.

The Current System

WPQs are an essential part of my role as Member of Parliament for South Basildon and East Thurrock.

As an independent Member (previously part of a small parliamentary party), I do not have guaranteed access to committee positions or regular oral questions. In practice, WPQs are the only consistent, reliable, and equitable mechanism available to scrutinise Government activity.

The principal alternative—direct correspondence with departments—typically involves longer response times and likely greater administrative burden. Unlike larger parties, independent Members cannot distribute scrutiny activity across wider parliamentary networks. For smaller parties and independents, WPQs are often the principal mechanism of systematic scrutiny.

A key strength of the system is the publication of questions and responses on Parliament’s database. This improves transparency, reduces duplication, and enables Members to build upon one another’s work, strengthening scrutiny while reducing unnecessary demands on departments.

WPQs also promote transparency by providing clear, attributable, and on-the-record Government statements on specific policy issues. Questions are framed neutrally and procedurally, while responses enable Parliament, the media, and the public to access precise Government positions, supporting confidence in parliamentary accountability.

They also strengthen democratic accountability. Ministers and departments are required to provide public answers, often informing debate and media reporting. Constituents can also see whether concerns raised on their behalf have been pursued and how Government has responded.

Taken together, these features make the WPQ system essential. Any reform should strengthen, not weaken, the ability of Members to secure meaningful scrutiny.

Problems

A growing concern is the quality and relevance of Government responses.

A recurring pattern is the provision of generic or formulaic answers that fail to engage with the substance of the question posed. This frequently necessitates multiple follow-up questions, creating avoidable duplication and additional administrative burden.

Examples include:

• Question 127324 (High Income Child Benefit Charge): response largely repeated published policy without addressing the specific issue raised.
• Questions 122937 (Online Fraud) and 120737 (Digital ID): further questioning was required before substantive clarification was provided.

These examples demonstrate that the issue spans multiple departments.

A further concern is the increasing practice of grouping multiple questions into single responses. While grouping closely related questions may be reasonable, materially distinct questions are increasingly answered through generic consolidated responses.

For example, questions 129363–129374 were grouped despite covering separate issues, limiting substantive engagement. Likewise, question 102465, concerning upstream migration prevention work in North Africa, was grouped into a broader response on UK-Greek relations, reducing meaningful engagement with the issue raised.

The most significant institutional concern is that Parliament rightly applies procedural scrutiny to Members’ questions through the Table Office, yet there appears to be no equivalent expectation regarding the adequacy of Government responses.

Although wholly incorrect responses may occasionally be corrected, there is limited recourse where answers are technically compliant but fail to engage meaningfully with the substance of a question. This creates an imbalance: Members must submit fair, neutral, and procedurally compliant questions, while departments face limited scrutiny over whether answers meaningfully address them.

Given the limited opportunities available through oral questions, WPQs remain one of the most reliable tools for effective scrutiny, particularly for opposition, independent, and smaller-party Members. They also enable iterative scrutiny, allowing Members to refine inquiry based on previous answers—something far more constrained in oral proceedings.

Recommendations

I would make three recommendations.

1. Introduce Procedural Scrutiny of Government Responses

Government responses should be subject to procedural scrutiny comparable to that applied to Members’ questions, helping ensure answers:

• directly address the question asked;
• engage substantively with the issue raised; and
• avoid inappropriate grouping that limits scrutiny.

2. Establish an “Insufficient Answer” Mechanism

A formal process should allow Members to flag responses that fail to engage substantively with a question.

This could trigger:

• departmental reconsideration; or
• an expedited right to resubmit without affecting caps.

Such a mechanism would improve accountability while reducing duplication.

3. Consider WPQ Caps Only After Demonstrable Improvement

Any reduction in WPQ caps should only follow clear evidence that Government response quality has materially improved.

The current issue is not simply question volume, but the frequency of generic or insufficiently substantive responses that necessitate repeated follow-up questions.

Cap reductions would also affect Members unevenly. Larger parties can distribute scrutiny across colleagues, whereas independent Members and smaller parties lack this flexibility and would be disproportionately affected.

If reductions were considered, they should only follow:

• demonstrable improvements in response quality;
• expanded opportunities for oral scrutiny; and
• stronger assurances that both oral and written questions receive meaningful answers.

Conclusion

The role of an opposition Member is to scrutinise Government activity and represent constituents. WPQs remain one of Parliament’s most effective and accessible mechanisms for fulfilling that responsibility.

Parliament rightly ensures questions are fair, neutral, and procedurally compliant. There is a reasonable expectation that Government responses should meet a comparable standard of relevance, substance, and accuracy.

High-quality answers also serve a constructive purpose by identifying policy gaps, inconsistencies, and unintended consequences, helping improve policymaking and public administration.

For WPQs to continue fulfilling this role, Government responses must be substantive, accurate, and meaningful. Their value depends not only on the ability to ask questions, but on receiving answers that properly address them.

May 2026