Written evidence submitted by Seamus Logan MP (WRP 26)

I am writing my submission as a relatively new MP, who was first elected in 2024. In my first Session of Parliament (2024-26), I tabled 162 WPQs. As an Opposition MP, WPQs have formed an important part of holding the Government to account and assisting my constituents.

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? 

Primarily, I use WPQs to seek greater detail on Government policy, updates on missed timeframes by the Government, to chase up overdue responses from Ministers I have written to and to ask questions of the Government put directly to me by constituents.

In practice, this can result in the quick production of statistics held by the Government which is relevant on a local or national level which are not publicly available.

The non-political wording required for WPQs does offer advantages in terms of obtaining factual information about the Government and their actions, but this obligation does not extend to the responding Minister. This can lead to an answer which is needlessly dismissive of other bodies, such as devolved legislatures or political parties within the UK, which cannot be replied to in the same format. An example of this would be WPQ UIN 108719, asked by the Rt Hon Liz Saville-Roberts.

Of course, there is also significant value to parliamentarians provided by the publication of WPQs asked by all MPs, both to MPs themselves and their constituents. Indeed, some of my WPQs have been grouped with other MPs WPQs for response on occasion, helping me identify MPs whose constituents are facing the same issues mine are, assisting with cross-party aims.

As a new MP, I cannot speak to how this process has changed over time.

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? 

I have not felt compelled to use Freedom of Information requests following unsatisfactory responses to my Written Questions. I view Freedom of Information requests as the correct tool to be used for more complicated and specific requests, such as correspondence details between Departments and external organisations, for example.

Overall, I think Freedom of Information requests and Written Questions provide different but complementary roles when it comes to holding the Government to account.

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

I believe that the purpose of the distinction is to signal the level of priority to relevant Ministers and their civil servants. As Named Day Questions set a firm deadline, this does tend to generate a quicker response in my experience.

Of course, the quicker response timeframe is by no means guaranteed, so I believe response time is also impacted by question content. The advantages of a Named Day question may be lost in the case of long waits for responses, as I have found with my Questions of UIN 85593, 85590, 85588, 85587, 85586, 85585, 85584, 85583, 85582, 85581, 85580, 85579. These WQs were tabled on 27 October 2025 and answered 2 January 2026, which I found to be deeply unhelpful, as the subject was important to a number of my constituents.

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)? 

In the Scottish Parliament, I believe there is no limit on the number of Written Questions that can be tabled by Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs).

I cannot speak to the advantages or disadvantages of this approach, but I have not been in a position where I have felt that the limit of 20 WPQs per sitting day to need changed.

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? 

As a new MP, an issue I came across early on was regarding questions about announcements made by Ministers in public to the media being carded by the Table Office. As a new MP, this was frustrating as there would be no recourse in terms of WPQs for these media-only announcement until such announcements were made in the House. This can result in situations where my constituents are contacting me to seek further information on announcements the Government have made to the media, which I cannot use a Named Day WPQ to seek urgent clarification on. Writing formally to a Minister is an alternative to WPQs, but tends to take a significant time for a response compared to a WPQ.

I am not sure how this could be resolved by internal House of Commons processes, as it is being caused by Government Ministers making early policy announcements to the media before making them to the House, which has been a long-standing issue among successive Governments.

The process of ‘Carding’ questions is straightforward and useful for greater clarity on Written Questions and for future reference when tabling additional Written Questions. The Table Office are incredibly helpful with Written Questions, which I am grateful for.

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? 

While I understand that there will be circumstances where a Written Question would impose a high disproportionate cost and will not be taken forward by the relevant Department, this is still a disappointing outcome when it occurs.

I believe there would be some merit in additional oversight of responses of Written Question Answers which cite “an undue cost” in terms of accountability for the department using that as a response. Following a conversation between my office and the Table Office, I was made aware that there is little oversight of this when cited, and instead up to the departments themselves.

In the cases of these responses, a more detailed reasoning could be provided by the Department to either the Procedure Committee for review or a new cross-party committee. If Written Questions are an important part of MP’s ways of holding the Government to account, there should be some external oversight when Departments refuse to answer Written Questions on the grounds of cost.

June 2026