Leader of the House

In reference to the response to Question 129162, I have spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks about the release of information under WPQ and FOI.

Arm’s length bodies (ALBs) are a vital part of how the Government delivers policies and public services. It is important that they are accountable and transparent. Almost all departments oversee ALBs, which operate with varying degrees of autonomy, but all are subject to scrutiny.

While Ministers are held accountable to Parliament for the body's overall performance, ALBs are already held to account in numerous ways, including long-established lines of accountability within government, and externally, including to Parliament. For example, Select Committees can, and do, call in the Chief Executives and Chairs of Public Bodies when there are concerns regarding an individual body or sectoral issues.

The Government’s Guide to Parliamentary Work outlines best practice for departments at paragraphs 226-227:

"There is no provision for ALBs to answer WPQs/QWAs directly in either House. Ministers from sponsoring departments answer questions on ALBs’ behalf, which may include information provided by the Chief Executive (or equivalent) of the ALB in question. It is normal practice for a department receiving a WPQ/QWA relating entirely to the operations of an arm’s length body to provide an answer on behalf of that body.

Letters from the arm’s length body should either be pasted into the answer box in full, preceded by a suitable introduction explaining the relationship between the body and the department, or uploaded as attachments provided that a suitable introduction has been pasted into the answer box. The text in the answer box should be as self-contained as possible."

Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments. Westminster Hall debates are a valuable opportunity for Members to debate subjects for which the Government is responsible. It is a matter for individual departments and Ministers to ensure that commitments during these debates are monitored and fulfilled.

It is not possible to provide an exact cost for preparing Ministers to respond to Westminster Hall Debates. There will be differences in the costs of Civil Service, Special Adviser and Ministerial time depending on the policy matter and length of the debate. Debates can also be cross-cutting and require resources from multiple departments or engage departmental bodies.

The information requested is not held. The attendance of Members at Westminster Hall debates is not a matter for the Government.

Members’ contributions to Westminster Hall debates can be found at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/.

The information requested is not held.

Private Members’ Bills provide an invaluable opportunity for Members to promote the causes they support.

In the first session, the Government supported eight Private Members’ Bills which reached Royal Assent: Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Act, Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act, Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act, Space Industries (Indemnities) Act, Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act, Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act, Licensing Hours Extensions Act and the Rare Cancers Act. The Government also supported three Private Members’ Bills which did not reach Royal Assent last session: Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill, Courts (Remote Hearings) Bill and Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill.

For Private Members’ Bills being introduced this session, the Government will make its position known at Second Reading in the usual way.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the previous session was introduced without drafting or policy support from the Government. The Government is neutral on the issue of assisted dying but has an obligation to ensure that any Bill passed by Parliament is operable and workable in order to fulfil its duty to the statute book. In line with this duty, the Government provided advice on matters of legal and technical workability during the passage of the Bill in the last session. The Bill introduced in this session reflects the progress of the Bill in the last session.

The Government takes its obligations to Parliament seriously. I regularly remind Cabinet of the importance of these obligations, and of the associated need to ensure that Parliament is respected, that Members on all sides of the House are well informed and that the Government is able to be scrutinised effectively.

In response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report on Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code (available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/publications/), the Government made a commitment to look to update the language in Chapter 9 of the Ministerial Code, recognising the need to strike a balance between Parliament's vital constitutional role and Ministers' responsibility to keep the public informed about policy changes.

Changes to the language in the Ministerial Code would be reflected in the Guide to Parliamentary Work.

Oversight and accountability arrangements for royal finance matters have been set by Parliament in legislation. The provisions in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 subject the funding for the Monarch’s official duties to the same audit scrutiny as other government expenditure. The Sovereign Grant accounts are audited by the National Audit Office and laid before Parliament every year, and the Sovereign Grant is within scope of the National Audit Office's value‑for‑money examinations.

The Sovereign Grant Bill will be brought forward during the current session of Parliament, as part of which Hon. and Rt Hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the public finances of the Royal Family.

There are also a number of other ways Hon. and Rt Hon. Members can secure a debate on this topic, such as applying for a Westminster Hall debate.

Oversight and accountability arrangements for royal finance matters have been set by Parliament in legislation. The provisions in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 subject the funding for the Monarch’s official duties to the same audit scrutiny as other government expenditure. The Sovereign Grant accounts are audited by the National Audit Office and laid before Parliament every year, and the Sovereign Grant is within scope of the National Audit Office's value‑for‑money examinations.

The Sovereign Grant Bill will be brought forward during the current session of Parliament, as part of which Hon. and Rt Hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the public finances of the Royal Family.

There are also a number of other ways Hon. and Rt Hon. Members can secure a debate on this topic, such as applying for a Westminster Hall debate.

Any legislation made under the powers in the European Partnership Bill would be scrutinised by Parliament in the usual way.

We will work with Parliament on the arrangements for the scrutiny of any necessary legislation, and the agreement more broadly, as the negotiations progress.

The Government’s commitment to holding debates during the process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is subject to the request being made in a timely manner and parliamentary time being available.

There are of course other routes for Hon. Members to secure debates, and I note that there will be a Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday 8th July regarding the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.

The Guide to Parliamentary Work, published by my office, provides guidance for departments regarding the grouping of Oral Questions (paragraphs 80-86).

The Guide to Parliamentary Work can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work.

The information requested can be found at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk.

I announce the forthcoming parliamentary business during the Business Question every Thursday, and endeavour to provide the House with as much notice as possible regarding the scheduling of future business.

The rules and guidance on tabling questions are a matter for the House.

The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons has not incurred costs for lanyards since 4th July 2024.

The Guide to Parliamentary Work (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work), published by my office, sets out the government's position regarding the relationship between the treatment of requests for information through parliamentary questions and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000. Paragraph 221 states that “if information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to a WPQ”.

I have written to all Members of Cabinet and spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks and Permanent Secretaries to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and helpful responses to WPQs - including their obligations to disclose information in WPQs that would be released under FOI.

In addition, the House of Commons Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into WPQs which is considering the interaction between WPQs and FOIs. I look forward to working with the Committee and giving oral evidence in due course.

As I have previously said, I encourage Hon. Members to raise any specific issues they may have with myself.

Any legislation made under the powers in the European Partnership Bill will be scrutinised by Parliament in the usual way.

Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies. Individual ministers are responsible and accountable to Parliament for​ the ​Direct Ministerial Appointments they make. Members have a number of mechanisms available to them to hold Ministers to account, such as oral and written questions and correspondence.

It is a matter for individual departments to determine how to respond to parliamentary questions from Members.

The Guide to Parliamentary Work (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work), published by my office, sets out the government's position regarding the relationship between the treatment of requests for information through parliamentary questions and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000. Paragraph 221 states that “if information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to a WPQ”.

I have written to all Members of Cabinet and spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks and Permanent Secretaries to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and helpful responses to WPQs - including their obligations to disclose information in WPQs that would be released under FOI.

I continue to encourage Hon. Members to raise any specific issues they may have with myself or my office.

I refer the Hon. Member to the response provided to his question 119365.

I look forward to working with the Committee on Standards as it continues its inquiry into MPs’ employment and outside interests.

I refer the Hon. Member to paragraphs 15-18 of the Government’s submission to the Procedure Committee (WRP0015).

The quality of answers provided to Members is of equal importance to the timeliness of the response. However, the Government notes the significant and sustained increase in the volume of WPQs this session, which inevitably has an impact on the quality of the answers.

I look forward to working with the Procedure Committee as it continues its inquiry into written parliamentary questions.

The Government is always seeking to ensure that the balance is right and that we retain a robust voting system. Any changes to the voting system must be given careful consideration and should only ever be taken forwards when there is a clear consensus for change across the House.

The Procedure Committee has committed to conducting a further review of the proxy voting scheme later in the Parliament, and I would encourage the Hon. Member to engage with the Committee when it undertakes that work. Should the Committee consider the further extension of the proxy voting scheme as part of that review, the Government would give careful consideration to any recommendations from the Committee on this matter.

Parliament has a right to scrutinise Ministers, and hold the Government to account. I expect Hon. Members to receive timely and helpful responses to their questions.

I have written to all Members of Cabinet and spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks and Departmental Permanent Secretaries to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and helpful responses to parliamentary questions.

In addition, the House of Commons Procedure Committee monitors departmental performance in responding to Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs). The Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into WPQs to which the Government has provided written evidence (available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/161782/pdf/), and their sessional reporting continues to be an effective tool to hold Departments to account.

Further to the question the Hon. Member raised with me at Business Questions on 26 March, I have pursued the matter with the Cabinet Office, and have been informed that the Hon. Gentleman has received the response that he sought.

I continue to encourage Hon. Members to raise any specific issues they may have with myself or my office.

Parliament has a right to scrutinise Ministers, and hold the Government and public bodies to account. I expect Hon. Members to receive timely and helpful responses to their questions.

The House of Commons Procedure Committee monitors departmental performance in responding to Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs). The Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into WPQs to which the Government has provided written evidence (available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/161782/pdf/), and their sessional reporting continues to be an effective tool to hold Departments to account.

Further to the question the Hon. Member raised with me during the Business Question on Thursday 26 March 2026, I raised the matter with the Cabinet Office and have been informed that the Hon. Member has now received a response.

The Guide to Making Legislation makes clear that, when they are required, impact assessments should be published alongside bills. Government departments are responsible for publication of any required impact assessments.

As outlined in our manifesto, the Government is committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside of very limited exceptions, such as maintaining professional qualifications.

The Committee on Standards is currently undertaking an inquiry into MPs’ employment and outside interests, and I look forward to working with the Committee as this work progresses.

As set out in the Ministerial Code, Ministers "should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".

I have written to all Members of Cabinet and spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks and Permanent Secretaries to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and helpful responses to Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs).

In addition, the House of Commons Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into WPQs, and I look forward to working with the Committee as this work progresses.

It is a long-established precedent that internal government correspondence is not normally shared publicly.

The Government has made its decision on this case based on due process and careful consideration of the body of evidence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House of Commons (available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2026-01-29) and the detailed reasons for this decision have been placed in the House library (available at: https://depositedpapers.parliament.uk/depositedpaper/2287768/details).

There are a number of mechanisms at the disposal of Members should they wish to bring these matters forward for further debate.

No such conversations have taken place between myself and the House Authorities.

The Guide to Parliamentary Work (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work), published by my office, sets out the government's position regarding the relationship between the treatment of requests for information through parliamentary questions and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000. Paragraph 221 states that “if information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to a WPQ”.

I have written to all Members of Cabinet and spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks and Permanent Secretaries to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and helpful responses to WPQs.

In addition, the House of Commons Procedure Committee recently launched an inquiry into WPQs which is considering the interaction between WPQs and FOIs. I look forward to working with the Committee as this work progresses.

There are no current plans to review membership of the Privy Council. Information regarding membership and the arrangements for appointment to the Council is publicly available on the Privy Council Office website.

The Common Understanding is clear that where the UK Government decides to align with EU rules as part of a new agreement this will give due regard to the UK’s constitutional and Parliamentary procedures. The UK will be involved, as a sovereign nation outside of the European Union, at an early stage and contribute to the decision-shaping process of EU legal acts.

We will work with Parliament on the arrangements for the scrutiny of any necessary legislation, and the agreement more broadly, as the negotiations progress.

Parliament has a right to scrutinise Ministers, and hold the Government and public bodies to account. I expect Hon. Members to receive both timely and helpful responses to their questions.

There are a number of mechanisms available to Members such as raising concerns on the floor of the House, including with myself at the weekly Business Question, or by writing to the relevant department or public body. I would also encourage Hon. Members to speak with myself or my office to further pursue these matters.

In addition, the House of Commons Procedure Committee monitors departmental performance in responding to Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs). The Committee recently launched an inquiry into WPQs, and their sessional reporting continues to be an effective tool to hold Departments to account.

Parliament has a right to scrutinise Ministers, and hold the Government and public bodies to account. I expect Hon. Members to receive both timely and helpful responses to their questions.

There are a number of mechanisms available to Members such as raising concerns on the floor of the House, including with myself at the weekly Business Question, or by writing to the relevant department or public body. I would also encourage Hon. Members to speak with myself or my office to further pursue these matters.

In addition, the House of Commons Procedure Committee monitors departmental performance in responding to Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs). The Committee recently launched an inquiry into WPQs, and their sessional reporting continues to be an effective tool to hold Departments to account.

Effective parliamentary scrutiny of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) is vital. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG) gives Parliament the statutory right to scrutinise treaties prior to ratification, and includes the power to block ratification. Parliament must also pass legislation that may be necessary to implement a treaty.

In addition, the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee plays an important role in scrutinising the Government’s trade policy.

Taken together, the current framework facilitates robust parliamentary scrutiny of FTAs.

The Government recognises the importance of MPs responding to correspondence in a timely and consistent manner. It is for each individual MP to determine how best to perform their parliamentary duties, including the management of correspondence from constituents resident in the UK and overseas. MPs are ultimately accountable to their constituents at the ballot box.

It is a matter for individual departments to determine how to respond to parliamentary questions from Members. However, Parliament has a right to hold Ministers to account and I am committed to ensuring that Members receive full and timely responses.

I encourage hon. Members to raise any specific issues they may have with myself and my office.

The information requested is not held by the Government. Data on response times to written parliamentary questions (PQs) is published following the end of every session by the House of Commons Procedure Committee as part of their continued monitoring and reporting of departmental PQ performance.

The Government is committed to restoring a politics of service, consistent with the high standards expected of public officeholders. That is why, within a month of the election, the Government brought forward proposals to tighten the rules around MPs’ outside interests, and deliver on our manifesto commitment to ban paid advocacy. We welcome the ongoing work by the Committee on Standards to review the rules relating to MPs’ outside interests, and look forward to receiving its findings.

The information requested is not held by the Government. Data on response times to written parliamentary questions (PQs) is published following the end of every session by the House of Commons Procedure Committee.

I have written to all Members of Cabinet and spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and helpful responses to parliamentary questions.

As the Hon. Member will be aware, the Procedure Committee monitors departmental PQ performance and their sessional reporting continues to be an effective tool to hold Departments to account.

The government's position regarding the relationship between the treatment of requests for information through parliamentary questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - as set out in the Guide to Parliamentary Work - is unchanged.

Following the Point of Order from the Hon. Member, I understand the Minister for Roads and Buses has written to him on this matter. The Department for Transport has issued an apology, provided the relevant information released through an FOI request and corrected the initial Written Parliamentary Question.

More widely, I have written to all Members of Cabinet and spoken with Departmental Parliamentary Clerks to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and helpful responses to parliamentary questions.