Written Parliamentary Questions vs the FOI Act: are Labour ministers ignoring the Ministerial Code?

In this blog post I raise doubts about whether answers from UK Government ministers to written questions in Parliament are consistent with information disclosed in response to FOI requests, with an example related to artworks removed from Downing Street following last year's general election.

Written Parliamentary Questions

Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) are a procedure in the UK Parliament that allows MPs and peers to ask for information on the work, policy and activities of Government departments, related bodies, and the administration of Parliament. Questions are submitted through Table Offices in the Commons or Lords.

Questions and answers are published and searchable on the UK Parliament website. In general, Government departments respond to WPQs more quickly than they do to FOI requests for equivalent information.

Answers are drafted by civil servants – sometimes using AI software – but signed off by, and published in the name of, Government ministers.

Rules on the relationship between WPQs and the Freedom of Information Act

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is clear in its guidance that Parliamentary Questions are "part of parliamentary proceedings and must not be treated as requests for information under FOIA (or under the EIR); to do so would infringe parliamentary privilege." Section 34 of the FOI Act provides an exemption for information if its disclosure would infringe parliamentary privilege.

But the Guide to Parliamentary Work, published for the benefit of civil servants by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons and Cabinet Office, establishes an expectation that answers to WPQs should be consistent with information given under the FOI Act:

221. Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given under the FOI Act, therefore, if information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to a WPQ/QWA. There may sometimes be cases where Ministers decide that the importance of parliamentary accountability means that information which might otherwise be subject to a FOI exemption is given in a WPQ response. If there appears to be a conflict between the requirement to be as open as possible and the requirement to protect information whose disclosure would not be in the public interest, you should consult your FOI liaison officer if necessary.

222. Ministers should be advised of any relevant FOI cases under consideration when answering written questions, and it should be revealed if information being released is of a sort not normally disclosed.

223. If information is not disclosed, or fully disclosed, the draft answer should make this clear and explain the reasons in terms similar to those in the FOI Act (without resorting to explicit reference to the Act itself). For example:

"The release of information would prejudice commercial interests"

This principle is referenced more generally in the Ministerial Code, which sets out the standards of conduct expected of Government ministers and how they discharge their duties:

c. It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.

d. Ministerial office requires candour and openness. Ministers should demand and welcome candid advice. They 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 which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Ministers should be open and candid with public inquiries.

But are ministers and their departments actually following these rules?

The quality of answers to WPQs

I follow the publication of WPQs quite closely and have noticed that answers from the current Government often seem to be evasive, off topic, and in some cases just ignore what seems to be a straightforward request for information. See for example this non-responsive answer from Cabinet Office to an MP's request for a list of FOI and EIR requests received since 2024.

This is a subjective view, of course – it's debatable whether the quality of answers is worse than under previous Governments. But I note that in January the Leader of the House, Lucy Powell MP, said she had "written to all members of Cabinet to remind Ministers of their responsibilities to provide helpful and timely responses to Members' PQs and correspondence."

Powell has refused to publish that letter to ministers. Similarly, a Cabinet Office minister has refused to publish her Department's internal guidance on answering written Parliamentary Questions.

Questions in Parliament about artworks removed from Downing Street

Over the past several months there has been a spate of written questions from Conservative MPs and peers for information about Government Art Collection (GAC) artworks removed from Downing Street following last summer's general election.

The GAC displays works of art in British government buildings in the UK and around the world, and is managed by the UK Government's Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS). Works in the collection are listed on the GAC's website, with details about the artists and, in most cases, the current location of each work.

It's unclear why Tory backbenchers were interested in this subject, but there was some media attention to changes in artworks at Downing Street in the autumn (Guardian, Telegraph, Standard) and it may be they were hoping to make some kind of "culture war" point out of differences in the selection of art displayed at Downing Street under the new Labour Government.

In any case, in late November a Tory MP asked for the reference numbers are of GAC works that had been removed from 11 Downing Street since the general election. DCMS minister Chris Bryant duly answered with a list of GAC Inventory references, which can be used to look up the artworks on the GAC website. All well and good. I have provided the list in Appendix 1 below.

But the following month, when two Tory MPs and a Lord asked for equivalent references to artworks removed from 10 Downing Street and 12 Downing Street, the Government refused to disclose the information. DCMS minister Chris Bryant answered:

No. It is standard practice, as followed by the previous government, for new ministers to select works from the Government Art Collection for their ministerial offices. All such changes of displays of works from the Government Art Collection constitute 'business as usual' for the Collection. All artworks in the Government Art Collection are on the website and their present locations can readily be searched and identified. The Collection does not publish the history of the locations of artworks.

(11 Downing Street is the official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though in recent history the flat there has often been occupied by the Prime Minister and their family – because it is larger than the flat at 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister's own official residence. 12 Downing Street is effectively an extension of 10 Downing Street.)

FOI request for the same information

It was difficult to imagine what basis DCMS had for withholding this information. The minister simply seemed to be saying "we don't do that".

So in January I submitted an information request to DCMS, using the form of words from an unsuccessful WPQ submitted by Baroness Finn in December:

Please provide a list of the reference numbers of Government Art Collection works that have been removed from 10 and 12 Downing Street since the last general election; and a list of the reference numbers of works that are scheduled to be removed.

DCMS responded to me last week. Although the Department took more than 40 working days to respond, it disclosed the requested information under FOI without applying any exemptions:

We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I can confirm that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does have information within scope of your request. Please view the attached spreadsheet.

I have provided the list of removed artworks in Appendix 2 below.

At the same time, DCMS responded to another FOI request on WhatDoTheyKnow by disclosing a list of artworks removed from 9, 10, 11, and 12 Downing Street. (The applicant has asked for an internal review on the basis that DCMS's response failed to distinguish between artworks removed from the different addresses.)

WPQs vs FOI

We have here a clear example of a case in which Government ministers have refused to disclose information in Parliament and failed to make that decision in accordance the Freedom of Information Act 2000, contrary to expectations in the Ministerial Code.

In this case, the information itself is not very important. But the inconsistency suggests weaknesses in the WPQ procedure and room for improvement in aligning Government answers with principles for transparency and open government.

There are a couple of trade-offs that may account for this problem. Civil servants who draft responses to WPQs are expected to respond more swiftly than teams that normally handle FOI requests, and they may not be trained to the same standard.

Ministers may also be inclined to push back on requests for information received as WPQs, even when there is no basis for withholding the information, if the requests are from members of opposing parties or from backbenchers who they perceive as antagonists. Unlike FOI, the WPQs procedure is probably not "applicant-blind". MPs and peers who submit questions via the WPQ procedure may get quicker answers, but if they don't like those answers they do not have recourse to the same statutory complaint process available to FOI applicants.

Appendix 1: GAC artworks removed from 11 Downing Street

Written Parliamentary Question UIN 16604, tabled on 27 November 2024:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what the reference numbers are of Government Art Collection works that have been removed from 11 Downing Street since the general election; and what the reference numbers are of works that are scheduled to be removed.

Answered on 4 December 2024:

GAC artworks removed from 11 Downing Street since the General Election can be found in the table below. In some cases, artworks have been removed from No.11 as they have been committed as loans to public exhibitions at other museums or galleries.

The disclosure was a list of GAC Inventory references – I have added the links and other information in the table below.

Appendix 2: GAC artworks removed from 10 and 12 Downing Street

Information request submitted to DCMS on 7 January 2025:

Please provide a list of the reference numbers of Government Art Collection works that have been removed from 10 and 12 Downing Street since the last general election; and a list of the reference numbers of works that are scheduled to be removed.

Response received on 12 March 2025:

We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I can confirm that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does have information within scope of your request. Please view the attached spreadsheet.

The disclosed spreadsheet contained the list of artworks in the table below. I have added links to the GAC pages. (The first artwork on the list does not appear on the GAC site – possibly it has been sold.)