Procedure Committee

The Committee scrutinised the operation of written parliamentary questions (WPQs), focusing on rising volumes, duplicate questions, recess tabling, cut-off times, carding, factual basis requirements, departmental transfers and blocks, and the distinction between approving questions and answering them. The Table Office witnesses said the system is under strain and needs a long-term rethink about purpose and sustainability, rather than resourcing alone. They indicated support for earlier eQM deadlines, clearer Government communication on blocks, and possible Committee/House decisions on recess limits, while stressing that any rule changes are ultimately for the House. They also confirmed that the Table Office does not judge ministerial answers, but can help Members pursue dissatisfied answers through other parliamentary tools.

This session of the Procedure Committee on 2026-06-03 examined the Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) system. Witnesses, mainly backbench MPs from across parties, stressed WPQs as a crucial tool for rapid ministerial responses, constituent-casework, and holding the Government to account, while also highlighting systemic strains: high volumes burdening Clerks/Table Office, inconsistent Departmental responses, and the need for more resources and process tweaks (e.g., recess handling). Witnesses called for targeted improvements rather than restricting MPs’ use, with broad discussion of AI usage, staff workloads, and governance of carding and pre-approval of questions. The session identified potential government-commitment signals around resource allocation to support WPQs, and a push for clearer, more consistent handling across Departments, including during recess.

The Procedure Committee examined how written parliamentary questions (WPQs) and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests interact, highlighting differences in regimes, overlaps, and potential reforms. Expert witnesses from academia, journalism and civil society outlined the distinct purposes of WPQs and FOI, and called for a conversion mechanism to allow an appeal route for WPQs like FOI. The Information Commissioner’s Office described FOI’s appeal pathway and rising volumes, while Cabinet Office officials explained cross-government FOI coordination, performance standards (including a 90% timeliness target) and the current limits on Minister sign‑off. The session also explored the impact of AI on FOI queries and information transparency, and MPs’ use of FOI alongside WPQs.

In the 22 April 2026 Procedure Committee evidence session, MPs questioned two opposition witnesses about written parliamentary questions (WPQs), the Table Office’s handling of WPQs, and the impact of question volume on departmental work. The witnesses pressed for clearer rules and more scope to ask questions, cautioned against over-burdening the Table Office, highlighted delays in government responses and the resulting proliferation of WPQs and FOIs, and urged greater transparency and public education about WPQs. They also proposed mechanisms such as department-league tables to incentivise timely replies and called for clarifying the public-duty basis for information disclosure.

This session scrutinised how Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) operate within the UK Parliament, focusing on usage by opposition MPs, the role of staff via MemberHub, and the relationship between WPQs and FOI requests. Key issues raised include: WPQs are a fundamental tool to hold the Government to account and to understand policy and spending; questions about staff input via MemberHub and the responsibility of MPs; concerns that some Departments respond via FOI after avoiding WPQs, which some witnesses view as improper; quality and speed of responses; the growing WPQ volume driven by new Parliament, political controversy, and easier submission through technology; debates over named-day vs ordinary WPQs and the potential holding-answers transparency; the potential and limits of AI in drafting WPQs; and calls for reforms (e.g., reintroducing holding-answer identification). There was no formal HM Government commitment stated; witnesses advocated for reforms to improve openness, accountability, and the efficiency of the WPQ system.

This session analysed the sub judice resolution in the House of Commons. The Attorney General Keith Lord Hermer set out the constitutional basis for the sub judice rule as balancing Parliament’s right to discuss matters with the judiciary’s independence and fair-trial protections. Key government-position signals include (i) maintaining a single standard across Houses, (ii) considering waivers via Speaker guidance to improve transparency while avoiding rigidity, (iii) potential exemptions for ministerial decisions and certain arm’s-length bodies, (iv) starting the sub judice timeline from arrest (with caveats) to better protect trials, and (v) recognising greater risk to fair trials in jury cases. The evidence also highlights the rare role of the Attorney General in advising Parliament, the nuanced distinction between sub judice and contempt of court, and that waivers near sentencing are being used judiciously. The Committee is invited to consider whether Speaker guidance should be published, how to bucket arm’s-length bodies for exemption, and whether the arrest-start rule should be finalised by final judgment.