Written evidence submitted by: Hleb Buziuk, Independent policy researcher and human rights advocate (WRP 01)

Executive Summary

  1. This submission responds to the Procedure Committee’s call for evidence on Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs). Written Parliamentary Questions are formal questions submitted by Members of Parliament that must receive a written ministerial answer and are published as part of the parliamentary record.[5]
     
  2. WPQs remain a core mechanism for MPs to obtain detailed information, create an authoritative public record and scrutinise government policy and administration. Use has grown significantly over time, with around 30,000 written questions in 2014-15 and an estimated 56,000 to central government in 2023.[2][4][7] WPQs have proved particularly important when other routes for scrutiny are constrained, including during the Covid-19 pandemic.
     
  3.  

Indicator

Approx. value

Source

WPQs 2014-15

~30,000

IfG [7]

WPQs 2023

~56,000

mySociety / HoC Library [4]

FOI requests 2023

~70,000

mySociety [4]

Quantitative WPQs with “information not held”

~25%

Centre for Public Data [9]

  1. The relationship between WPQs and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is central to the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government has previously accepted that information should not be refused in answer to a WPQ if it would be disclosed under FOI.[1] Evidence suggests that in some cases FOI produces more complete information than WPQs and that there is no formal appeal mechanism for unsatisfactory WPQ answers, unlike FOI.[1][4]
     
  2. The distinction between Named Day and Ordinary WPQs remains useful for signalling urgency. However, its value depends on departments meeting deadlines with substantive answers. Recent performance data show that, although most departments meet timeliness benchmarks, some fall significantly short on Named Day questions.[1][3]
     
  3. The House of Commons currently imposes a quota of five Named Day questions per Member per sitting day, with no formal limit on the number of Ordinary written questions, although the electronic system has a daily limit and the Table Office encourages manageable batches.[1][5][6] Other legislatures, including the House of Lords, apply explicit caps. The Committee’s 2009 report argued against hard caps for Ordinary WPQs, but rising volumes and the ease of electronic tabling may justify revisiting how very high volumes are managed.[1][8]
     
  4. Internal House procedures, including the role of the Table Office, e-tabling and online publication of questions and answers, are broadly effective and have improved transparency. The main weaknesses in the present system lie in departmental processes, where performance varies between departments and a substantial share of quantitative questions receive “information not held” or similar responses.[1][3][9]
     
  5. Recommendations focus on reaffirming FOI parity in WPQ answers, enforcing timely and substantive responses to Named Day questions, managing high volumes through guidance and, if appropriate, moderate limits, sustaining and modernising House support, strengthening departmental accountability for timeliness and quality, and encouraging proactive publication of frequently requested information.

About the Submitter

  1. I am an independent policy researcher and human rights advocate specialising in government transparency, access to information and institutional accountability. My work frequently relies on information disclosed through parliamentary mechanisms, including Written Parliamentary Questions, as well as FOI requests and official statistics.
     
  2. I submit this evidence in a personal capacity. I have no financial or organisational interest in the outcome of this inquiry. My aim is to assist the Committee in identifying proportionate reforms that strengthen parliamentary scrutiny while recognising practical constraints on the House service and government departments.

Context and Background

  1. Written Parliamentary Questions are one of the main instruments by which MPs obtain information and press ministers for action. Questions and answers are parliamentary proceedings, protected by privilege, and answers are published on the parliamentary website and in Hansard.[5][8]
     
  2. The Committee has launched this inquiry in response to concerns about the quality and timeliness of answers, the strain placed on the system by rising numbers of questions, and the interaction between WPQs and FOIA. These concerns echo themes identified in the Committee’s 2009 report and in subsequent monitoring of departmental performance.[1][3]
     
  3. Use of WPQs has increased over time. In 2014-15 around 30,000 written questions were tabled in the Commons.[7] In 2023 MPs submitted an estimated 56,000 WPQs to central government, alongside about 70,000 FOI requests.[4] During June 2020, at the height of Covid-19 procedural restrictions, 7,005 WPQs were asked in a single month, the highest monthly total in a decade, as MPs relied more heavily on written questions when other routes, such as Westminster Hall debates, were suspended.[2][7]
     
  4. Current Commons rules allow Members to table up to five Named Day written questions per sitting day. There is no formal limit on the number of Ordinary written questions, although the e-tabling system restricts the number that can be submitted electronically each day and the Table Office advises Members to use other sources where information is already available.[1][5][6]
     
  5. Departments are expected to answer Ordinary WPQs within a working week and Named Day WPQs on the date specified, with an expectation that at least 85 per cent of answers will be on time.[1][3] Recent monitoring shows overall improvement in timeliness when the number of questions falls, but continued variation between departments, and separate analysis suggests that many quantitative questions receive “information not held” type responses.[3][9]

Evidence on Terms of Reference Question 1

Purpose and value of Written Parliamentary Questions and how this has changed over time

  1. The core purposes of Written Parliamentary Questions are to obtain information and to press ministers for action. The House’s guidance describes parliamentary questions as a means by which MPs seek information or pursue issues with ministers, and stresses that they should be used responsibly and in accordance with House rules.[5]
     
  2. WPQs are particularly valuable for securing detailed factual or statistical information that is not easily accessible elsewhere, for putting specific issues on the record, and for following up constituency cases that reveal systemic problems. They complement oral questions and select committee work by allowing highly specific or technical questions that would not fit within a short oral question slot.
     
  3. Their value has increased as expectations of transparency and data-driven scrutiny have grown. Analysis by the Centre for Public Data indicates that around 20 per cent of Commons WPQs in recent years have been quantitative questions asking “how many” or “how much”, often seeking breakdowns by region, year or category.[9] MPs use these answers to scrutinise the evidence base for policy and the implementation of public services.
     
  4. Patterns of use have also evolved. WPQ volumes rose through the 1990s and 2000s, prompting the Committee’s 2009 review, then fluctuated with changes in parliamentary composition. During the coalition government there was a relative fall in numbers, but the Institute for Government anticipated that volumes would rise again under majority government, which has proved accurate.[1][7]
     
  5. The Commons Library has documented how WPQ numbers surged during Covid-19 when other routes were restricted. MPs used WPQs intensively to obtain timely information on rapidly changing policy and operational decisions.[2] This illustrates how WPQs can act as a flexible safeguard for scrutiny when other mechanisms are constrained.
     
  6. Concerns that some WPQs may be trivial or duplicative are longstanding. The 2009 report noted that what appears unimportant to some may be significant to the Member or their constituents and concluded that decisions about whether to table a question should rest primarily with MPs, subject to general rules on order and relevance.[1] That conclusion remains important, but it reinforces the need for supporting processes that can manage higher volumes and encourage efficient use without restricting Members’ rights.

Evidence on Terms of Reference Question 2

Interaction between WPQs and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and other routes to information

  1. Written Parliamentary Questions and FOIA provide overlapping but distinct routes to information. WPQs are grounded in constitutional convention and enforce ministerial accountability to Parliament. FOIA creates a statutory right of access to information for any person, enforceable through the Information Commissioner and the tribunals.[1][4]
     
  2. The Committee’s 2009 report recommended that information should not be refused in answer to a WPQ if it would be disclosed under FOI. The Government accepted this principle, recognising that treating MPs less favourably than FOI requesters would undermine the primacy of Parliament in scrutiny.[1] Guidance to ministers and officials also emphasises that ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and should withhold information only where disclosure would not be in the public interest.[1][4][8]
     
  3. In practice there remain concerns that FOI requests sometimes yield fuller information than WPQs. Analysis by mySociety in 2025 highlighted cases where information that was not provided in response to a WPQ was later disclosed under FOI, and concluded that in some circumstances FOI can be a more reliable route to certain types of information.[4] These cases may be exceptions, but they suggest that the FOI parity principle is not yet fully realised in practice.
     
  4. A structural difference is that FOIA provides a formal appeal route through internal review and the Information Commissioner, whereas there is no equivalent mechanism for WPQs. An MP who receives an unsatisfactory answer can table further questions, raise the matter with the Leader of the House, or draw it to the attention of this Committee, but there is no external adjudicator with power to require a different answer.[1][4][8]
     
  5. At the same time, FOI cannot substitute for WPQs. WPQ answers are given by ministers and form part of the parliamentary record. They carry constitutional weight and are automatically published. FOI requests can be made to a wider range of public bodies, but responses are not themselves parliamentary proceedings and do not guarantee ministerial accountability in the House.
     
  6. Other developments have affected access to information. Departments publish more data proactively, and MPs can draw on the House of Commons Library and other research services before deciding whether to table a question. Good practice guidance for MPs’ staff advises checking existing sources first and then using WPQs where needed for specific, up to date information or for placing matters on the record.[2][5][6]
     
  7. In light of the evidence in paragraphs 21 to 26, the key questions for the Committee are whether Government practice consistently reflects the FOI parity principle and whether there is value in strengthening internal parliamentary mechanisms to challenge refusals or incomplete answers, without altering the legal framework of FOIA.

Evidence on Terms of Reference Question 3

Purpose and ongoing necessity of the distinction between Named Day and Ordinary WPQs

  1. The distinction between Named Day and Ordinary WPQs is intended to differentiate questions that require a rapid response from those that can be answered within normal timescales. MPs may table up to five Named Day questions per sitting day, specifying a future sitting day for answer. Ordinary WPQs have no specified date but are expected to be answered within a working week.[1][5][6][8]
     
  2. The 2009 Procedure Committee report stated that Named Day questions should receive a substantive answer on the date named except in exceptional circumstances, reflecting the need for timely information where an issue is particularly urgent.[1] In practice, ministers sometimes provide holding answers on the named day and follow up later with a full response. Used sparingly for complex questions, this is understandable, but frequent use of holding answers weakens the distinction.
     
  3. Recent performance data show that while many departments meet deadlines for Named Day questions, others do not. In 2023-24, 88 per cent of Named Day questions were answered on time across government, but some departments fell significantly below the benchmark on this measure and attracted critical correspondence from the Committee.[3]
     
  4. The existence of a Named Day category, combined with a daily quota, encourages MPs to signal which questions they regard as most time-sensitive and to exercise some prioritisation. It also allows departments to triage their workload, focusing first on questions that have explicit deadlines. This is particularly useful where questions relate to imminent debates, decisions or public events.
     
  5. Some legislatures do not have a Named Day mechanism and instead apply a single deadline for all written questions. For example, the Scottish Parliament expects answers to written questions within ten working days in most circumstances and does not distinguish between types of written question. In the House of Lords members may table only a limited number of written questions per week, with an expectation of answers within fourteen days.[8][10][11]
     
  6. The evidence in paragraphs 28 to 32 suggests that the concept of Named Day questions remains valuable and that the main problems lie in inconsistent departmental compliance rather than in the principle itself. The Committee may wish to focus on reinforcing expectations and holding departments to account for performance, rather than abolishing the distinction.

Evidence on Terms of Reference Question 4

Appropriateness of limits on the number of WPQs and comparisons with other legislatures

  1. The House of Commons places a formal limit of five Named Day written questions per Member per sitting day. There is no absolute limit on the total number of Ordinary written questions that may be tabled, although the electronic system restricts the number that can be submitted online each day and the Table Office encourages Members to submit questions in manageable batches and to avoid questions where information is already publicly available.[1][5][6]
     
  2. In practice, individual Members can table a large number of Ordinary WPQs by combining electronic submission with questions handed in at the Table Office or sent by post. This reflects the House’s historic reluctance to restrict Members’ rights to seek information. The 2009 Procedure Committee concluded that no cap should be introduced on Ordinary WPQs, emphasising that Members are accountable to their constituents and should be free to decide how best to use questions.[1]
     
  3. Against this backdrop, high volumes from a small number of Members can place disproportionate strain on parliamentary and departmental resources. The average number of WPQs per sitting day has been in the low hundreds in recent years, and peaks in volume have coincided with increased pressure on departments and, in some cases, slower response times.[2][3][7]
     
  4. Other legislatures adopt more explicit limits. In the House of Lords, members may table up to six written questions per day and no more than twelve per week, with an expectation that answers will be provided within fourteen days.[8][10] The Scottish Parliament does not limit the number of written questions an MSP may lodge but operates with fewer members and a fixed ten day answer period.[11] Some other Westminster-style parliaments limit the number of written questions that can stand in the name of a member at any one time.[7]
     
  5. Arguments against introducing strict caps in the Commons include the risk of constraining legitimate scrutiny where an issue requires a series of related questions, the possibility that Members could work around limits by coordinating questions, and the principle that MPs should determine their own priorities. At the same time, there is a legitimate concern about fairness and burden if a small number of Members are responsible for a very large share of questions.
     
  6. In light of the evidence in paragraphs 34 to 38, the Committee may wish to examine options for managing very high volumes without undermining scrutiny. These might include clearer guidance on responsible use, greater transparency about volumes by Member, and, if the Committee judges it necessary, moderate daily or weekly limits set at a level that would not affect normal practice for most Members but would constrain extreme cases, with scope for justified exceptions. Any such change would mark a departure from the 2009 position and would require careful consideration of the effects on scrutiny.

Evidence on Terms of Reference Question 5

Effectiveness of House of Commons processes for handling WPQs

  1. Internal Commons processes for handling WPQs include scrutiny by the Table Office to ensure questions are in order, time limits and procedures for tabling, allocation of questions to departments, and publication of questions and answers. These processes have been modernised through use of electronic systems and an online Questions and Answers database.[1][2][7]
     
  2. The Table Office plays a key role in maintaining standards and helping Members frame questions that comply with House rules. It can advise against questions that are repetitive, seek information readily available elsewhere or breach rules on sub judice, opinions or argument. Guidance and external advice to MPs’ staff stress the importance of checking existing sources, including the House of Commons Library, before tabling a question.[5][6]
     
  3. The 2009 Procedure Committee recommended strengthening the resources of the Table Office in light of rising question volumes and introducing cut-off times for e-tabling to avoid late-night peaks in workload.[1] These changes have helped smooth the handling of questions and support a sustainable workload for clerks.
     
  4. There is little evidence of systemic failure on the House side. Occasional issues, such as a question being misallocated between departments, have been reported but appear rare.[7] The main continuing challenges are maintaining service quality under high volumes, ensuring that guidance remains clear and accessible, and making full use of technology to reduce duplication and error.
     
  5. The House has taken steps to enhance transparency and oversight, including online publication of performance data on departmental answering times and this Committee’s reports on WPQ performance.[1][3] These initiatives strengthen parliamentary control over the system and allow Members and the public to monitor departmental compliance.
     
  6. Overall, the evidence in paragraphs 40 to 44 suggests that Commons processes for WPQs are broadly effective, but that the House should keep under review the resourcing of the Table Office and associated teams and explore further digital enhancements, especially if question volumes rise again to levels seen in June 2020.

Evidence on Terms of Reference Question 6

Effectiveness of departmental processes and impact on response quality and content

  1. Within departments, WPQs are handled through parliamentary teams that log incoming questions, distribute them to policy officials, coordinate drafting and secure ministerial clearance before returning answers to Parliament.[8] The quality and timeliness of answers depend on the efficiency of these internal processes, the availability of data and the priority given to parliamentary work by ministers and senior officials.
     
  2. The Procedure Committee and the Government publish statistics on timeliness. Recent data show improved overall performance following a reduction in the number of questions, but significant variation between departments remains. Some departments consistently meet or exceed the 85 per cent on-time benchmark for Ordinary and Named Day questions, while others have fallen well short, particularly on Named Day questions, prompting correspondence and commitments to improve internal processes.[1][3]
     
  3. The quality of answers is harder to measure but is a central concern. MPs and researchers have highlighted examples where answers do not fully address the question, rely heavily on references to previous statements or provide minimal information. Cabinet Office guidance to officials on drafting answers cautions against technically accurate but misleading replies and stresses the need to respond directly to the question asked.[1][8]
     
  4. Systematic analysis of WPQs by the Centre for Public Data has highlighted concerns about data availability. In a dataset of around 200,000 Commons WPQs asked between December 2019 and February 2023, approximately 25 per cent of quantitative questions received an answer indicating that the information was not available, with some large departments reporting such responses for a third or more of their quantitative WPQs.[9] This suggests that in important policy areas either data are not collected in the form requested or there are significant obstacles to retrieving them.
     
  5. In many cases it will be genuinely disproportionate or impossible to provide certain data, and it is appropriate for departments to say so. However, the high rate of “information not held” responses in some policy areas raises questions about whether some data gaps are compatible with effective policy-making and scrutiny. Where Parliament repeatedly seeks information that departments say they do not hold, there may be a case for reviewing data collection practices.[9]
     
  6. Parliament already exerts some pressure for improvement. Poor departmental performance is highlighted in Committee reports and can be raised with the Leader of the House during business questions.[1][3][8] In at least one recent case a department with weak timeliness performance acknowledged the problem and set out process improvements, including internal guidance and training for officials, in response to Committee concerns.[3]
     
  7. In light of the evidence in paragraphs 46 to 51, there is scope to strengthen incentives and support for good practice. Enhanced training for officials, clearer ministerial expectations and more systematic follow up on unsatisfactory answers could help improve both the timeliness and content of replies, without imposing unrealistic burdens where data genuinely do not exist.

Recommendations

  1. Reaffirm FOI parity in WPQ answers. In light of paragraphs 21 to 27 and the Committee’s 2009 conclusions, the Government should publicly restate the principle that information will not be withheld in answer to a WPQ if it would be released under FOIA. Departments should be reminded that FOI and WPQs ought to produce consistent outcomes in similar circumstances.[1][4]
     
  2. Strengthen mechanisms for reviewing unsatisfactory answers. Building on the discussion in paragraphs 23 to 27, the Committee could invite Members to notify it of answers that appear not to address the question or that seem inconsistent with FOI outcomes. The Committee could then raise these cases with departments, providing a limited internal review mechanism tailored to parliamentary proceedings and distinct from FOI appeals.[1][4]
     
  3. Maintain the distinction between Named Day and Ordinary questions but enforce timely, substantive responses. In light of paragraphs 28 to 33 and previous Committee recommendations, departments should be expected to provide substantive answers to Named Day questions on the date specified, using holding answers only where strictly necessary and accompanied by a clear explanation and target date for a full reply. The Leader of the House and this Committee should continue to monitor and challenge poor performance on Named Day questions.[1][3]
     
  4. Manage high volumes of WPQs without undermining scrutiny. Drawing on the evidence in paragraphs 34 to 39 and mindful of the 2009 position, the Committee may wish to explore options such as clearer guidance on responsible use, increased transparency about volumes by Member, and, if considered necessary, moderate daily or weekly limits set at a level that would not affect normal practice for most Members but would constrain extreme cases, with provision for exceptions. Any such change would need to balance scrutiny needs and administrative capacity.[1][5][6][8]
     
  5. Sustain and modernise Commons administrative and digital support. In light of paragraphs 40 to 45, the House should keep under review the resourcing of the Table Office and related teams and consider further enhancements to e-tabling and the Questions and Answers database, including better search functions and tools to help Members avoid duplicating recent questions.[1][2][7] Enhanced search and topic clustering could help Members avoid duplication and identify existing answers before tabling new questions.
     
  6. Strengthen departmental accountability for WPQ performance. Building on paragraphs 46 to 52, the Committee should continue to publish comparative performance data and, where necessary, take oral evidence from departments with persistent problems. The Government should reinforce in the Ministerial Code and departmental guidance that answering WPQs fully and promptly is a core ministerial responsibility.[1][3][8]
     
  7. Address data gaps highlighted by WPQ responses. As suggested in paragraphs 49 and 50, the Government should review areas where departments frequently state that information is not held in response to WPQs on significant policy matters. Where feasible and proportionate, departments should be encouraged to develop data collection or reporting systems that enable them to answer such questions, thereby supporting evidence-based policy and scrutiny.[9]
     
  8. Encourage proactive publication to reduce unnecessary WPQs. Given the pattern of repeated questions and frequent “information not held” responses described above, and informed by paragraphs 12 to 14 and 49 to 50, the Government should use analysis of WPQ topics to identify information that is frequently requested and consider publishing it on a regular basis. This would reduce the need for repeated questions and improve efficiency for both Parliament and departments.[2][7][9]

Committee may wish to ask…

  1. To the Cabinet Office and departmental ministers: How do departments ensure that WPQ answers are at least as informative as FOI responses on the same subject, and how is adherence to the FOI parity principle monitored in practice?
     
  2. To departmental ministers: What internal guidance and training do you provide to officials drafting WPQ answers, and how do you assure yourself that answers are timely, accurate and complete?
     
  3. To the Leader of the House: Do you consider that the current absence of a formal appeal mechanism for WPQs is satisfactory, and would you support a strengthened role for the Procedure Committee in reviewing unsatisfactory answers identified by Members?
     
  4. To the Cabinet Office: What assessment have you made of the impact of high WPQ volumes on departmental resources, and what options have you considered for managing very high volumes while preserving effective scrutiny?
     
  5. To the House authorities: Are current resources and digital tools for the Table Office and the Questions and Answers database sufficient to manage a renewed increase in WPQ volumes comparable to the June 2020 peak?
     
  6. To departmental ministers: In policy areas where departments frequently respond that data are not held, what steps, if any, are being taken to improve data collection so that future parliamentary questions can be answered more fully?

Risks and Further Work

  1. There is a risk that focusing narrowly on numerical limits could lead to reforms that constrain Members’ ability to scrutinise the Government without significantly improving timeliness or quality of answers. Any consideration of caps should therefore be accompanied by analysis of how scrutiny could be preserved, including through consolidated questions and proactive publication.
     
  2. Another risk is that reforms to departmental processes may be treated as low priority compared with other pressures, resulting in limited implementation. The Committee’s continued monitoring and public reporting on departmental performance, and the involvement of the Leader of the House, can help maintain attention on departments with persistent problems.
     
  3. The evidence base on some comparative questions remains incomplete. More systematic cross-jurisdictional research into how other parliaments handle written questions, including limits, deadlines and review mechanisms, would assist future reviews. The Committee may wish to invite the House of Commons Library or an external body to undertake such research.
     
  4. Further analysis could also be undertaken on patterns of WPQ usage by subject, department and Member, including how far repeated questions reflect gaps in proactive publication or underlying data problems. This would support more targeted recommendations on transparency and data collection.
     
  5. If procedural changes are implemented, there is a risk of unintended consequences, such as shifting pressure from WPQs to other channels or creating new incentives for strategic behaviour by departments or Members. The Committee may wish to recommend that any significant change be reviewed after an appropriate period, such as two Sessions, to assess its impact on scrutiny and workload.

November 2025

References

[1] House of Commons Procedure Committee, Written Parliamentary Questions, HC 859, 2008-09. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmproced/859/859.pdf

[2] House of Commons Library, Christopher Watson, Written Parliamentary Questions: The June peak, Insight, 15 July 2020. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/written-parliamentary-questions-the-june-peak/

[3] Tevye Markson, Departments get better at responding to parliamentary questions on time, Civil Service World, 14 January 2025. Available at: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/parliamentary-questions-departments-improve-performance-procedure-committee-report

[4] mySociety, When MPs and Peers should use FOI rather than Parliamentary Questions, 1 July 2025. Available at: https://www.mysociety.org/2025/07/01/when-mps-peers-should-use-foi-rather-than-parliamentary-questions/

[5] House of Commons Information Office, Parliamentary Questions, Factsheet P1 / Brief Guide (archived). Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/guides/factsheets/procedure/p01/

[6] Working for an MP (w4mp), Campaigning: Parliamentary Questions (PQs), online guidance for MPs’ staff. Available at: https://w4mp.org/w4mp-guides/guides-to-parliament/parliamentary-questions-pqs/

[7] Institute for Government, Emily Andrews, Minding their PQs, 8 December 2015. Available at: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/minding-their-pqs

[8] Cabinet Office, Alexander Bellis, Minding your Ps and Qs, Civil Service Blog, 31 August 2021. Available at: https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2021/08/31/minding-your-ps-and-qs/

[9] Centre for Public Data, What are the questions MPs ask that do not get answered?, Missing Numbers blog, 28 February 2024. Available at: https://missingnumbers.org/using-parliamentary-questions-to-spot-data-gaps/

[10] UK Parliament, Written questions and answers, guidance on written questions and answers in the House of Lords (and Commons), including limits and answer times. Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/written-answers/

[11] Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, Guidance on Parliamentary Questions and related guidance on written questions, including lodging rules and answer deadlines (for example, Guidance on Parliamentary Questions and Standing Orders Chapter 13). Available at:
https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/parliament-rules-and-guidance/guidance-on-parliamentary-questions and
https://www.parliament.scot/about/how-parliament-works/parliament-rules-and-guidance/standing-orders/chapter-13-statements-and-parliamentary-questions