Written evidence submitted by Tom Badham (Senior Parliamentary Assistant at Max Wilkinson MP) (WRP 08)

We are becoming increasingly frustrated with the table office’s restrictions on our ability to submit written questions when scrutinising the government’s policies.

For example, I recently submitted a question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment his Department has made on the deliverability of the Cheltenham Tewkesbury and Gloucester Strategic Local Plan in the event that junction 10 of the M5 is not upgraded in line with the approved DCO. This was carded, and the table office notes said “(a) questions should not be based on hypothetical future events (" in the event that...") and (b) presumably the local plan is the responsibility of the local authority, rather than the Government?”.

This supposes that government policy will not have knock-on effects, in this case the ability of a local authority to implement its local plan, which in turn is a requirement placed on local authorities by central government. If the government cannot be asked to assess the impact of its policies before they are implemented, there is limited scope for MPs to raise serious concerns about how these changes might impact their constituencies.

After rewording the question, the following was accepted: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment his Department has made of the importance of the upgrade to junction 10 of the M5 to the Cheltenham Tewkesbury and Gloucester Strategic Local Plan.

In both instances, the government will have to evaluate the impact to the local plan of a hypothetical future event. However, the second draft was accepted whereas the first was not. This brings me to a second issue with written parliamentary questions – the subjectivity of the table office. I have had past instances whereupon calling the table office, they have disagreed with their colleague’s reason for carding a question and have allowed it through without changes. It cannot be acceptable that the standard for submitting written questions is vague enough that different staff in the table office reach different conclusions, or that successfully submitting written questions relies on the luck of who is processing them that day. A clearer set of standards must be in place to clarify what is acceptable and what is not.

Finally, I wanted to touch on the ability to scrutinise manifesto claims through written questions. Manifestos form the bedrock of a government’s mandate, but MPs are unable to scrutinise Minister’s decisions which contradict or significantly diverge from these policies. This shields ministers from scrutiny and puts backbench and opposition MPs at a disadvantage. It also incentivises unrealistic campaign promises which in turn further erodes trust in government, and politics more widely. It is understandable that things change after general elections, but being able to make reference to manifesto promises through written questions is a common-sense function of written questions and would go some way in restoring trust and enhancing democratic accountability.

January 2026