Written evidence submitted by Policy@Manchester (WRP 10)

This submission has been authored by Policy@Manchester – The University of Manchester’s policy engagement unit. We connect our researchers with policymakers and influencers, nurture long-term policy engagement relationships, and seek to enhance understanding of pressing policy challenges with academic evidence.

As part of our work, we provide written parliamentary questions (WPQ) for MPs and Peers to further the policy impact of academic research. Our experiences submitting questions are referenced in response to the below question. We would be happy to follow up with the Procedure Committee with examples and case studies of the experiences listed below.

Are the internal House of Commons processes and procedures for processing and dealing with Written Parliamentary Questions working effectively and efficiently? What changes, if any, may be needed to drive improvements?

Inconsistencies in question formatting

• References to academic research – including the names of academics or references to The University of Manchester – are sometimes removed. However, in other instances references to the research are kept in.
• We have had confirmation from several MPs’ offices that questions were submitted with references kept in. This is leading us to believe that the Table Office has inconsistent approaches to approving questions. The lack of consistency around the permissible formatting of questions is making it difficult to structure questions in a way that is conducive to achieving policy impact but also appropriate for parliamentary procedure.
• A comprehensive and transparent insight into question structure would be particularly welcomed. We have previously sought advice and feedback about WPQ structure through MPs offices and have been given different responses about their understanding of an appropriate WPQ, such as length of question and requirements for referencing research, which even when embedded into new question structure has still been rejected by the Table Office. We would appreciate greater transparency between the Table Office and Parliament’s Knowledge Exchange Unit to progress academic evidence into Parliament.

Recording impact

• The UK is a world leader in research, with a number of universities in the top 100 research intensive institutes globally. Our research expertise can support and signpost parliamentarians to deliver the policy solutions needed to address national and international challenges. However, when references to academic research are removed from WPQs it disincentivises academics away from the policy engagement process. This results in fewer academics presenting their work as part of the parliamentary process, and fewer experts engaging with MPs.
• Parliamentarians, including responding Ministers and Departments, will receive fewer important details pertaining to academic research when questions are heavily sub-edited. We believe it is vital that government can be made aware of leading researchers, the availability of robust academic evidence, and public access research where this supports the overall objective of a WPQ. This would allow for more comprehensive and considered responses to WPQs which can inform policy direction and further parliamentary engagement.
• Removing references to academic contributions limits the ability for academics to demonstrate research impact, particularly when referencing policy engagement in research bids, evidencing policy impact to research funders including government bodies, and hindering contributions towards national and institutional rankings, which are vital in demonstrating our research excellence.

January 2026