Written evidence submitted by the Table Office, House of Commons (WRP 12)

Introduction

1. The Table Office is one of three procedural offices within the Chamber and Participation Team. It is responsible for the orderly and accurate production of the daily Order Paper and supporting Members to table parliamentary questions (oral and written), Early Day Motions, other Motions and amendments to Motions. The Office also processes applications for end of day Adjournment debates and Westminster Hall debates, provides secretariat support to the Backbench Business Committee, and provides advice to Members and colleagues on matters sub judice.
2. Historic trends on the numbers of Written Parliamentary Questions (WPQs) by parliamentary session are shown in the graphs below.[1]

3. The number of WPQs published on average per sitting day has recently reached a new high at 460.4 in the 2024-26 parliamentary session to date,[2] compared to a previous high of 456.9 in 2005-06 and against more recent lows in the 200-300 range over the past decade. These numbers do not represent the full picture, as the numbers submitted to the Table Office are much higher. The data above relates to published questions and excludes any questions that are submitted by Members and processed by the Table Office but not tabled; such questions might be deemed disorderly under the House’s rules, under active discussion with Members or their staff, or withdrawn prior to formal tabling. In such cases questions may be ‘carded’ (see later for more detail on this process).

What is the purpose and value of a Written Parliamentary Question, and what do Members of Parliament (or their staff) use them for? Has this changed over time?

4. Rules governing the purpose, form and content of WPQs have been established over many years by a combination of decisions of the House and successive Speakers. The Table Office, under the authority of the Speaker, assists Members and their staff in ensuring that their proposed questions conform to those rules. The principal rules are summarised in Chapter 22 of Erskine May and it may be time to revisit them.
5. The purpose of a WPQ is to obtain information or press for action. The right of Members to ask questions of Ministers is therefore an essential part of the process by which Parliament exercises its authority and holds the Government to account.[3] Members use WPQs in a variety of orderly ways, including:

• to obtain statistics or comparative data that is not otherwise publicly available,
• to acquire information relevant to an area of interest including constituency matters or forthcoming debates,
• to seek clarity on the Government’s policy on a specific matter,
• to press Ministers to act on an issue including by undertaking a review, legislating, taking forward discussions within Government, or making representations internationally, and
• to ask Ministers to assess the potential merits of a policy proposal.

6. WPQs are essentially a tool for Members to both conduct effective scrutiny and show, to their constituents and the wider public, that they are seeking information or action on an issue. The latter might be considered by some as a measure of parliamentary activity for a Member, albeit a one-dimensional approach when taken in isolation, and the increased accessibility of parliamentary data makes it much easier for third parties to report on such activity.[4]
7. WPQs have not been, and continue not to be, intended as a mechanism for Members to express their views or advance political arguments (although, of course, they might yield information which is useful as part of a campaign, or demonstrate that a Member is campaigning on a particular issue). This is recognised through the rules governing questions – they must not use argumentative language, for example. Members have other routes through which to convey views or make arguments, including in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, through Early Day Motions and in Select Committees.
8. WPQs are proceedings in Parliament and should only be initiated by Members themselves. Concerns about non-Member initiated questions have been noted in Procedure Committee reports going back at least as far as the early 1990s.[5]  In 2011, the Procedure Committee highlighted the “perception that some questions, especially those submitted electronically, are devised and tabled by Members' staff without always the explicit approval of Members”, concluding that this practice “reduces the significance of the process”.[6] More recently in 2017, the Procedure Committee stated that the integrity of the questions system rests on the responsible exercise by elected Members of their personal right to table questions.[7]
9. The e-tabling system, through MemberHub, gives Members the option to require that they give formal approval of each question submitted by an authorised member of their staff. Only a small number of Members have historically used this authorisation functionality. The parliamentary digital service is currently updating MemberHub to allow Members to delegate authority (fully or with a ‘Member review’ option) directly to their staff through the Hub rather than through a separate form administered by the Table Office.
10. Recent trends in the numbers of WPQs have led to press reports suggesting that Members may be using AI tools to generate questions.[8] Reports also suggest some Government departments use AI tools to generate responses.[9]

What is the interaction between Written Parliamentary Questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000? Are there any other recent changes that have impacted on the ability of MPs to gain access to the same, or similar, information via other methods?

11. Parliamentary questions were historically the principal means by which Members could obtain information to support the effective scrutiny of Government. Today, however, Members and others have access to a range of policy papers and data in accessible forms on Government webpages and, where information is not publicly available, through requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000. The Act gives a general right of access to information held by public authorities, sets out exemptions from that right and places a number of obligations on public authorities. Anyone can make a request for information under the Act but only Members, or staff acting on their behalf, can table WPQs.
12. The Government’s Guide to Parliamentary Work[10] helpfully sets out its position on the relationship between parliamentary questions and FOI. Notably, it states that “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”. It goes further, stating that “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”.
13. Members have used WPQs to seek information on departmental compliance with the approach set out in the Guide to Parliamentary Work (as above),[11] to chase responses to FOI requests they have made,[12] and to seek further information following the publication of FOI responses.[13]
14. As noted in the Procedure Committee’s 2011 report:

Despite new ways for the public to access information through Freedom of Information requests or the internet, parliamentary questions remain a unique way in which Members can ask for government information quickly, directly and in a non-bureaucratic way, in the knowledge that their request is public, that the response will be seen by a Minister and that the information provided will be published openly in a readily accessible way.[14]

15. The Committee nonetheless concluded that the role that parliamentary questions now fill may be narrower than before.

What is the purpose behind the distinction between ‘Named Day’ and ‘Ordinary’ Written Parliamentary Questions and is that distinction still necessary?

16. Members may table questions either for ‘ordinary’ written answer or for written answer on a ‘named day’.
17. Erskine May explains that in the absence of an indication to the contrary, ‘ordinary’ written questions are put down for answer on the second sitting day after the day on which they are tabled.[15] The answer will not necessarily be given on that date. The Procedure Committee’s regular assessment of performance for WPQ answering bodies considers ‘ordinary’ responses to have been provided ‘on time’ if they are provided within five working days of being tabled. This is a view endorsed by the House.[16] Given this position, the Committee may wish to consider how the House can end the pretence that ‘ordinary’ WPQs will be answered after two sitting days, for example, by formalising the requirement for a response within the expected and agreed timeframe.
18. In contrast, a Member who wishes to receive a written answer on a ‘named day’ may indicate this when tabling the notice of question provided that they do so at least three days (excluding Saturdays and Sundays) before an answer is required, and that the day named for answer is a sitting day.[17] The Procedure Committee considers ‘named day’ responses to have been provided ‘on time’ if they are provided by the specified date.
19. In theory, the purpose of having a two-track answering process for questions is to allow Members to seek urgent provision of information through a limited number of ‘named day’ questions, while permitting the Government a longer period to prepare answers to a larger number of more routine ‘ordinary’ questions. However, for the Table Office, there is no administrative distinction between the two forms of question, and it is for Members to say whether the distinction remains necessary and whether the answers they are seeking are genuinely required with greater urgency than would be possible through the ‘ordinary’ route.

Are the limits on the number of Written Parliamentary Questions that Members of Parliament can submit on any given day appropriate? Are they comparable with the rules in place in other legislatures (both within the UK and internationally)?

20. There is no limit to the number of questions for ‘ordinary’ written answer which a Member may table on a sitting day if those questions are provided in hard copy to the Table Office. Regardless of how they are tabled, a Member may table no more than five ‘named day’ questions on each sitting day. However, only 20 questions for written answer of any sort may be tabled by each Member via the e-tabling facilities on MemberHub on a given sitting day. Questions submitted over the weekend between two sitting weeks count towards the total of 20 for the following Monday.
21. At present there are probably about a dozen Members who electronically table 20 WPQs almost every day and another dozen or so that do so fairly often. The Table Office previously provided the Committee with annualised data on WPQs which showed the average number of questions tabled by Members, and the number of Members who exceed that average. That data showed that a minority of Members submit a disproportionately large number of WPQs. In the current parliamentary session to 7 September 2025, 13 Members tabled 25% (22,500) of all WPQs. Half of all WPQs were tabled by 54 Members.
22. There is no e-tabling limit on MemberHub during recess periods or for individual recess days. Questions submitted during recesses are not formally tabled until the ‘printing day’ on the last working day of recess. Therefore, a WPQ submitted on the system at the start of Summer recess in late July, would typically not be formally tabled and sent to the relevant Government department until early September, which is when the clock would start ticking for an answer.
23. The lack of a limit on e-tabling during recess was historically not something that was commonly known among, or significantly utilised by, Members and their staff, although it is apparent that awareness is rising. There has been a significant increase in the number of WPQs tabled during recesses in the current parliamentary session. During the 2025 summer recess, eight Members tabled over 100 questions each, one of whom tabled more than 1,000 questions.

24. During the Summer and Conference recesses in 2025, for the first time, the volume of questions submitted by Members exceeded the capacity of the Table Office to process those questions during the recess period. The backlog of questions was processed during the sitting days and weeks that followed those recesses and the questions tabled on subsequent dates. The Committee may wish to consider whether the lack of limit on e-tabling during recesses remains appropriate.
25. Hard copy questions are rare but on occasion a Member, or staff acting on their behalf, may table several hundred on a single day. Where this occurs, it is helpful if the Member also provides a supplementary electronic copy so that Table Office staff do not have to re-key all the text when they manually input them into MemberHub (see further commentary below in relation to internal processes). Any potential changes to limits on e-tabling during recess, as discussed above, many in time have a knock-on impact on Member interest in tabling in hard copy as long as there remains no limit.
26. In terms of comparative limits elsewhere:

• Regardless of the method of tabling, the House of Lords limits peers to six written questions on any one day and a maximum of 12 per sitting week. Questions submitted during recess count towards the limit on the first sitting day back which is when they are tabled.
• Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are able to table five written questions per sitting day either electronically or in hard copy and they cannot table questions during recesses.
• The Scottish Parliament has no limit on the number of written questions that Members can table during sitting days or recesses.
• The Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru) only accepts questions through its electronic portal. It has no limit on the number of written questions that Members can table during sitting days; there is a five question per week limit during Christmas, Easter and Summer recesses but no limit during other shorter recesses.

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?

27. Hard copy questions can be received in the Table Office for tabling on a given sitting day up to the rise of the House. In contrast, MemberHub is accessible to Members 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to submit questions (capped at 20 per sitting day, as above). However, there is a deadline set each sitting day for WPQs submitted through MemberHub. Questions submitted after 6.30pm on a sitting Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, 5.30pm on a sitting Thursday or 2.30pm on a Friday are deemed to have been tabled the following sitting day. These timings have not changed[18] since they were introduced on a pilot basis in 2011 and put on a permanent footing in 2012.[19] The Procedure Committee may wish to consider whether the deadlines remain appropriate. Earlier e-tabling cut-off times would, for example, enable the office to process that day’s questions during core working hours when more staff are available thus leaving the smaller evening shift team to focus on the Order Paper and other business-critical activity.
28. Managing questions which have been tabled electronically is easier in some ways than when questions are tabled in hard copy.  It avoids the need to re-type text and reduces the need for staff to carry papers between the Lower Table Office (behind the Speaker’s Chair) and the Upper Table Office on the third floor where most of the team are based. For all users of the electronic system, it is more convenient and accessible, easier to keep track of questions as they are processed, published, carded or withdrawn, and the historic information accessible through the system is useful reference material. Hard copy questions have to be signed by the Member personally, whereas staff can submit questions on MemberHub on behalf of a Member with little or no direct Member involvement unless a Member proactively chooses to review and authorise their questions. In practice, hard copy questions are manually inputted into MemberHub and further processed electronically.
29. Once questions are submitted Table Office staff process them on the same day if it is a sitting day, and on or before ‘printing day’ if they are submitted over a recess. Only on one occasion (which occurred in this parliamentary session) has the Office been unable, due to capacity constraints, to process all questions submitted on a given sitting day. As set out above, backlogs of questions to process have also become a feature in recent recesses.
30. When processing questions, a majority can be tabled as submitted or with minor edits without the need to go back to the submitter. If a question does not conform with the House’s rules of order, or if the meaning is unclear and is not easily remedied by minor editing by the Clerks, a ‘card’ notification will be sent through the e-tabling system to the submitter’s parliamentary email account (as well as to the Member if the submitter is a member of staff). The ‘card’ will provide a very brief reason setting out why a discussion is needed or what further information might be required, and where possible it will suggest a redraft of the question. ‘Carding’ is essentially an invitation for the Member, or staff acting on their behalf, to call the Table Office to discuss and resolve the issue so the question can be swiftly tabled or, if necessary, withdrawn.
31. The Table Office’s most productive card conversations are with Members themselves. The professional skillset of a Clerk is to advise Members on how to undertake effective scrutiny within the frameworks set by the House. Conversations with Members directly about their aims and the best ways to achieve them tend to contribute to lasting understanding of the rules of order and their purpose. E-mail exchanges can be a much more labour-intensive way of resolving both relatively straightforward queries and more complex issues than conversations, whether in person or on the telephone.
32. Processing WPQs involves ensuring the questions conform with the rules of order set by the House.[20] In response to rising WPQ numbers and capacity constraints, the Table Office has recently moved towards a lighter-touch editing of WPQs. This includes fewer stylistic changes which were previously designed to give all WPQs a uniform appearance, for example, in relation to capitalisation, lists, numbers and date references. The Office has also reduced detailed checks on duplicate questions and the extent to which information sought is readily available. It has also sought to reduce ‘card’ notifications for more minor queries regarding factual basis, neutral language and ministerial responsibility. These changes have helped to speed up the rate at which questions can be processed and reduce the number of card conversations. Alongside this there has been a drive to engage more with Members and their staff through conversations on the phone and in person rather than in long email exchanges.
33. On a very small number of occasions, there have been prolonged and time-consuming email conversations with Members’ staffers about the detail of questions.  Where such prolonged exchanges do not resolve issues in a timely way the Table Office has said that it needs to deal directly with the Member concerned.  This is in a small minority of cases, but the Table Office would appreciate the endorsement of the Committee for this approach.
34. The approach to editing and processing questions will continue to evolve, including through the use of AI tools. The parliamentary digital service is currently developing a semantic search tool to better help identify duplicate questions, and discussions continue about whether an editing tool might help with stylistic changes. Any AI tools would ideally be integrated into the EQM system, which sits behind MemberHub and is the system that the Office uses to process and publish questions. EQM is not without its challenges. It is a dated system, there is a backlog of fixes required and it can be inefficient, for example, end of day publishing of questions can be very slow. The Table Office is working with the parliamentary digital service to address these issues.
35. The cost of processing WPQs is difficult to quantify because officials interpose work on questions with other responsibilities in the office. As set out above, the Office is responsible for a wide range of functions, most importantly the orderly and accurate production of the daily Order Paper without which the House could not properly conduct its core business. Alongside working on the Order Paper and WPQs, the Office administers the shuffle for Oral Questions, supports Members with the drafting of those questions, including reviewing dozens of party ‘handouts’ ahead of shuffle deadlines. There is work on ensuring motions, including Early Day Motions, are orderly, handling applications for end of day Adjournment debates and Westminster Hall debates, and supporting the Backbench Business Committee. The Office also provides day-to-day support for Clerks in the Chamber and provides advice on matters sub judice.

Are the processes and procedures for processing and dealing with Written Parliamentary Questions in Departments working effectively and efficiently? What impact, if any, have these processes and procedures had on the quality and content of responses?

36. In general, there is good coordination between the Table Office and departments on the logistical handling of WPQs. However, we would welcome clearer advice from Government on departmental responsibilities which would help minimise the number of transfers of questions between departments. A better shared understanding of the rules of order relating to ‘blocks’ on questions would also be welcome.
37. It is worth noting that in 2012 the Government estimated that that the average cost of answering a written question was £164.[21] The Cabinet Office’s Guide to Parliamentary Work sets out the advisory cost limit known as the disproportionate cost threshold which is the level above which departments can decide not to answer a written question. The current disproportionate cost threshold is £850.
38. It would not be appropriate for us to comment on the quality of answers.

January 2026