Written evidence submitted by HM Opposition (WRP 14)

I am writing on behalf of the Shadow Frontbench Cabinet Office team with a submission for the Committee’s review. This review is timely, given growing concerns amongst Parliamentary colleagues on the manner in which the current Government is responding to Parliamentary Questions, and concerns in relation to the Commons’ internal practices. This response incorporates feedback from a number of Parliamentary colleagues, across a number of shadow teams.

This submission is structured across the following questions the Committee asked:

a)        The purpose and value of a Written Parliamentary Question.

b)        Limits on the number of Written Parliamentary Questions.

c)        Internal House of Commons processes and procedures.

d)        Quality and content of Government responses.

e)        Interaction between Written Parliamentary Questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The purpose and value of a Written Parliamentary Question

As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, the Conservative Parliamentary Party uses written questions to hold the Government to account in both the Commons and the Lords:

• To find out information about emerging Government policy, or the detail of current Government policy and practice.
• To scrutinise the spending of taxpayers’ money and the impact of regulation.
• To call for action for the Government to make changes to policy or practice.
• To obtain facts and figures for use in oral debates and contributions. The Opposition does not have access to the Civil Service. The support of the House of Commons Library is invaluable, but the Library itself is dependent on answers to Parliamentary Questions in its briefings.
• To assist the shadow policy development of HM Opposition.
• To facilitate political and media campaigning against government policies which we deem not to be in the public or national interest, and campaigning for alternative policies which we deem are in the public or national interest.
• To support Opposition amendments to Government legislation.

Written Parliamentary Questions are essential to the democratic process. Vigorous use of questions is a sign of robust democratic accountability, and not a weakness. They complement the verbal scrutiny and robust exchanges in oral Parliamentary Questions.

The Government has claimed that Parliamentary Questions ‘cost’ £142 a question, and has sought to turn this into a total monetary cost per Member.[1] However, the £142 figure is an average cost, not the marginal cost of tabling a further question. We would refute the suggestion that there would be fewer civil servants if fewer written questions were tabled, given the fixed costs of operating a system of Parliamentary Questions. Moreover, exposing government waste and inefficiency ultimately saves taxpayers’ money.

It has been recently suggested by the Government that MPs and their offices are using AI to write questions.[2] The Shadow team does not use AI to write questions.

However, it should be noted that it is the current Government which has developed the “Parlex” AI tool to assist civil servants with “Parliamentary intelligence”, including analysing past written questions via AI. In that context, it is odd that the Government is throwing stones about the use of AI.[3] Instead, our written questions are drafted on the basis of internal research, in response to oral and written contributions, following Parliamentary casework, and further to media reports and wider public debate.

Limits on the number of Written Parliamentary Questions

At present, there is an e-tabling limit in the Commons of 20 question a day during session. There is no limit on questions tabled in recess, albeit they are not laid until the House returns. There is notionally no limit on hard copy questions. However, the Table Office has unilaterally started to refuse larger volumes of hard copy questions. We feel that this change should not have been made without recourse to Standing Orders.

The twenty e-limit is arbitrary. We would suggest that there should be greater flexibility to submit more, provided that larger numbers are done before an earlier cut-off point in the working day, to help the Table Office process them in time for the next sitting day.

Internal House of Commons processes and procedures

In this section, we outline our concerns about the internal practices of the Table Office. Too many questions are blocked from being tabled – or, in the language of the Table Office, “carded”. Questions are blocked even after attempts by MPs and their staff to clarify or improve the wording of the drafted questions, by email or in person.

Whilst we note that correspondence with the Table Office is normally confidential, we believe it is in the public interest that the Procedure Committee has practical examples of such internal discussions. Where we cite Table Office correspondence, we have anonymised the tabling Member and the Table Office staff member. We hope that our comments on administrative practice are taken in a constructive spirit, and that no personal criticism is made of Commons staff who serve the House ably and with commitment.

Numbers of questions being carded

There has been a significant rise in this Parliament in the number of “carded” questions by the Commons Table Office. One in five of all questions tabled by MPs are now carded.[4] This is alarming.

Such numbers rose towards the end of the 2019-2024 Parliament – the percentage of carded questions has risen from 11 per cent in Session 58/1, 7 per cent in Session 58/2, to 14 per cent in 58/3, 21 per cent in 58/4, to then to 19 per cent in 59/1. The overall number of submitted questions has not changed that dramatically.[5]

Factual basis

It is entirely understandable when questions are carded for blatant breaches of Erskine May (for example, questions which are sub judice). But we have found that the most frequent carding is “basis”, with the Table Office demanding to have a factual source for why the question should be asked in the first place.[6]

We understand that strategic steer may have been given to the Table Office last year that “the fact that a Member is asking the question at all usually indicates that they have some factual grounds for it, and we should only be querying questions for factual basis is something looks plain wrong”. Yet that steer has not been adopted.

Often, a question is blocked on the grounds that the supplementary factual context is insufficient and the question is “speculative”. Yet, by definition, a question should be asked precisely because a MP does not know the answer, and since they want to know whether or not something is the case. If a MP already knew the information, and the information was public domain, then the question would be inadmissible due to being “readily available”.

For example, we wished to ask whether the Government had made changes to its milestones or missions outlined in the December 2024 Plan for Change, following the Prime Minister’s phase two ‘reset.’ The Table Office refused on grounds that “please provide basis that the Government’s missions may have changed.” We could not provide definitive basis over and above the reset, as that would know the answer to the question. As it turned out, the Government has now downgraded the Mission Boards within Government, and they are no longer Cabinet sub-Committees.

There have even been situations where Table Office has demanded basis, this has then been further researched by our staff with great time and effort, and the Table Office has then refused the question on grounds of the further basis being evidence of the answer being “readily available”.

For example: we asked if a Memorandum of Understanding was available. A department replied that it did not publish commercially sensitive documents. A follow-up question was drafted seeking to ask if such documents had been released under the Freedom of Information Act (as we had received a tip off that they had). The Table Office asserted that: “your question has been queried because basis is required – if you know that it has been, then the information is readily available to you. Without basis, the Government’s previous answer, seems to be clear that the Department does not publish commercially sensitive contract documents”. Yet, sometimes, part of the purpose of a Question is to get a statement or fact on the official record. Pushing departments to state their position on the record is an essential tool in holding government to account.

As another example, we wished to ask if the “whether the Prime Minister’s new economic adviser, Baroness Shafik, will be remunerated.” The Table Office refused as: “This question appears to be speculative. Please provide basis for your question.”

We provided additional internal information to the Table Office, and pointed to the No10 press release on her announcement, and noted that many of HM Treasury’s Council of Economic Advisers are paid. The Table Office replied: “the links you have provided answer your question for you. The link you have provided states that Economic Advisers are paid, therefore Baroness Shafik as an economic adviser will be paid. You would need basis that a different arrangement is in place for you.” But we did not know that for sure, either way. There is a basis that she might be paid, but Table Office asserted that a question could not be tabled to confirm.

It is notable Ministers continues to dodge questions on this specific remuneration issue (which we were only able to pursue by virtue of further questions in the Lords[7]). The Government clearly appears to have something to hide: but the Commons Table Office is not facilitating reasonable scrutiny.

The Table Office is also arbitrary in what it accepts as sources of basis. It will frequently refuse to allow anything mentioned in media reports. Yet this leads to the ridiculous situation that the Government will brief announcements to the media, but MPs cannot ask written questions about those announcements. The Speaker allows for oral and urgent questions to asked on such media briefing, but the Table Office blocks written questions. If the purpose of Parliamentary Questions is to hold the Government to account, it is detrimental to that scrutiny to assert that a media report is not sufficient basis to ask a question. Such obstruction is particularly unhelpful in light of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s report into Government practices of sidelining Parliament when briefing the media; that Committee noted the use of urgent questions in then holding the Government to account. [8] But we would add that written questions have their role too.

As an example of reasonable sources being refused, we sought to ask Ministers: “whether TheCityUK has made representations to the Home Office on China’s classification in the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.” This followed press reports on the topic. The Table Office asked for basis. We provided links to City UK’s own website, what stated: “we responded to the Home Office’s request for feedback on draft guidance [on the foreign influence scheme]”. The Table Office replied: “CityUK’s website is not adequate basis for stating something as fact in parliamentary questions.” Again, the Table Office is demanding a standard of proof which is manifestly unreasonable. Moreover, our question did not assert ‘fact’ – it also asked “whether” representations had been made.

Basis is also required to prove when something is not the case. We sought to ask a follow-up question to the Spending Review in June 2025, and whether the Government’s stated commitment to reduce travel costs would apply to Ministerial travel. The Table Office blocked the question on grounds that “basis is required that would it not”. We provided previous written answers from 2024 where Ministers defended the cost of Ministerial travel and asserted it was necessary. Yet the Table Office refused to allow the question about the scope of the new 2025 policy.

Past precedent is also often not allowed as basis. We looked to ask “what communications have representatives of Downing Street have had with Elon Musk since July 2024.” The Table Office replied: “Your question has been queried because please provide basis for such communications”.

We provided links and sources of the last Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak) engaging with Mr Musk, and Mr Musk’s comments on his own Twitter/X on the current Prime Minister and Government. This question was refused by the Table Office replied: “The previous PM having had discussions with Elon Musk is not basis that the current administration has had discussions. It is also unclear why the Government would have a policy on how it speaks to an individual. Erskine May is very clear that PQs cannot be used to ask speculative questions.” The question was not asking for the policy on dealing with Mr Musk – it was asking ‘whether’ there had been communications. Such a restrictive interpretation on a “speculative” question is unhelpful to Parliamentary scrutiny.

Government blocks

A question may not be re-asked within three months. However, Table Office has interpreted this to refuse questions being tabled where the Government is evasive. The Table Office (not Ministers) has created a regime of “Government blocks”, asserting that certain topics cannot be asked, because the Government has not previously answered a question.

For example, the Government has spuriously asserted on occasions that “we do not comment on individuals” (a point we critically address later in this submission). On that basis, the Table Office often seeks to block other questions being tabled which ask any senior official, including the most senior special advisers and Permanent Secretaries. This is creating rules that seem to go well beyond Erskine May.

Whilst we accept Erskine May’s rules are to avoid repetition of the same question within three months, it should not be interpreted to say other questions must be refused. It should be for the Minister to decide whether or not there is a public interest basis for refusing such a question.

In turn, this leads to a ‘cat and mouse’ game of wording questions in different ways to try to avoid a ‘Government block’. This leads to indirect questions and more questions having to be tabled to ask a basic question of Government.

Readily available

The Table Office also exerts considerable time researching topics, coming up with its own inferred answers, and asserting to MPs that they cannot table the question as the information is “readily available.” The Table Office is often wrong in its research, as they do not necessarily understand the policy detail. If the information is genuinely available, it would be open to the Minister to reply with a relevant reference or hyperlink to the requested information, as set out in the Cabinet Office Guide to Parliamentary Work.[9]

Circumstances may change, and an answer may not be obvious from published data. As the Procedure Committee noted in 2009: “while information may be available, it may not always be easy to find or interpret. For example, Members may require a single nugget of information concealed within a lengthy and complex publication of statistics.”[10]

The Table Office gold-plates the definition of “readily” available to block requests for information which is not actually reasonably accessible. The Information Commissioner provides guidance on the definition of what is ‘reasonably’ accessible under the Section 21 exemption of the Freedom of Information Act,[11] but the Table Office takes a far more restrictive view.

Ministerial responsibilities

The Table Office will card questions if they believe it is outside a departmental or Ministerial responsibility. Certainly, it is reasonable that Minsters are not responsible for strictly party political matters (e.g. the actions of the Labour Party). But the Table Office takes an overly-restrictive approach, having blocked questions on matters such as:

• the approach on whether Ministers intend to publish their tax returns on gov.uk, following previous tax returns being published.
• Whether, as a matter of fact, Ministers crossed a picket line outside their department during a strike.
• how they have met their Ministerial Code obligations, such as reporting hospitality and gifts.

Lords vs Commons

The Commons Table Office now operates de facto rules which are far more restrictive than the Lords Table Office, without an obvious basis for doing so in Erskine May compared to the guidance in the Companion to the Standing Orders.[12]

Of course, both Houses are separate and have their own exclusive cognisance. But it has now reached the point that Commons Shadow teams have to ask colleagues in the Lords to table questions which the Commons Table Office unreasonably refuse. Such questions still receive a substantive answer from Lords Ministers when tabled. If the Lords answer needs following up, our MPs are generally then able to use the Lords answer as a hook for a pursuant in the Commons, which the Commons Table Office will tend to let through. But the Commons Table Office could just let through the question in the first place.

As examples of questions refused in the Commons but allowed by the Lords Table Office:

“To ask His Majesty’s Government whether Cabinet Office ministers worked on site at 70 Whitehall during the industrial action by the Public and Commercial Services Union from 3 to 13 February.”[13]

Commons Table Office comment: “Your question has been queried because it does not engage Departmental responsibilities. The Department does not have a policy on crossing the picket line and would be a decision for individual ministers. Questions should be about subjects on which Ministers are responsible to Parliament.”

We would note: It is directly related to Ministers’ work to ask a Minister whether they will enter their Ministerial workplace during a departmental strike to undertake their Ministerial duties.

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of the United States of America, including the US Embassy in London, relating to the proposed Chinese Embassy development at the Royal Mint in London.”[14]

Table Office comment: “Your question has been queried because it is subject to a block by Government.”

We would note: This was not asking MHCLG about the merits of the quasi-judicial planning application. It was asking about FCDO meetings with the US Government, and FCDO was not a decision-maker on the planning application. This illustrates how a refusal to one question is gold-plated to become a “government block” on separate questions.

“To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the speech delivered by the Prime Minister at the Cambridgeshire Police headquarters on 10 April was written in whole or in part by (1) special advisers, (2) permanent civil servants, or (3) the 10 Downing Street political office.”[15]

Table Office comment: “Your question has been queried because the Secretary of State is responsible for all actions and decisions taken by their Department, so this question is not orderly as drafted.”

We would note: Special advisers and civil servants are not allowed to engage in party political campaigning according to Civil Service guidance. The Cabinet Secretary had stated in correspondence this 10 April press conference was a party political event. It is reasonable to ask if that guidance was being followed. Ministers are directly responsible for the actions of their special advisers and instructions given to civil servants.

“To ask His Majesty’s Government, with regard to Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality: Publication Guidance, published on 30 January, whether ministerial gifts and hospitality which were accepted and subsequently reimbursed or repaid to the donor by (1) the Prime Minister, (2) the Deputy Prime Minister, (3) the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are (a) included, or (b) omitted, from the Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality.”[16]

Table Office comment: “Your question has been queried because this information, and all information about gifts and hospitality received by Ministers, is held here: <gov.uk link to register>.”

We would note: How does one know if information on returned freebies has been omitted –

in the absence of published information on the gov.uk register? Omitted information is not readily available.

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy on the use of leverage tactics by trade unions during industrial disputes; and what assessment they have made of the impact of repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 on the frequency of the use of leverage tactics.”[17]

Table Office comment: “Your question has been queried because it does not engage Government responsibilities – it is not orderly to seek the views of Ministers on matters for which it is not responsible. This is a matter for trade unions.”

We would note: The Trade Union Act 2016 was drawn up the Conservative Government to stop leverage tactics, following a government review by Bruce Carr QC. The legal regulation of trade unions is a DBT responsibility. The repeal of the 2016 Act is Labour Government policy.

In some of these answers above, Lords Ministers continue to evade the question. But we would suggest that is not for the Table Office to pre-empt, by blocking the tabling of the questions in the Commons in the first place. These were all reasonable questions to ask as part of a process of Parliamentary scrutiny.

The Procedure Committee may wish to reflect on whether it is right that Members of the elected Chamber have, in effect, weaker powers of scrutiny than members of the Lords.

Burden on the Table Office

The Table Office complains that there is a significant burden on its staff. But a significant part of workload is created by itself. The Table Office allows for a limited email exchange on carded questions in session, but often, will then demand that the Member, or their staff, comes in after “protracted exchanges”. Or it may on occasion, “super-card” question asking for an oral discussion without an email exchange.

This creates even more work for both sides. If the Table Office did not gold-plate the provisions of Erskine May, carded fewer questions, and let Ministers justify their answers, it would have more time and resource. The Table Office’s practices also drive the tabling of more questions to sidestep arbitrary blocks. We would propose there should be clearer guidance by the Speaker, or in Erskine May, or in supplementary guidance.

These carding discussions are often with Members’ staff and the Table Office. Staff have accepted training by the Table Office. They may be occasions when the wording of the question could be improved for clarity: we are not suggesting that all carding is inappropriate. But what we have shown here is an increase in carding that goes beyond Erskine May, and is a barrier to effective Parliamentary scrutiny of the executive by the legislature.

Quality and content of Government responses

In this section, we outline the lamentable state of many Government answers to Parliamentary Questions.

We would assert that the quality and content has declined compared to previous Administrations. Conservative Ministers may have added political context to their answers[18], but they more commonly would provide the requested information, or else provide a public interest justification for refusal.

Whilst there may be justifiable reasons not to disclose information, this Government increasingly does not even bother to provide public interest arguments to justify non-disclosure of requested information.

The Cabinet Office is the worst offender. This includes questions relating to the Prime Minister – which are always transferred to the Cabinet Office. Whilst we do not criticise such transfers in itself, the Prime Minister effectively leads by bad example in poor quality and unhelpful answers to Parliamentary Questions, contrary to the provisions of his own Ministerial Code.[19]

Such poor answers a significant cause in any increase in tabled Parliamentary Questions. MPs have to table multiple pursuants to try to tease out information from Ministers. If departments actually followed the guidance in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Parliamentary Work, there would actually be a reduction in the need for so many Parliamentary Questions.

The principles of accountability

Section 1.6(d) of the Ministerial Code states:

“d. Ministerial office requires candour and openness. Ministers should demand and welcome candid advice. They should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Ministers should be open and candid with public inquiries.”[20]

The Ministerial Code reflects the extant Resolution on Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, passed in both Houses in 1997:

“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute, and the government’s Code of Practice on Access to Government Information”.[21]

This Resolution was passed following the Scott Inquiry and the Arms to Iraq affair, and the assertion that answers to Parliamentary Questions had misled Parliament.

Decades later, the Committee of Privileges in June 2023 found the former Prime Minister guilty of misleading the House. It noted that: “The House will also be understanding if a Minister declines to answer, for example, on matters which relate to national security or market sensitivity. But misleading intentionally or recklessly, refusing to answer legitimate questions, or failing to correct misleading statements, impedes or frustrates the functioning of the House and is a contempt” (p.10, emphasis added).

It also ruled that the Hon. Member was “deliberately disingenuous when he tried to reinterpret his statements to the House to avoid their plain meaning and reframe the clear impression that he intended to give” (p.6).[22] The Clerk of the Journals advised the Privileges Committee that intentionally misleading would include acts “to deceive by giving incorrect information or a false impression (of a situation, etc.); to delude or misinform”.[23]

Below, we have grouped the different types of poor answer, showing how such principles are being routinely disregarded by Labour Ministers.

No plans to publish this information

When asked to publish specific documents or place them in the Library, Ministers simply reply there are “no plans” to publish such documents. No attempt is given to provide a rationale or public interest justification, as required by the Ministerial Code.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the guidance issued to departments referenced in the letter from the Paymaster General to the Institute for Government of 14 October 2025. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are no plans to publish this guidance.”[24]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the Government Communications Service Inclusive communications template. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are currently no plans to publish this template.”[25]

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the correspondence from the Permanent Secretary to his Department to the Hon Member for Thirsk & Malton of 24 November 2025. 

Anna Turley: There are no plans to publish this correspondence.”[26]

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 21 October 2025 to Question 82673 on Government Departments: Social Media, how much has been spent on the two agencies for influencer work since July 2024. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are no plans to publish specific financial details in the public domain.”3

“John Glen: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 31 July 2024 to Question 1208 on Government Communication Service, if he will place a copy of the audit in the House of Commons Library that (a) redacts the names of junior civil servants, (b) uses pseudonymisation or (c) uses anonymisation as necessary to ensure that individuals cannot be identified.

Georgia Gould: No, there are currently no plans to do this.”[27]

“John Glen: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 16 September 2024 to Question 4649 on Members: Correspondence, and with reference to the letter from the Cabinet Secretary to the Rt hon. Member for Salisbury, dated 12 September 2024, if he will place a copy of the induction training guidance for special advisers referenced in that letter in the House of Commons Library.

Georgia Gould: There are no plans to place a copy of induction training guidance into the House of Commons Library.”[28]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 10 January 2025, to Question 20957 on Government departments: communication and public consultation, if she will list the (a) Department, (b) theme and (c) estimated saving of each of the campaigns (i) that were cancelled, (ii) continuing with reduced budgets and (iii) aiming to reduce their expenditure by 25%.

Georgina Gould: There are currently no plans to publish this list in detail. The comprehensive communications Spending Review identified 39 campaigns that were cancelled, 46 campaigns continuing with reduced budgets and 46 campaigns aiming to reduce their expenditure by 25%. The combined savings from these measures total £85 million in 2024-25 and up to £96 million in 2025-26.”[29]

The fact that many of these questions are pursuants illustrates how Government evasiveness forces more questions to be tabled to try to pin down some form of substantive answer.

Not subject to external publication

Related to “no plans to publish” is a spurious justification that a request for information is “not subject to external publication”. Combined with the actions of the Table Office in blocking questions which they deem to be readily available, this leads to the situation where MPs effectively (i) cannot obtain documents which are not externally published, and (ii) cannot ask for documents which are externally published.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will place in the Library a copy of any correspondence between his Department and the Commissioner for Public Appointments relating to public appointments without open and fair competition since 1 July 2024. 

Justin Madders: Under the Governance Code for Public Appointments there is no requirement to publish correspondence between the Department and the Commissioner for Public Appointments.”[30]

Documents may be refused because they are “internal-facing”.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the Civil Service Recruitment Framework. 

Anna Turley: The Civil Service Recruitment Framework exists to ensure vacancies are consistently accessible to the widest possible pool of talent. There are no plans to publish this internal-facing framework to the public domain, as it constitutes HR-to-HR guidance designed for departments to integrate into their respective policies and processes.”[31]

When pressed for a copy of a terms of reference of a committee, Ministers refused on the grounds that a Cabinet Office code did not “require” publication. On this basis, no question would ever be answered unless there was a Government Code requiring publication.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the Cabinet Office Annual report and accounts 2024-2025, HC1372, 23 October 2025, if he will publish the terms of reference of the Staff Board. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The Staff Board serves in an advisory capacity to the Executive Committee and is not a mandatory component of the Corporate Governance Code. Its Terms of Reference are not subject to external publication.”[32]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 26 November 2025 to Question 92016 on Civil Service: Management, for what reason the Terms of Reference are not subject to external publication. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The Corporate governance in central government departments: code of good practice (2017) does not require publication of board and committee Terms of Reference.”[33]

The fact that such information has not been previously pro-actively published by past governments in transparency data is deemed to be grounds for a refusal to answer a Parliamentary Question in the absence of published data. This frustrates the key principles of Parliamentary scrutiny: it should not be for the executive to codify what can and cannot be asked.

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 10 October 2025 to Question 70573 on 10 Downing Street: Official Hospitality, whether the transparency return for official receptions in July to September 2025 will list the cost to the public purse of the 31 July reception for content creators. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Official receptions in 10 Downing Street are hosted by Ministers across Government, with details published as part of the Government’s transparency returns. The cost of hospitality in 10 Downing Street is included in the Cabinet Office Annual Report and Accounts. There are no plans to update inherited guidance in order to provide a breakdown of costs for individual receptions. The approach is in line and follows that of the previous administrations, which did not publish the information in this way.”[34]

The Government deliberately conflates two different concepts: (a) Government policy on pro-active transparency on gov.uk, and (b) Parliamentary policy on answering Parliamentary Questions where information is not readily available.

Information is refused because it is not “routinely” published.

Information can be denied because there is no “routine” publication – taking the denials a step further, in requiring regular publication (rather than ad hoc) to justify disclosure to Parliament.

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to page 139 of the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts 2024-25, published on 23 October 2025, if he will provide a breakdown of the expenditure, including for individual fixtures and fittings, for the (a) refurbishment and (b) furnishing of the empty Downing Street flat; and if he will name which was empty flat.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: As was the case under successive administrations, an itemised list is not routinely published.”[35]

The idea that information can be refused from publication to Parliament because it is not published is a circular argument of obfuscation.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the Model Contract for Senior Civil Servants. 

Anna Turley: Contracts for SCS are not published publicly, so we will not be publishing a model contract.”[36]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled Civil Service staff networks to only meet outside working hours and have all events signed off by senior managers, published on 23 September 2025 if he will place in the Library a copy of the new guidance on diversity networks. 

Anna Turley: The Staff Network Policy is an internal Civil Service staff policy. It is not in the public domain and as such a copy will not be placed in the Library.”[37]

Ministers have even just asserted that the information “will not be published” or “are not published”. No public interest reason is given.

“David Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 5 November 2025, to Question 86426, on Asylum: Housing, If she will publish a copy of the pre-procurement documentation sent to potential suppliers of asylum accommodation for the next round of contracts. 

Alex Norris: The pre-procurement documentation for the Future Asylum Contract Transformation Project will not be published.”[38]

“Richard Holden: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, pursuant to the Answer of 17 June 2025 to Question 58273 on DESNZ: Aviation, if he will publish details of his domestic travel since 5 July 2024.

Michael Shanks: Details of internal domestic flights are not published.”[39]

When pressed for a public interest argument for the approach of non-disclosure, Ministers are unable to provide one.

“Lord Jackson of Peterborough: To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office on 4 November (HC85501) and Lord True on 23 April 2021 (HL14191), and with regard to paragraph 1.6(d) of the Ministerial Code, what is the public interest argument for not releasing details to Parliament of public spending on the Downing Street flats. 

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent: As was the case under successive administrations, an itemised list is not routinely published. Total expenditure from the Prime Minister’s allowance on their official residence is disclosed in the Cabinet Office Annual Report and Accounts.”[40]

The final question is a Lords answer as the Commons Table Office did not allow it to be tabled in the Commons. But this answer aptly illustrates the Cabinet Office’s ongoing discourteous position – that information will not be disclosed to either House of Parliament if it is not otherwise routinely published. Yet this is contrary to the expectation in paragraph 1.6 of the Ministerial Code, and in the extant resolutions (made in both Houses) on Ministerial Accountability to Parliament.

It is essential to Parliamentary scrutiny and to the accountability of the executive for Parliament to be able to ask for material which is not otherwise readily available. The Government may refuse when it is not in the public interest to release such information: but the argument that the information “is not routinely published” is manifestly a spurious argument in itself. This would not be a valid exemption under the public interest provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

This leads to a situation where Parliamentary Questions are being treated in an inferior manner to FOI requests, despite the Leader of the House’s stated position that this should not happen (as we address later in this submission).[41] This is deeply disrespectful to the standing of the Commons. It essentially means that Members’ requests for information are treated less seriously than requests from the general public. In doing so, it may lead to a situation in which Members have to rely increasingly on FOI, so making written questions redundant.

Potemkin answers: Pointing to transparency data that does not exist

Another common practice is for Ministers to refer to Government transparency documents, that themselves do not actually list the information requested.

“Richard Holden: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the Prime Minister’s speech of 5 December 2024 on Plan for Change at Pinewood Studios, what the cost to the public purse was of that event, including the cost of the backdrop and branding.

Georgia Gould: In line with successive governments, departmental spending on official events that meet the criteria are published online quarterly.”[42]

But the specific information requested was not listed in spending returns for December 2024 subsequently published by the Cabinet Office.[43]

Asked about meetings between special advisers and (Labour-leaning) lobbyists, Ministers point to transparency returns for special advisers.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether special advisers in 10 Downing Street have met representatives of Anacta since the general election.

Georgina Gould: In line with longstanding process, relevant meetings are declared in the Special Advisor transparency publications.”[44]

But the Government only publishes special advisers’ meetings with senior media executives. Anacta are lobbyists. They are not media executives. Both the Minister and officials knew this.

As a follow-up, we asked where the details of such meetings were published, we were pointed to the meetings with senior media executives. But meetings with lobbyists are not in scope and are not published.

“Richard Holden: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 28 November 2024 to Question 15191 on Prime Minister: Anacta, where on gov.uk his Department publishes details of special advisers’ meetings.

Georgina Gould: As was the case under the previous administration, details of Cabinet Office special advisers’ meetings with senior media figures are published quarterly in arrears on GOV.UK at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/special-advisers-transparency-publications. Data for the period of July to September 2024 will be published shortly.”[45]

A similar reply and approach was given about meetings with (Labour-leaning) lobbyists, Arden Strategies.[46]

Asked about meetings with No10 special advisers and TikTok, the Minister just simply did not answer the question about special advisers, but pointed to Ministerial returns.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether (a) the Prime Minister, (b) his special advisers and (c) officials in his Department met with representatives of Tiktok between 5 July and 7 October 2024.

Georgina Gould: Details of ministerial meetings with external organisations are published on gov.uk as part of the government’s transparency agenda.”[47]

Then explicitly asked to publish meetings that are not in scope of the Government’s transparency returns (the returns only listing special advisers’ meetings with senior media executives), the Minister referred to the transparency returns… which of course, do not list such meetings.

“Richard Holden: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 26 November 2024 to Question 14636, on Prime Minister: Tiktok, what meetings Downing Street special advisers have had with (a) senior media executives and (b) other executives from Tiktok that are not due to be routinely published on gov.uk transparency returns.

Georgina Gould: In line with longstanding process, relevant meetings are declared in the Special Advisor transparency publications.”[48]

Again, this is a Kafkaesque answer, pointing to documents that the Minister knows does not contain the information requested. It would appear to be giving a false impression of a situation.

It would be open to Ministers to answer the question with a refusal to disclose by reference to the public interest, mirroring a Freedom of Information Act exemption. But the Cabinet Office does not do this. Instead, their answers are evasive and deceptive.

Other examples include:

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the cost to the public purse was of each official reception in 10 Downing Street since 4 July 2024.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: As under previous administrations, details of official receptions are published in quarterly transparency returns on gov.uk.”[49]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 10 October 2025 to Question 74276 on 10 Downing Street: Official Hospitality, if he will provide a hyperlink to that data.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I refer the Hon Member to the answer of 10 October 2025, Official Report, PQ 74276.”[50]

Information on the cost of receptions is not listed in the returns on gov.uk. No hyperlink could be provided as it does not exist.

This contradicts the stated policy of the Leader of the House:

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Leader of the House, pursuant to the Answer of 10 January 2025 to Question 21347 on Conditions of Employment, if she will ensure that answers to written parliamentary questions provide relevant hyperlinks.

Lucy Powell: It is important that Members receive full and helpful responses to parliamentary questions. The Guide to Parliamentary Work (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work, published by my office, states that “if referring to documents in the public domain, you should include the relevant extracts in your written response as well as the relevant hyperlink”. I take these matters seriously and have raised this particular question with the Cabinet Office to ensure the link is sent to the Hon. Members for Bridlington and The Wolds and for Brentwood and Ongar at the earliest opportunity.”[51]

Ministers also dodge the question by referring to the publication of “relevant” meetings. But the information requested is not contained in the definition of relevant meetings.

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the letter from the Permanent Secretary to the hon. Member for Thirsk & Malton, dated 24 November 2025, on what dates Tim Allan met Tom Baldwin since Mr Allan’s appointment, and whether Government business was discussed. 

Anna Turley: The Special Adviser Code of Conduct sets out the categories of meetings, gifts and hospitality that are declared publicly. Any relevant meetings within this category will be published via this process in the normal way.”[52]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what meetings Varun Chandra has had with external organisations excluding senior media executives since his appointment.

Anna Turley: In line with longstanding process, relevant meetings are declared in the Special Advisor transparency publications.”[53]

Special advisers are not required to publish details of meetings with external organisations, other than senior media executives.

This answer points to information for domestic travel which is not actually published (only overseas travel is published). Again, it would be open to Ministers to refuse the answer on public interest grounds, but instead they provide an answer which is deficient by omission.

“Richard Holden: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, how many times he has taken a domestic flight for official travel purposes; which locations he has travelled to; and what the cost was for those flights. 

Michael Shanks: Data on ministers’ travel is published on a quarterly basis. This can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/desnz-ministerial-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings.”[54]

This answer points to Civil Service statistics which do not actually publish the requested information at that level.

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 9 June 2025 to Question 54764 on Cabinet Office: Pay, what the annual wage costs were for the EU relations secretariat in the most recent year for which figures are centrally held. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Salary data for the Civil Service is published annually as part of Civil Service Statistics, an Accredited Official Statistics release. Civil Service Statistics 2025 is due to be published on 30 July 2025.”[55]

Asked for spending on fine wines, Ministers point to transparency data which does not list spending at that level.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how much his Department has spent via Berry Bros Ltd since 4 July 2024. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: All relevant spending is available in the Cabinet Office’s government procurement card transparency return for March 2025 which can be found on gov.uk”[56]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 25 November 2025 to Question 91376 on Government Hospitality: Wines, how much his Department spent with Berry Bros for invoices under £25,000 since 4 July 2024. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I refer the Hon Member to the answer of 25 November 2025, Official Report, PQ 91376.”[57]

In one recent answer, Ministers are caught red-handed trying to hide information. A question asked for details of specific Direct Ministerial Appointments. This followed the October 2025 guidance issued by Cabinet Office issued after the Lord Mandelson affair; the guidance now requires transparency on the terms of such appointments.

The requested information was provided to the House, but then pulled. But the correction was made too late by the Cabinet Office, such the original answer remains in place, whilst the answer is corrected in Hansard. This gaffe by the Cabinet Office is insightful.

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what the (a) name, (b) job title, (c) annual remuneration, (d) time commitment and (e) expected end date is for each direct ministerial appointment in the Cabinet Office, including those appointed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House of Commons and the Leader of the House of Lords.

ORIGINAL

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The Cabinet Office holds information on 18 incumbents who were appointed under a direct ministerial appointments process and are recorded on the Cabinet Office’s departmental list. The information requested is set out in the table below. [etc...]

CORRECTED:

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Information related to Direct Ministerial Appointments can be found on gov.uk.”[58]

The original answer was slightly deficient by refusing to publish the remuneration data – which does not exist anywhere on gov.uk. But the corrected answer is completely deficient, by purporting to signpost information which is not available on the 18 appointees. It is also in breach of guidance to claim the information is “on gov.uk” without relevant hyperlinks or sources. It is wrong to claim all the information is gov.uk when it is not.

Ministers can also give self-referencing answers: asked for more information further to a publication, Ministers referred back to the original document which did not contain the information.

“Richard Holden: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Conclusion of His Majesty The King’s free Portrait Scheme, published on 28 November 2024, what the percentage take-up rate was for (a) UK Government departments and (b) arm’s-length bodies separately. 

Nick Thomas-Symonds: His Majesty The King’s free Portrait Scheme was a voluntary programme offering a free, framed portrait of The King to any eligible public institution that requested one. Following the conclusion of the scheme, a breakdown of the take up was published on gov.uk.”[59]

These are all ‘Potemkin village’ answers – pointing to transparency data or publications that will never actually list such information.

A needle in a haystack

Sometimes Ministers point to multitudes of data which are not readily available or accessible.

“Max Wilkinson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how much funding the Government allocated to spend on advertising in each year since 2015, broken down by Department.

Georgina Gould: The Cabinet Office operates spend control on behalf of HMT on an annual basis. During this process departments and ALBs submit an overview of any spend (including marketing and advertising) planned for the next financial year. Historical data on advertising spend is listed by department on the Government efficiency, transparency and accountability page on GOV.uk.”[60]

In the electronic answer, the gov.uk “page” reference is a generic hyperlink to all government “transparency and freedom of information releases” with a “spending control” tag. There are thousands of documents listed on that weblink. In no sense whatsoever does it answer the question. It is a proverbial needle in a haystack.

If the answer could only be obtained at disproportionate cost, it would be open to the Minister to say so. They did not. Given the Cabinet Office oversees spending controls on advertising, it clearly held some information on such spending, but chose not to disclose it to Parliament.

Simply not answering the question asked

Ministers will simply make no attempt to answer the question that was asked. The Table Office will then often gold-plate the approach by refusing follow-up questions. The Table Office’s approach in blocking follow-ups then compounds the Government’s evasiveness.

“Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, with reference to the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, CP 1334, what estimate his Department has made of the monetary value of each payment in cash terms to be made in each year of the agreement. 

Stephen Doughty: As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, the average annual cost to the UK during the initial 99-year period of the treaty is £101 million in 2025/2026 prices.”[61]

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, with reference to the Office for Equality and Opportunity’s press release entitled Government announces preferred candidate for Chair of Equality and Human Rights Commission, published on 5 June 2025, whether Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson has made a declaration of political activity. 

Nia Griffith: Dr Stephenson has been selected as the Government Preferred Candidate for the next EHRC Chair, following a fair and open process, in line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments. As per the Code, all candidates were asked to declare any conflicts of interest they held as part of the interview process. We will continue to follow the Code as the process continues.”[62]

Asked to place a letter in a Library, Ministers just refer back to a previous answer which did not provide it.

“Grahame Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 14 November 2024 to Question 13192 on Homelessness, if she will publish her letter of 11 November 2024 addressed to all local authority Chief Executives in England about out-of-area accommodation placements.

Rushanara Ali: As set out in my answer to Question UIN 13192, on 11 November 2024 the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to all local authority Chief Executives in England about out-of-area accommodation placements, including temporary accommodation and housing offers to end a homelessness duty. The letter referred to section 208 of the Housing Act 1996, reminding local authorities that they are required by law to notify the receiving local authority of any out-of-area placement and that this should be happening in every case. It also highlighted the importance of considering safeguarding arrangements when placing households out of area, including relevant consultation with Children’s Services. The letter requested that Chief Executives personally assure themselves that these notifications are happening.”[63]

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if she will place a copy in the Library of the House a copy of the letter of 11 November 2024 to Chief Executives of local authorities on out-of-area accommodation placements.

Alison McGovern: I refer the Hon. Member to the answer to question UIN 14450 given on 20 November 2024.”[64]

“We do not comment on individuals”

Minsters frequently refuse to answer questions about the most senior officials in Government, on the excuse that it does not “comment on individuals”, even where transparency information is routinely published on those individuals (making a contradiction of their “routine publication” excuse above).

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to page 86 of the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts 2024-25, published on 23 October 2025, for what reason Simon Case was given a £201,402 severance payment; and whether this payment was approved by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Anna Turley: It is a longstanding policy not to comment on individuals. Details of any payments are published in the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts (link). Guidance on managing public money effectively is issued by HMT Treasury and it sets out rules and responsibilities, as well as best practice to achieve value for money. This guidance details the circumstances in which severance is payable. All special severance payments are approved by HMT.”[65]

“John Glen: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 31 July 2024 to Question 1240 on Morgan McSweeney, what the responsibilities are of Mr McSweeney in his role as a special adviser.

Georgina Gould: It’s a longstanding policy to not comment on individuals.”[66]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to footnotes 25 and 26 of the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts 2024-2025, HC 1372, published on 23 October 2025, for what reason the current Cabinet Secretary has a lower salary than the previous Cabinet Secretary.

Anna Turley: It is a longstanding policy not to comment on individuals. Details of any individual’s pay are published in the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts.”[67]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the Answer of 17 September 2025 to Question HL10221 on Baroness Shafik, what Baroness Shafik’s remuneration is.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: It would not be appropriate to comment on individuals. The level of remuneration and the management of relevant outside interests for this role have been agreed in line with relevant guidance and processes.”[68]

“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish individual severance payments made to departing special advisers at pay band Level 4 since July 2024.

Georgina Gould: It is a longstanding policy not to comment on individuals. The Model Contract for Special Advisers is published online and details the circumstances in which severance is payable. Total severance costs are released in the annual report, which will be published in due course.”[69]

Case study: Sue Gray’s severance pay

The departure of Sue Gray as the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff illustrates this evasion. Ministers refused to answer questions on whether she was given an exit payment. The final question was asked in the Lords as the Commons Table Office ultimately refused to allow it to be tabled in the Commons.

“Baroness Neville-Rolfe: To ask His Majesty’s Government how much Sue Gray will be paid as a severance payment for leaving her role as Chief of Staff; whether the severance will include a pension contribution; and whether the severance payment needs to be paid back, in whole or part, if Sue Gray rejoins Government as a direct ministerial appointment.

Baroness Twycross: It is not appropriate to comment on individuals. The Model Contract for Special Advisors is published online.”[70]

As Chief of Staff, Sue Gray was the most senior special adviser in Government, (reportedly) paid more than the Prime Minister.[71] She was indisputably a very senior figure, such that there is an expectation of openness about the remuneration of senior officials in government.

The Information Commissioner’s guidance on Section 40 (personal information), and the Cabinet Office’s statutory Code of Practice on FOI, is clear that there should be openness on the remuneration of senior officials.

As the ICO notes in their Section 40 guidance: “Freedom of information legislation has introduced greater expectations of transparency and accountability about public authorities and senior public figures. Disclosing personal information always involves some intrusion into privacy. However, there are situations when the intrusion is warranted. For example, disclosure of personal information relating to public senior officials may be justified if it is about the performance of their public duties or expenditure of public money” … “Public figures must expect a degree of scrutiny about their functions in office. For example, elected public officials must expect to be held accountable to the electorate.”.[72] And: “It is reasonable to expect that you disclose more information about senior public authority employees than more junior ones. Senior employees should expect their posts to carry a greater level of accountability, since they are likely to be responsible for major policy decisions and the expenditure of public funds.”[73] These tests were met in this case.

When a FOI request was made to release the information following the refusal to answer Parliamentary Questions, Cabinet Office provided it at the Information Commissioner stage.

Sue Gray did not receive a severance payment.

A lot of time could be saved by being upfront on this point at the beginning, but it illustrates the wider culture of obstruction in the Cabinet Office, the department supposedly in charge of Government transparency, and on guidance on Parliamentary Questions.

Case study: the Chinese Embassy and a conspiracy of silence

At every stage, Ministers have refused to comment on their meetings with the Chinese Government over the controversial Chinese Embassy development in London. Such questions are essential to understanding of whether planning probity has been followed, given it would appear that the then Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, was directed to call-in the planning application as soon as it was re-submitted by the Chinese Government.

In November 2024, at the G20, the Prime Minister was caught on video admitting that he had discussed the new Chinese Embassy planning application call-in with Chinese President Xi in person, and had also discussed it with him on a telephone call on 23 August 2024. At the G20, the Prime Minister said: “You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone, and we have since taken action by calling in that application.” [74]

Asked for information about these discussions, Ministers refused to answer, pointing back to answers which evaded the question.

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 5 November 2025 to Question 86240 on Chinese Embassy: Planning Permission, and further to his public comments at the G20 in November 2024, if he will publish the dates on which he discussed the proposed Chinese Embassy in London with the Chinese Government since 4 July 2024.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I refer the Hon Member back to the answer of 5 November 2025, Official Report, PQ 86240.”[75]

[PQ86240 was] “Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the Prime Minister has had recent discussions with the Chinese government on the planning application for the Chinese Embassy in London.

Dan Jarvis: The decision to call in the planning application for the proposed Chinese Embassy was made by the former Deputy Prime Minister, in line with current policy on call-in. This decision is subject to a quasi-judicial process and independent from the rest of government.”[76]

When asked about discussions about the Embassy between the Prime Minister and the Chinese Government, Minsters refer to a readout of the meeting.

“Paul Holmes: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the Prime Minister has had discussions with the Chinese government on the planning application for the Chinese Embassy in London.

Abena Oppong-Asare: The Prime Minister raised a range of domestic and foreign issues in his meeting with President Xi at the G20 on 18 November. A read-out of this meeting is available on the GOV.UK website.”[77]

Yet, in a Potemkin Village answer, the published Downing Street readout of the August call fails to mention this discussion.[78] When asked why the Embassy is not referenced (despite it being public domain that the conversation took place – in the words of the Prime Minister), Ministers refused to answer.

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 4 December 2024 to Question 14994 on Chinese Embassy: Planning Permission, if he will provide a readout of the Prime Minister’s discussions with President Xi on the planning application for the Chinese Embassy.

Abena Oppoing-Asare: I refer the Hon Member to my answer of 4 December, Official Report, 14994. The official read-out is a summary of the issues discussed at their meeting.”[79]

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 4 December 2024 to Question 14994 on Chinese Embassy: Planning Permission, if he will publish a summary of any discussions with President Xi on 18 November 2024 on the planning application for the Chinese Embassy not included in the gov.uk readout.

Abena Oppoing-Asare: I refer the Hon Member to my answer of 4 December, Official Report, 14994. The official read-out is a summary of the issues discussed at their meeting.”[80]

Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 19 December 2024 to Question 20229 on Chinese Embassy: Planning Permission, for what reason the readout does not include reference to discussions on the Chinese Embassy.

Abena Oppoing-Asare: There is nothing further to add to my answer of 19 December, Official Report, PQ 20229.”[81]

HM Treasury similarly refused to say whether the Chancellor discussed the Embassy in her visit to China in January. Again, Ministers evasively referred back to statements which are then silent on the issue. [82]

When the Foreign Secretary was asked what discussions had been had with the Chinese Government, Ministers refused to answer, saying the planning application is matter for MHCLG.[83] The Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office has told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he discussed the Embassy with the Chinese, but when asked for a readout, Ministers simply refused.[84]

Minsters have deployed false flag arguments: whilst MHCLG might be the planning decision-maker, it does not prevent other Government departments commenting on their own discussions outside the planning process. It would be open to the Government to give a public interest argument on the need for confidentiality of diplomacy, or even to make the case for closer links with China. It speaks volumes that Ministers just obfuscate and avoid Parliamentary scrutiny.

Interaction between Written Parliamentary Questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000

The current Government is treating Hon. Members with extreme discourtesy by releasing information under the Freedom of Information Act that it refuses to give to Parliament. We have proven this through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. In the requests, we have explicitly cited a Parliament Question refusing to disclose the information, and then asked for that information under FOI. This subsequent release under FOI is contrary to the Government’s own purported position.

The official position on FOI

The Cabinet Office Guide to Parliamentary Work (November 2024) states:

“Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. 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/QWA. 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. If there appears to be a conflict between the requirement to be as open as possible and the requirement to protect information whose disclosure would not be in the public interest, you should consult your FOI liaison officer if necessary.”[85]

The (then) Leader of the House of Commons confirmed this approach in October 2024:

“The government’s position regarding the relationship between the treatment of requests for information through parliamentary questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is unchanged... “if information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to a WPQ”. I have written to all Members of Cabinet to remind departments and Ministers about the importance of providing full and timely responses to parliamentary questions.”[86]

The current Leader of the House re-affirmed this in November 2025:

“The government’s position regarding the relationship between the treatment of requests for information through parliamentary questions and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 – as set out in the Guide to Parliamentary Work – is unchanged.”[87]

Principles ignored in practice

But such principles on accountability are not being followed in practice. A series of examples are given in an Annex to this submission.

To illustrate this point, we have also followed up these FOI disclosures asking for the disclosed information to be provided to Parliament in a PQ. Mostly, departments have done so. This leads to the farcical situation that information will be provided if the PQ cites a FOI, but the original request in a PQ is refused.

There have also been some concerning cases where Government departments have continued to refuse to disclose the information, even after it has been released under FOI.

Environmental Information Regulations

We have also discerned that the Government does not believe these conventions above on FOI apply to Environmental Information Regulation requests, which is a sister regime of FOI. EIR only applies to environmental information held by public authorities (and some private companies) but has fewer exceptions. We asked the Leader of the House:

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Leader of the House, pursuant to the Answer of 22 October 2024 to Question 8807 on Government Departments: Written Questions, whether her policy on Freedom of Information requests also applies to Environmental Information Regulation requests

Lucy Powell: The Government’s policy on answers to Written Parliamentary Questions and Questions for Written Answer is set out in the Guide to Parliamentary Work (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work). The guidance contains no reference to Environmental Information Regulation requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office provides guidance and resources for public authorities and the public about the Freedom of Information Act and the Environment Information Regulations, available online at ico.org.uk.”[88]

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Leader of the House, pursuant to the Answer of 19 March 2025 to Question 37209 on Government Departments: Written Questions, whether it is her policy that if information would be released under the Environmental Information Regulations it should also be released in response to a written Parliamentary Question.

Lucy Powell: I refer the Hon. Member to the response provided to Question 37209, which answers his question. I encourage the Hon. Member to raise any specific issues they may have regarding PQ responses with myself and my office.”[89]

This is clearly unsatisfactory. If such information would be given out to a member of the public, as a consequence of the public interest being in favour of disclosure, the same request in Parliament should be answered by Ministers. The Cabinet Office’s Guide to Parliamentary Work should be updated to reference the Environmental Information Regulations regime, alongside FOI.

Conclusion

We hope this submission assists the Committee’s inquiry, and shows that Parliament is being treated with disdain by the Government. It is also concerning that the House’s own internal processes are inadvertently hindering Parliamentary scrutiny.

We would be willing to expand on any area with supplementary evidence at the Committee’s request.

Alex Burghart MP

Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

16 January 2026

ANNEX: INFORMATION RELEASED UNDER FOI BUT NOT TO PQs

Freedom of Information requests

Special adviser training / induction manual

Original refusal: Hansard, 29 October 2024, PQ10436, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14571 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 17 December 2024.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 21 January 2025, PQ23470, (link).

No10 Travel Expenses guidance

Original refusal: Hansard, 27 November 2024, PQ14976, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/01531, on 28 February 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 8 April 2025, PQ42614, (link).

Special adviser pay

Original refusal: Hansard, 29 October 2024, PQ10440, (link); Hansard, 15 October 2024, PQ7440, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14571 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 4 December 2024.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 12 February 2025, PQ28578, (link).

Cabinet Office trade union facility time agreement

Original refusal: Hansard, 21 October 2024, PQ8814, (link).

Disclosed by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14572 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 31 December 2024.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 13 May 2025, PQ49389, (link).

List of responsibilities of No10 special advisers

Original refusal: Hansard, 18 October 2024, PQ8425, (link).

Disclosed by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14571 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 11 December 2024.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 9 May 2025, PQ42608, (link).

No9 Media Room Refurbishment

Original refusal: Hansard, 22 January 2025, PQ23884, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/01530 on 28 February 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 3 April 2025, PQ41653, (link).

Domestic flights by the Prime Minister

Original refusals: Hansard, 28 March 2025, PQ39688, (link); Hansard, 6 March 2025, PQ34453, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05760 on 14 May 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 6 June 2025, PQ53886, (link).

Cabinet Office Honours Handbook

Original refusal: Hansard, 7 April 2025, PQ43222, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05759 of 16 May 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 2 June 2025, PQ54277, (link).

Government Communications Service numbers

Original refusal: Hansard, 5 December 2024, PQ16512, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI Internal Review response – IR2025/05101 of 29 May 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 4 September 2025, PQ70468, (link).

Communication spending savings

Original refusal: Hansard, 30 January 2025, PQ25685, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05753 of 12 June.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 7 July 2025, PQ64559, (link).

FCDO/Embassy Government Art Collection

Original refusal: Hansard, 13 May 2025, PQ50572, (link).

Released by DCMS under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05106, of 8 July 2025.

Cabinet Office staff without jobs

Original refusal: Hansard, 8 May 2025, PQ48950, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09675 of 11 July 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 28 October 2025, PQ71227, (link).

Ministers with criminal convictions

Original refusal: Hansard, 15 January 2025, PQ22458, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05758 of 10 July 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 3 December 2025, PQ94209, (link).

Special Advisers FDA recognition

Original refusal: Hansard, 10 April 2025, PQ44032, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09624 of 16 July 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 15 October 2025, PQ73720, (link).

£34.7 billion cost of Chagos deal

Original refusal: Hansard, 26 June 2025, PQ61200, (link).

Released by Government Actuary Department, under FOI, internal review, Ref: FOI252626, 4 August 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing HM Treasury to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 8 January 2026, PQ101383, (link).

This disclosure is particularly concerning given the Ministry of Defence has told Parliament the £34.7 billion figure is “incorrect”, yet the FOI shows the figure was clearly provided by the Government Actuary Department (Hansard, 26 November 2025, PQ92657, link).

Sue Gray severance payment

Original refusal: Lords Hansard, 20 November 2024, PQ HL1816, (link); this question was blocked from being tabled by the Commons Table Office.

Released by the Cabinet Office further to the ICO appeal application, ICO reference IC-390141-T8J5, further to the Cabinet Office FOI reference FOI2025/01532; released on 4 August 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release Hansard, 3 September 2025, PQ73313, (link); Hansard, 2 September 2025, PQ69874, (link).

Admiralty House ministerial residences

Original refusal: Hansard, 27 March 2025, PQ52870, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09713 on 12 August 2025.

Carbon Offsetting on PM flights

Original refusal/evasion: Hansard, 7 July 2025, PQ63005, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/12575 on 5 September 2025 (some information not held, some information disclosed).

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 26 November 2025, PQ91382, (link).

Permanent Secretary model contract

Original refusal: Lords Hansard, 19 May 2025, PQ HL7118, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09712, on 9 September 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 9 December 2025, PQ95641, (link).

DESNZ Ministers domestic flights

Original refusal: Hansard, 17 June 2025, PQ58273, (link).

Released by DESNZ under FOI, ref: FOI2025/11799, on 10 September 2025.

DBT Social Media Influencers

Original refusal: Hansard, 11 July 2025, PQ64918, (link).

Released by DBT under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09531, on 16 September 2025.

Cabinet Office Guidance on Social Media Influencers

Original refusal: Hansard, 4 September 2025, PQ70489, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/18068, on 5 December 2025.

Cabinet Office London weighting guidance

Original refusal: Hansard, 7 July 2025, PQ63340, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/12570 of 28 August 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 30 October 2025, PQ84249, (link).

Admiralty House repairs and furniture

Original refusal: Hansard, 27 May 2025, PQ52869, (link).

Released by Cabinet Office, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/12565 of 21 October 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 7 November 2025, PQ86671, (link).

MOD spending on EDI

Original refusal: Hansard, 26 September 2024, PQ1555, (link).

Released by MOD, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/21409, disclosed on 12 September 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 20 November 2025, PQ91657, (link).

DEFRA spending on EDI

Original refusal: Hansard, 8 May 2025, PQ45822, (link) (claiming the information was not held centrally).

Released by DEFRA, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/24724, on 2 December 2025.

A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 17 December 2025, PQ96738, (link).

Social media influencer guidance

Original refusal: Hansard, 4 September 2025, PQ70489, (link).

Released by the Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/18068 on 5 December 2025.

FOI releases where Departments snub Parliament a second time

No10 Government Art collection changes

Repeated refusals: Hansard, 10 January 2025, PQ21061, (link); Hansard, 14 January 2025, PQ22187, (link).

Released by DCMS under FOI, ref: FOI2025/00471, on 20 March 2025.

A request to publish this FOI was refused/evaded.

“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the Answer of 5 February 2025 to Question 27226 on 10 Downing Street: Government Art Collection, if she will make it her policy to release information on changes to Government Art Collection works on display in line with Freedom of Information Act requests.

Chris Bryant: The Government Art Collection is a working collection, used across government buildings in the UK and the global estate, which means that artworks may change their display location from time to time in response to new display steers and requests” (Hansard, 5 March 2025, PQ32266, link).

Parking fine research

Original refusal: Hansard, 10 July 2025, PQ64511, (link).

Released by Department for Transport, under FOI, ref: FOI-00045627, on 19 August 2025.

But DfT refused to disclose the FOI to Parliament in a subsequent question asking for this to be published (Hansard, 16 October 2025, PQ77651, link).

This snub to Parliament was raised as a point of order (Hansard, 29 October 2025, Col.350, (link).

The Deputy Speaker remarked: “he raises a serious point that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard... I know that the Procedure Committee takes an interest in these matters, so the right hon. Member may also wish to raise the issue with that Committee.”

The PQ was subsequently corrected to disclose the FOI.

Council tax hikes during the Spending Review period

Original refusal: Hansard, 22 July 2025, PQ66939, (link).

Released by MHCLG under Freedom of Information, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/22431 of 18 September 2025.

But MHCLG have refused to disclose the FOI to Parliament in a subsequent question asking for this to be published (Hansard, 20 October 2025, PQ78231, link). Ministers asserted: “It is not MHCLG policy to routinely publish FOI responses.”

Deputy Prime Minister meetings on 10 April 2025

Original refusal: Hansard, 3 July 2025, PQ62599, (link).

Released by MHCLG under FOI, ref: FOI2025/22450 on 3 September 2025.

But MHCLG have refused to disclose the FOI to Parliament in a subsequent question asking for this to be published (Hansard, 24 October 2025, PQ81311, link). Ministers asserted: “It is not MHCLG policy to routinely publish FOI responses.”

Environmental Information Regulation refusals

EIR is a sister regime to FOI, for environmental information. Government Ministers are not even bothering to release such released information to Parliament at all, even after the EIR disclosure to the public.

Wind farms environmental principles assessment

Original refusal: Hansard, 1 August 2024, PQ1517, (link).

This was released by MHCLG under EIR, ref: EIR2024/17924, on 17 September 2024.

A subsequent question asked for this EIR disclosure to be published, but Ministers refused again. This is particularly poor – as Ministers are knowingly refusing to release information to Parliament that has already been released into the public domain. There can be no ‘public interest’ reason for refusing to disclose such material.

Second refusal:

“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 1 August 2024 to Question 1517 on Wind Power: Planning Permission, and with reference to the Environmental Information Regulations request with reference EIR2024/17924, for what reason the requested information was released under the EIR regime; and if she will now publish that substantive disclosure.

Matthew Pennycook: Environmental principles assessments are not routinely published. However, the information in question was released following a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004” (Hansard, 28 February 2025, PQ31480, (link).

Chinese Embassy call-in lobbying

Original refusal: Hansard, 9 December 2024, PQ16572, (link).

This was released by MHCLG, under EIR, ref: EIR31081 on 3 March 2025. A further set of documents were released under EIR internal review request IR2025/10529 of 2 April 2025.

Again, a subsequent question was asked for the EIR disclosure to be published, but Ministers refused again to disclose the information – even though it has been released under a transparency regime. Parliament is being snubbed a second time.

Second refusal: Hansard, 31 March 2025, PQ40487, (link) (EIR31081). Ministers asserted: “We do not routinely publish planning representations seeking call in of applications.”

Third refusal: Hansard, 21 July 2025, PQ66951, (link) (EIR10529). Ministers asserted: “The government does not routinely publish responses to information requests.”

This is a clear breach of the Ministerial Code - that Ministers “should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest.”

32