Written evidence submitted by Alicia Kearns MP (WRP 18)
In early 2025 my Written Questions were often rejected without adequate investigation or explanation. This was particularly frustrating as I was on medical leave at the time and so reliant on Written Questions due to my inability to attend Oral Questions.
In early 2025 the Table Office rejected written questions on an increasingly frequent basis. I had several questions turned down due to interpretations by clerks. Whilst the majority were eventually accepted after explanation, it was increasingly frustrating and disruptive, particularly when the topics were urgent.
For example, this question was blocked: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, whether his department considers joint committees between the legislatures of the Republic of Serbia and Republika Srpska to contravene the Dayton Agreement.
The reason given was that it ‘requires interpretation of the law.’ It took a lengthy phone call to convince the clerks to admit the question. They were not aware what the Dayton Agreement was, nor had they made any effort to research it before blocking the question. In my view, it is perfectly legitimate to ask the Foreign Office to confirm a policy position on the actions of foreign Governments, especially when they contravene an Agreement drafted by the UK and where we continue to have responsibilities ensuring the agreement is not contravened. Again, it was frustrating to have questions blocked without the reasoning behind the decision being checked first.
Another of example of a question rejected was: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his department's policy is towards Members of Parliament holding surgeries for armed forces personnel in military barracks.
The reasons given were as follows: ‘basis is required- do you have basis that Government does have a policy on the use of barracks for constituency surgeries? Surely this would just be down to individual Members negotiating access with their local barracks rather than there being a national policy? You could ask whether the Department issues guidance on the use of it's barracks for civic events?’
I asked this question because Ministerial sign-off is required to allow surgeries to be held in military barracks, as such a government policy is required. My local barracks had been informed by the Ministry of Defence that Ministers had rejected their ask (they asked me to hold a surgery within the wire), as such it was right the Government should be required to formally set out their policy, not least when I was trying to meet a request of the barracks and guarantee the democratic right of local members of our Armed Forces to access their MP.
Lines such as ‘surely this would just be down to individual Members negotiating access with their local barracks rather than there being a national policy?’ second guess what the Government may answer and are not constructive or necessary.
The table office should comment on whether a question is admissible, not speculate what the policy is or ought to be, or whether it is legitimate for me to be asking.
Suggesting redrafting MP surgeries to a generic ‘civic events’ suggests a lack of understanding about the democratic importance of surgeries and direct access to MPs for the public, in addition any question I asked about civic events would almost certainly not include a specific response on surgeries as hundreds of civic events are held at barracks across the country annually so I would have received a very bland and unhelpful, generic response.
A further example was: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, if her department has issued any funding to organisations either wholly or fully controlled by A) the Hong Kong Trade Office B) The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and C) Confucius Institutes.
I immediately received the following: Your question has been queried because basis is required - do you have basis that MHCLG would have allocated funding to any of these organisations?
Concerns had been raised with me by Hong Kong groups that Government was giving money to the Hong Kong Government, either directly and with full knowledge, or indirectly and without. By asking this question I could ascertain whether they had given any funding to support the Hong Konger community in the UK (which MHCLG has responsibility for and we gave funds from MHCLG to support Hong Kongers as they settle in the UK) directly through the Hong Kong Government / Chinese Government Embassy or Confucius Institutes. I find it odd that I was asked to provide a basis to ask if a Government department spends its money in a certain way.
Whilst I understand the Table Office deal with a large number of questions across a wide range of topics, there was an uptick in the proportion of WQs blocked after the 2024 election and a decision-making process which seems to have strayed from the accepted criteria, as demonstrated by the three examples I’ve provided above.
The ability to submit WQs was extremely important while I was on medical and maternity leave, and the extra barriers and time spent arguing for questions on the phone was an unwelcome blockage.
Recently, I have experienced some new issues with submitting Written Parliamentary Questions.
Several questions on the now approved, then proposed Chinese Embassy were carded and blocked by the table office on the grounds of that the Government refused to answer questions on the topic, claiming planning rules prevented discussion.
I raised this in a Point of Order on 14.1.26:
“ On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I attempted today to submit a written question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding the unredacted plans for the proposed new Chinese Communist party embassy in London. The Table Office, however, refused to table it on the grounds that the Government have effectively issued a block, refusing to answer any questions relating to the proposal in any way. That, of course, follows yesterday’s urgent question, when the Government refused to put up a Home Office Minister, despite the question being about national security. Please may I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. How are the Government able to block answering any questions on a matter of such national importance, and how do we get the answers we deserve if we cannot get them in the Chamber, or in written questions? “
There have also been unexplained delays on some questions from Government Departments. For example, I submitted a WQ (see below) to DfE for a named date of 21.1.26 but only received an answer on 2.2.26.
Question: (106338)
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether her Department issues guidance on membership of the Chinese Communist Party being a declarable interest for university senior staff and trustees.
Answer:
Education is a devolved matter, and this response outlines the information for England only.
Higher education (HE) providers are independent and autonomous bodies, and as such are responsible for designing and implementing their own policies.
As the independent regulator, it is the role of the Office for Students to monitor and assess registered universities’ compliance with its conditions of registration, including those relating to good governance, and to take regulatory action where they have been breached. This includes that higher education providers must uphold public interest governance principles, which encompasses management of conflicts of interest.
We are clear that foreign interference in the HE sector is unacceptable, and whilst there are a range of existing requirements on universities to protect against it, we believe more should be done to support providers to proportionately mitigate risk. We set out our considerations in the ‘Future of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act’ policy paper published in June 2025, and are taking steps to share good practice, raise awareness and develop new responses where necessary.
Overall, I have also been very disappointed with the quality of the responses I have received to so many of my questions. Answers are dismissive and often fail to answer the question at all.
I hope these examples will prove helpful to your inquiry and please do let me know if you require any further information.
February 2026