An urgent question (UQ) is a mechanism that allows an MP to seek an immediate answer from a government minister on a matter of pressing public importance.

If granted by the speaker of the House of Commons, an urgent question obliges the relevant minister to come to the chamber that day to provide an explanation and to answer questions from MPs.

The urgent question is one of the most powerful tools available to backbenchers and the opposition for holding the government to account on fast-moving events and for forcing ministers to address issues that they might otherwise prefer to avoid.

How urgent questions work

Any MP who believes an issue requires an immediate ministerial response can apply to the speaker’s office to ask an urgent question. Applications must be submitted before the deadline each sitting day, which are as follows:

• Monday – 11:30 am
• Tuesday and Wednesday – 10:00 am
• Thursday – 8:15 am
• Friday – 8:30 am

The decision to grant an urgent question rests solely with the speaker of the House of Commons. The speaker’s decision is final, and they do not give reasons for refusing a request.

In deciding whether to grant a UQ, the speaker must rule on whether a matter is urgent and of public importance. The speaker may also consider whether there will be another, earlier opportunity for the House to debate the issue.

If the speaker grants an urgent question, it takes place in the main chamber at the end of departmental oral questions (and before any ministerial statements).

• The speaker interrupts the planned business of the House to announce that they have granted an urgent question and calls the MP who tabled it.
• The MP rises and asks their question. In practice, UQs take the form of a question asking a minister to make a statement on whatever matter has arisen.
• The relevant government minister then has up to three minutes to respond from the dispatch box. It is a matter for the government to decide which minister replies to an UQ.
• The MP who tabled the question is then given the first opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
• The official opposition’s frontbench spokesperson then has up to two minutes to respond and ask a question (assuming the UQ is not in their name). The minister responds.
• The spokesperson from the third largest party then has one minute to respond and ask a question (assuming the UQ is not in their name). The minister responds.
• The speaker then calls other interested backbench MPs from all sides of the House to ask brief questions of the minister.

The entire process is similar to that for a standard oral ministerial statement and typically lasts between 45 and 60 minutes.

What is the point of urgent questions?

The primary purpose of the urgent question procedure is to ensure parliamentary accountability. It provides a mechanism for MPs to demand an immediate response from the executive on matters of pressing public concern.

Because of their short-notice nature, UQs are disruptive for government departments, which must prepare a minister with a detailed response in a short space of time.

They force issues onto the parliamentary agenda that the government had likely not planned to discuss.

A short history of urgent questions

While the procedure for asking private notice questions is long-standing, it fell into relative disuse for much of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Until 2002, UQs were called ‘private notice questions’.

The practice was revived by John Bercow, who served as commons speaker between 2009 and 2019. During his tenure in the chair, Bercow granted an unprecedented number of urgent questions – much to the irritation of those ministers hauled to the commons.

In the 2017-2019 session, there was an average of 0.88 UQs a day. This is compared to less than 0.1 UQs a day in the sessions between 1990 and 2009.

During the 2007-2008 session, a total of four urgent questions were asked of ministers in 165 sitting days. During the 2017-2019 session, 307 UQs were asked of ministers in 349 sitting days.

In a speech at the University of Birmingham in 2012, Bercow defended the increase in UQs: “I do not apologise for restoring this instrument of scrutiny. I believe the evidence demonstrates that it has helped revive the standing of the House by demonstrating its relevance.”

Upon his resignation as speaker in September 2019, Bercow was praised for reviving the UQ. Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, said he “regularly used to curse” the speaker for granting urgent questions during his tenure as a cabinet minister.

Duncan Smith added: “However, having returned to the backbenches, I have to congratulate you on reinvigorating the UQ, turning it from being an unusual event to being a very standard one, and I hope I have taken advantage of that.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the commons, praised Bercow as the “backbencher’s champion”.

He said: “I cannot thank you enough for the help you gave me to ensure that we could get the drug Brineura for a constituent of mine: within about a week, you called me at oral questions, granted me an Adjournment debate and then gave me an urgent question, all of which helped to build pressure on the government to act, to the great advantage of a very ill and very young constituent of mine.”

Bercow’s procedural innovation has had a marked impact on the culture of the commons. His successor, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has continued this practice; UQs are now a regular and expected feature of daily business in the House of Commons.

In the 2022-2023 session, Hoyle granted 160 UQs in 213 sitting days.

Private notice questions (PNQs) in the House of Lords

A private notice question (PNQ) gives members of the House of Lords the opportunity to raise urgent matters on any sitting day. A PNQ is submitted in writing to the lord speaker by 12:00 pm on the day on which it is proposed to ask it, or by 9:30 am on Thursdays, Fridays and any other days when oral questions are taken before 1:00 pm.

The decision whether the question is of sufficient urgency and importance to justify an immediate reply rests with the lord speaker, after consultation.

Minister announces Lord Mandelson’s sacking in response to UQ

On 11 September 2025, the Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty, announced that Peter Mandelson had been sacked as British ambassador to the United States of America. The announcement followed revelations as to the closeness of Mandelson’s longstanding friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Doughty had been hauled to the commons to answer an urgent question on the “appointment process” the US ambassador underwent. Conservative MP Neil O’Brien called on the foreign secretary (Yvette Cooper) to “make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.”

Doughty said: “In light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.

“The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.

“In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In the light of that and mindful, as we all are, of the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.”

O’Brien responded that Mandelson’s sacking raised “massive questions.”

He asked: “Is the minister now saying that the prime minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed?”

Doughty reiterated the details set out in his statement.

Labour MP Andy McDonald called for “an inquiry” into the appointments process.

Doughty confirmed that “candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course.”

Where is Liz Truss?

On the morning of 17 October 2022, the newly appointed chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, delivered an emergency statement reversing the majority of the tax-cutting policies announced in the so-called “mini-budget”.

Keir Starmer, the Labour leader of the opposition, responded by tabling an urgent question. It called on the prime minister, Liz Truss, to “make a statement on the replacement of the chancellor of the exchequer during the current economic situation.”

Starmer’s request was granted by the speaker. However, as is often the case when it comes to urgent questions, the relevant minister did not appear at the dispatch box. Instead, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, responded on the prime minister’s behalf.

Mordaunt stated: “With apologies to the leader of the opposition and the House, the prime minister is detained on urgent business.”

This phrase was met with audible derision from the opposition benches.

Mordaunt then responded with a short statement, telling the House: “The prime minister has taken the decision to appoint [Jeremy Hunt], one of the longest serving and most experienced parliamentarians, as her chancellor. Their overriding priority is to restore financial stability in the face of volatile global conditions.

“We will take whatever tough decisions are necessary, and have made changes to the growth plan, which the chancellor is waiting to update the House on as soon as this urgent question finishes.”

The commons leader remained in the chamber to answer a series of questions from across the House, beginning with the response from Starmer, who, as the MP who had secured the urgent question, was called first.

The Labour leader declared: “Now, it is time for leaders to lead, but where is the prime minister? She is hiding away, dodging questions, scared of her own shadow; the lady’s not for turning – up!”

Labour MP Stella Creasy accused Truss of “cowering under her desk and asking for it all to go away.”

Mordaunt responded: “The prime minister is not under a desk, as the honourable lady suggests.”

Labour MP Justin Madders remarked that he was “sure the markets will be reassured to see that the Prime Minister is not hiding under her desk but is here in the House today.”

Labour MP Chris Bryant rose on a point of order to challenge the absence of the prime minister.

The speaker stated: “Let us put this to bed. It is not for me but for the government to put forward Ministers to respond to urgent questions once they are granted. It is not a matter for the chair.”

Truss resigned as prime minister three days later on 20 October.

Geoffrey Cox responds to UQ on prorogation controversy

At the height of the prorogation controversy in September 2019, a senior minister was required to respond on behalf of the government to an urgent question. That role fell to the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox.

Cox was reported to have advised Boris Johnson, shortly into his tenure as prime minister, that his decision to prorogue parliament in the latter months of 2019 was “lawful” – only for the supreme court to rule otherwise.

Johnson had insisted that the five-week suspension, beginning 9 September, was to allow the government to set out a new legislative agenda in a queen’s speech when MPs return to parliament. Prorogation in order to secure a ‘no deal’ Brexit – the default legal position under EU law’s Article 50 process – had been a point of debate in the 2019 Tory leadership contest. This strategy, it was suggested, would prevent MPs from legislating to block a no deal Brexit, tabling a vote of no confidence in the government, or introducing a motion to trigger an early election.

But on 24 September 2019, the supreme court unanimously ruled that Johnson’s advice to the queen was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating parliament “or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.”

Minutes of a telephone conference call between cabinet ministers, leaked to Sky News, suggested Cox had deemed prorogation in the circumstances as “lawful and within the constitution”, and that accusations of “unlawfulness or constitutional outrage were motivated by political considerations.”

Upon parliament’s return, Scottish National Party (SNP) MP Joanna Cherry was granted an urgent question on the attorney general’s advice. Cherry urged Cox to publish the legal advice he gave to Johnson on the subject of prorogation.

Cox insisted the prorogation had been pursued “in good faith”.

He said: “At all times the government acted in good faith and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional.”

Cox also denied calls for him to step down, saying: “If every time I lost a case I was called upon to resign, I would probably have never had a practice.”

Cox framed his remarks around a virulent critique of the position adopted by opposition MPs. He accused them of failing to agree on a means of the UK leaving the EU, while repeatedly preventing the House of Commons from dissolving for an election.

In a politically charged speech, he declared: “This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches…

“They don’t like to hear it, Mr Speaker. Twice they have been asked to let the electorate decide upon whether they should be allowed to sit in their seats, while they block 17.4 million people’s votes. This parliament is a disgrace.”

He added: “This parliament should have the courage to face the electorate but it won’t, because so many of them are really all about preventing us from leaving the European Union at all.

“But the time is coming, Mr Speaker, when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas!”

Cox’s speech set the scene for a series of angry exchanges. Barry Sheerman, the Labour MP for Huddersfield, hit back: “For a man like him, a party like his, and a leader like this prime minister to talk about morals and morality is a disgrace.”