4th Report - Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code
Select Committee
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
HC 1036
9 January 2026
Government response
1st Special Report - Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code: Government Response · published 4 Jun 2026
Recommendations & Conclusions
29 results
1
Conclusion
Accepted
Ministerial Code reaffirmed as suitable for government policy announcement principles
Conclusion
The general principle in the Ministerial Code relating to important announcements of government policy has recently been reaffirmed when the Prime Minister republished the Code in October 2025. We concur that the Ministerial Code is a suitable document to contain …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the general principle in Chapter 9 of the Ministerial Code should be broadened to reflect ministerial accountability principles from Chapter 1, committing to update the language at the next available opportunity.
2
Conclusion
Accepted
Uncertainty surrounds appetite for new House Protocol on ministerial statements
Conclusion
Ministerial accountability to Parliament is well established irrespective of its inclusion in the Ministerial Code. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether there is a current appetite to replicate the principles in relation to ministerial statements in the form of a new …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agrees that the General Principle in Chapter 9 of the Ministerial Code should be broadened to reflect ministerial accountability principles from Chapter 1, and commits to updating the language at the next available opportunity.
3
Conclusion
Accepted
General agreement on Ministerial Code expectations serves everyone's best interests
Conclusion
Even though the Ministerial Code is a government document, it is in everyone’s interest for there to be general agreement of the expectations flowing from its letter and spirit. (Conclusion, Paragraph 17)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the committee's observation and commits to updating the language in Chapter 9 of the Ministerial Code at the next available opportunity. This update will broaden the 'General Principle' to reflect and ensure consistency with Chapter 1 on ministerial accountability.
4
Conclusion
Accepted
Frequent accusations of Ministerial Code breaches create an undesirable situation
Conclusion
We believe the current situation where the Code sets a high bar for expectations which is regularly subject to accusations of being breached is undesirable. (Conclusion, Paragraph 18)
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the Committee's concerns about the Ministerial Code setting an undesirable high bar for expectations and commits to updating its language.
5
Conclusion
Accepted
Ministerial Code fails to effectively encapsulate ministerial accountability to Parliament
Conclusion
We believe that as currently drafted the Ministerial Code does not encapsulate effectively the general principle governing the relationship between ministers and Parliament. The general principle would be better framed around general government and ministerial accountability to Parliament. Any direction …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agrees the Ministerial Code's "General Principle" wording should be broadened to reflect ministerial accountability to Parliament and commits to updating the language in Chapter 9 at the next available opportunity.
6
Conclusion
Accepted in Part
House considered 'in session' outside recess, acknowledging ongoing government business
Conclusion
We consider the House to be ‘in session’ at all times outside of recess, prorogation and dissolution, not just when it is sitting. It is accepted that the business of government continues during recess and ministers will need to respond …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government explicitly states it "partially accepts" the recommendation and agrees with the Committee's definition of 'in session'. While committing to keep the House informed through various channels during recess, it acknowledges that notifying the House first is not always possible.
7
Recommendation
Accepted in Part
Restrict major policy announcements when Parliament is not sitting to exceptional circumstances.
Recommendation
However, major planned policy announcements when the House is not in session should be restricted to those which are time sensitive or otherwise exceptional. Where it is necessary to make a major announcement when the House is in session but …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government partially accepts this recommendation, agreeing with the committee's definition of 'in session' and committing to ensuring announcement details are made available to the House at the earliest opportunity through statements or letters. However, they maintain it is not always possible to notify the House first.
8
Recommendation
Acknowledged
Defining 'most important' policy announcements remains subjective for ministers.
Recommendation
The term ‘most important’ is inevitably subjective. However, it is the responsibility of ministers individually and the Government collectively to be aware of the expectations of Parliament and maintain the confidence of the House. We do not believe that it …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government fully recognises the House's scrutiny role and outlines current considerations for oral statements, stating the Leader of the House will continue working with ministers to ensure timely updates. However, it does not commit to specifically adjusting thresholds for importance based on the mood of the House.
9
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Making major statements to media before Parliament constitutes a breach of principle.
Conclusion
In the context of the Code as currently drafted, making the most important statements in the first instance to Parliament means doing so before they are made to the media and not at the first available opportunity thereafter. Apart from …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns and the need to balance parliamentary accountability with effective public communication in a changing media environment, stating it will look to update the language of the Ministerial Code.
10
Recommendation
Rejected
Replace 'should' with 'must' in the Ministerial Code's general principle on announcements.
Recommendation
We consider the word ‘should’ in the general principle to be ambiguous without good cause. Replacing it with the word ‘must’ would send a clear signal to Ministers and others about the expectations of the House and give confidence to …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to change 'should' to 'must' in the Ministerial Code, arguing it is not always possible to make announcements to the House first, particularly when Parliament is not sitting.
11
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Government must balance legitimate policy 'trailing' with substantive media leaks to avoid breaches.
Conclusion
Careful regard needs to be given by government to the balance between a legitimate trailing of a statement and the deliberate or inadvertent provision of information to the media that is so substantive that it could be considered a breach …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the committee's concerns, recognizing the need to balance parliamentary accountability with effective public communication in a changing media environment, and states it will look to update the language of the Ministerial Code.
12
Recommendation
Accepted
Ministerial Code's 'Parliament first' principle needs modernisation to reflect changed media environment.
Recommendation
However, the media environment has changed significantly in recent years, and the provisions on the need to make the most important statements of government policy to Parliament first have remained substantively the same since the Code was introduced in 1997. …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the committee’s recognition and acknowledges concerns about the Ministerial Code as currently drafted, committing to update its language to reflect the 'Parliament first' principle at the next available opportunity.
13
Recommendation
Accepted in Part
Comply with the Ministerial Code or substantially re-write it in consultation with Parliament.
Recommendation
The responsibility for complying with the Code rests with the Government. The Government should either make every effort to comply with the Code, or to re-write it. Although it is the Prime Minister’s document, we expect that any substantial re-writing …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges concerns and commits to updating the language of the Ministerial Code, while reasserting that the Code's content is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister, but also commits to working constructively with Members.
14
Conclusion
Acknowledged
No exhaustive list exists for exceptions to major policy announcement principles.
Conclusion
It is not possible to have an exhaustive list of all the circumstances which could be considered an exception to the normal principles relating to the making of major policy announcements. We accept that there are various such circumstances, including …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government partially accepts this conclusion, recognizing that it is not always possible to notify the House of major announcements first and committing to making details available at the earliest appropriate opportunity when exceptions arise.
15
Recommendation
Accepted in Part
Require ministers to explain reasons for breaching 'Parliament first' principle at earliest opportunity.
Recommendation
Where an exceptional circumstance does arise and a major policy is announced first elsewhere, a minister must, as a sign of respect towards Parliament, make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity, which would include the reasons for …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government partially accepts, committing to ensuring announcement details are made available to the House at the earliest appropriate opportunity when exceptions arise. However, it does not explicitly commit to including reasons for breaching the general principle in such statements.
16
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Speaker and Committee share longstanding concerns over government policy announcements to Parliament.
Conclusion
The Speaker has represented the dissatisfaction of the House, through statements made in the Chamber and when setting out the concerns of Members across the House when he wrote to us in May 2025. We share his concerns and note …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government fully recognises the importance of House scrutiny and states the Leader of the House will continue to work with Ministers to ensure timely and appropriate updates. They also list various existing ways the government keeps the House informed.
17
Conclusion
Deferred
Publication process for major policy documents consistently breaches Ministerial Code principles
Conclusion
It is our assessment that in none of these examples can we be satisfied that the general principle has been met by the publication of relevant documents associated with major policy announcements. It is not clear how Members of the …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the importance of timely publication but raises issues with current procedural requirements for written ministerial statements, inviting the Procedure Committee to review whether notice arrangements are optimal.
18
Recommendation
Deferred
Ensure timely, transparent publication of documents, followed by oral statements for parliamentary scrutiny
Recommendation
In the examples cited, we do not agree that the publication of associated documents ahead of statements met the expectations of the general principle of the Code. However, subject to the Government making proper attempts to be open and transparent …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the recognition of timely document publication but does not commit to a follow-up oral statement. Instead, it defers to the House and Procedure Committee to explore whether current notice requirements for written ministerial statements can be made more flexible.
19
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Early publication of significant documents enhances parliamentary scrutiny and 'Parliament first' adherence
Conclusion
We believe that scrutiny is improved when Members have greater access to relevant information, and we recognise that publication of significant documents in advance of statements could meet the ‘Parliament first’ principle while allowing Members time to put together more …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the committee's recognition that timely document publication and written statements improve scrutiny, but highlights challenges with current procedural requirements for written ministerial statements. It seeks the views of the House and Procedure Committee on modernizing notice arrangements for written statements.
20
Conclusion
Accepted
Concentration of statements and urgent questions limits time for other House business
Conclusion
Sitting time is finite and there will always be a tension between the various demands of the House. Statements and urgent questions play an important role in the effective scrutiny of government, but in concentration they can significantly affect the …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government notes the conclusion, explaining its current practice of balancing oral statements with other parliamentary business and avoiding them on Opposition days where possible, while acknowledging that Urgent Questions are a matter for the Speaker.
21
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Procedural options available to manage sitting times, but long-term changes are beyond inquiry
Conclusion
The House has regularly considered issues relating to sitting times and the prioritisation of business. The Government can propose, and the House can consider, procedural options to mitigate these issues in the short term, for example, notwithstanding Standing Orders or …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government notes the conclusion and states it already balances oral statements with other business, avoiding overuse of ad hoc motions to maintain certainty of sitting times.
22
Recommendation
Rejected
Utilise Business of the House motions to protect non-government business from planned statements
Recommendation
We encourage the Government to always consider the potential for using Business of the House motions to protect non-government business in the House, particularly opposition business, from the impact of planned statements. (Recommendation, Paragraph 64) 37 Written ministerial statements
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government notes the recommendation but rejects the increased use of Business of the House motions, stating they would not wish to undermine certainty of sitting times by overusing ad hoc motions. They affirm their current practice of trying to balance statements with other business and protecting time when statements are unavoidable.
23
Conclusion
Deferred
Written ministerial statements significantly enhance transparency and government openness to Parliament
Conclusion
The introduction of written ministerial statements in 2002 has proved to be a considerable success in increasing transparency and making government more open to Parliament and the public. It is for the Government to make a judgement about the correct …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the recognition of written ministerial statements but notes procedural challenges. They will seek views from the House and the Procedure Committee on whether current notice requirements remain optimal for timely information release.
24
Recommendation
Accepted
Enhance use of written ministerial statements to inform Members of document publication
Recommendation
We encourage the Government to make more effective use of written ministerial statements to inform Members about the publication of documents related to major government announcements, even when those announcements may themselves be the subject of an oral statement. (Recommendation, …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government accepts the recommendation, committing to update the House through written ministerial statements and encouraging departments to table written statements alongside oral ones.
25
Conclusion
Accepted
Sanctioning individual ministers for Ministerial Code breaches remains problematic due to shared responsibility
Conclusion
For most breaches under the Ministerial Code in relation to paragraph 9.1, it is difficult to conceive of the circumstances that would result in sanctions against an individual minister, given that the Code specifies the Prime Minister as being a …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government states the Prime Minister is already regularly held to account by Parliament through established mechanisms like PMQs and Liaison Committee appearances. These forums provide ample opportunity for Members to question determinations on ministerial conduct and sanctions.
26
Recommendation
Accepted in Part
Government commitment to Ministerial Code best addresses breaches and parliamentary dissatisfaction
Recommendation
An active commitment from the Government to adhere to the Ministerial Code and the ‘Parliament first’ principle is the easiest and most optimal solution to address the dissatisfaction of Parliament and the subsequent question of what constitutes adequate sanctions for …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges concerns about the Ministerial Code and commits to updating its language, while reaffirming that the Code's content remains a matter for the Prime Minister. They also express commitment to constructive work with Members to ensure changes support parliamentary scrutiny.
27
Recommendation
Rejected
Amend Ministerial Code to require Prime Minister to issue statements on standards breaches.
Recommendation
We recommend that an addition be made to Chapter 2 of the Ministerial Code to commit the Prime Minister to issuing a written statement upon reaching a final decision where he has determined a breach of the expected standards has …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation, stating the Ministerial Code is a matter for the Prime Minister, not Parliament, and existing mechanisms like PMQs provide sufficient scrutiny for ministerial conduct decisions.
28
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Urgent questions remain a vital and effective mechanism for holding ministers to account.
Conclusion
Urgent questions are the most effective and timely remedy currently available to Members to hold ministers to account in the absence of an oral statement. The Speaker holds important powers to protect the interests of 38 the House and, despite …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government fully recognises the House's opportunity to scrutinize decisions and acknowledges the Speaker's role in granting Urgent Questions as a vital mechanism for accountability.
29
Conclusion
Acknowledged
Adhering to Ministerial Code principles would reduce need for urgent parliamentary questions.
Conclusion
By adhering to the general principle in the Ministerial Code and making the most important announcements of government policy in the first instance in Parliament, the need for Members to seek redress through the mechanism of the urgent question will …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government recognises the importance of House scrutiny and states the Leader of the House will continue to work with Ministers to ensure timely and appropriate updates. They also list various existing mechanisms for keeping the House informed.