17
Conclusion
4th Report - Ministerial Statements and…
Deferred
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 House were meant to be aware that the documents were …
Read more
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 House were meant to be aware that the documents were available, and the use of imprecise terminology further exacerbated that situation. In all cases, there were no accompanying written ministerial statements, which 36 could have been used to provide helpful information about the process around the announcement and the availability of relevant documents. Furthermore, the timing and extent of trailing and pre-briefing of the substance of statements examined by the committee, in our view, could reasonably be concluded to constitute a breach of the general principle set out in the Ministerial Code, regardless of whether the document was properly laid or not. (Conclusion, Paragraph 54)
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →
18
Recommendation
4th Report - Ministerial Statements and…
Deferred
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 with Members, preferably through the timely and proper use of …
Read more
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 with Members, preferably through the timely and proper use of written ministerial statements, and to refrain from substantive prior trailing of the contents of these documents in the media, we accept that the general principle could be met through this route, however we would expect an oral statement to follow within a reasonable timeframe to provide Members with an appropriate opportunity to question Ministers. At all times we would expect the Government to follow the ‘Parliament first’ principle. (Conclusion, Paragraph 56)
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →
23
Conclusion
4th Report - Ministerial Statements and…
Deferred
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 form for a statement, oral or written, having regard to …
Read more
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 form for a statement, oral or written, having regard to the general principle in the Ministerial Code and the wider expectations of the House, and in the knowledge that the House has a range of tools at its disposal to hold ministers to account. (Conclusion, Paragraph 71)
Show less
Government response AI 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.
Read full response →