Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 8
4th Report - Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code
Published 9 Jan 2026
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
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 is practical to produce rigid criteria to make decision-making more objective but believe the membership of the House can assess the Government’s compliance with this aspect of the principle on a case-by-case basis. Government should pay close attention to the mood of the House and, where concern is raised, give serious consideration to adjusting the thresholds they are using to evaluate the importance of policy or other announcements. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29)
From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 4th Report - Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code (HC 1036), 9 January 2026
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 4 June 2026.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government accepts some of the Committee's recommendations, partially accepts others, notes one, and rejects those on the word 'must' in the Code and on a written statement after a breach finding.
- It "agrees that the wording of the 'General Principle' in Chapter 9 should be broadened" and "will look to update the language" in Chapter 9 "at the next available opportunity".
- It rejects replacing "should" with "must" in the general principle, noting it is "not always possible" to announce to the House first. On wider rewriting of the Code, it says its contents are "a matter for the Prime Minister, rather than Parliament".
- It partially accepts the recommendations on announcements made when the House is not in session and on statements after exceptional breaches, remaining "committed to ensuring" details reach the House "at the earliest" appropriate opportunity. It "notes" the recommendation on Business of the House motions.
- It accepts the recommendation to make more use of written ministerial statements, and would "welcome the views of the House, and specifically the Procedure Committee" on current notice requirements. It disagrees with requiring a written statement after a breach finding, citing existing scrutiny through PMQs and the Liaison Committee.