Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 10
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)
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 the electorate that Members can do their scrutiny jobs effectively. (Recommendation, Paragraph 35)
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.