Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Conclusion 14

4th Report - Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code Published 9 Jan 2026
Conclusion (the committee's words)
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 factors beyond the control of the Government, such as where announcements may be international. We expect the House to be sympathetic on those occasions when a good argument is made for an announcement being made exceptionally in breach of the general principle in the Ministerial Code. (Conclusion, Paragraph 43)

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.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error