Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 26

4th Report - Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code Published 9 Jan 2026
Recommendation (the committee's words)
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 breaches. Alternatively, the Government could, in consultation with Members across the House, seek agreement on any changes to the Ministerial Code it feels are necessary. (Conclusion, Paragraph 80)

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