1st Special Report - Ministerial Statements and the Ministerial Code: Government Response

This is the government's response, published 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