The Bench Report

Government Compliance and the Ministerial Code Debate

• The Bench Report • Season 2 • Episode 37

Share episode

A UK parliamentary debate recently focused on the rule that requires important government policy announcements to be made in Parliament first when it is sitting. Members of Parliament raised concerns that the government is repeatedly making announcements outside the House, pointing to specific examples like NHS changes and trade deals. The government argues that they take this rule seriously and make many statements in Parliament. They also explain the need to balance this requirement with other parliamentary business and the realities of fast-moving events, stating it's not always possible to announce everything first in the House. The discussion highlights ongoing tensions around government accountability and transparency.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Ministerial Code states that the most important government policy announcements should be made in Parliament first when it is in session.
  • Critics argue the government shows a consistent pattern of failing to follow this rule, citing various examples.
  • The government maintains they take their obligations seriously, make many statements to the House, and work to balance the rule with practical constraints and the need to inform Members effectively.
  • Concerns were raised about the lack of sanctions for breaches of the Ministerial Code.
  • The independent adviser on the Ministerial Code has increased powers to start inquiries.

Definitions:

  • Ministerial Code: A set of rules and standards that govern the behaviour of government Ministers.
  • Oral Statement: A formal announcement or update made by a Minister directly to the House of Commons.
  • Urgent Question (UQ): A request made by an MP to require a Minister to come to the House to answer an important and urgent issue immediately.

Discussion:

Considering the debate between strictly following the Ministerial Code rule and the practical challenges the government describes, how important do you think it is for major announcements to always be made in Parliament first, and why?

Source: Ministerial Code: Compliance
Volume 767: debated on Wednesday 14 May 2025

Support the show

Follow and subscribe to 'The Bench Report' on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes Mon-Thurs: thebenchreport.co.uk

Shape our next episode! Get in touch with an issue important to you - Producer Tom will grab another coffee and start the research!

Email us: thebenchreportuk@gmail.com

Follow us on YouTube, X, Bluesky, Facebook and Instagram @BenchReportUK

Support us for bonus and extended episodes + more.

No outside chatter: source material only taken from Hansard and the Parliament UK website.

Contains Parliamentary information repurposed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Amy:

Hello and welcome once more to The Bench Report. You're listening to Amy and Ivan.

Ivan:

Our final episode this week on the workings of the UK Parliament concerns ministerial compliance.

Amy:

And the material you shared focuses on a key principle when government policy announcements should... ideally be made to Parliament first.

Ivan:

Exactly. The rule is actually found in paragraph nine point one of the ministerial code. That's sort of the official handbook for ministers.

Amy:

Right.

Ivan:

And it says quite clearly that when Parliament is sitting The really important announcements, the big policy shifts, should be made there first.

Amy:

Usually through what's called an oral statement.

Ivan:

That's the typical way, yes. It allows MPs to, you know, question the minister straight away.

Amy:

And this isn't just some dry procedural point, is it? It feels like it's really about accountability, about where power lies.

Ivan:

It absolutely is. It determines who hears the government's plans first. Is it Parliament, where ministers face immediate questions? Or, well, is it announced elsewhere first, maybe to... And

Amy:

the material shows there's quite a debate on whether the government is sticking to this rule consistently.

Ivan:

Definitely. So if we look at the government's perspective presented by the leader of the House, they emphasize a commitment to this principle. They point to the numbers, saying this session has seen 146 oral statements in 133 sitting days.

Amy:

Wow, that's more than one a day on average.

Ivan:

Yes, and they note that's actually more than the previous government managed in their last session. Specific examples are given, too.

Amy:

Like the ones on prison capacity and defense spending. The material said those went to the House first.

Ivan:

Correct. Before the media got them. And the argument is also made that compliance isn't just about these oral statements.

Amy:

Ah, so there are other ways they inform Parliament.

Ivan:

Yes. Things like written statements, apparently 633 so far this session, plus appearances before select committees and, you know, thousands of written answers to MPs' questions.

Amy:

Okay, so a broader picture of communication. But they do acknowledge They

Ivan:

do. Practical constraints are mentioned. Balancing parliamentary time. Sometimes announcements, well, they just emerge late in the day or perhaps when the House isn't even sitting.

Amy:

And the point about complex documents, like that immigration white paper needing time for MPs to digest.

Ivan:

Exactly. Giving members time to actually read something substantial before questioning. And sometimes international events like timings around the U.S. trade deal talks are genuinely outside their direct control.

Amy:

So the government position seems to be we're doing our best to comply within practical realities.

Ivan:

That's the gist of their side. Yes. Adherence balance with pragmatism.

Amy:

OK, but then there's the other side of the coin, the critics. What does the material say about their view?

Ivan:

Well, critics argue this commitment isn't always evident. They see, or claim to see, a pattern of important policies not being announced to the House first, even when it was sitting.

Amy:

And they have examples.

Ivan:

Oh, yes. The handling of the U.K.-U.S. trade agreement statement last Thursday is cited as a recent case causing procedural friction.

Amy:

I remember reading about that. What else?

Ivan:

There's the decision to abolish NHS, England critics say, that was floating around the media before Parliament got the official word back in March.

Amy:

Right. And the sustainable farming incentive, canceled via the media the day before an urgent question. That's

Ivan:

another example mentioned. Also, a North Sea energy consultation announced to the media on one day and only relayed to the House the next day.

Amy:

Doesn't sound ideal for scrutiny.

Ivan:

No. And changes to refugee citizenship rules apparently hadn't been brought to the House by February. Plus, the prime minister announcing immigration white paper details in a speech on a Monday when parliament was sitting later that very day.

Amy:

So quite a list. And it covers fiscal rules, tuition fees, planning reforms. Even a defense program leak.

Ivan:

Indeed. And the critics highlight that these instances often resulted in the speaker who oversees proceedings having to, well, gently rebuke the government, pointing out the breach of convention.

Amy:

Which underscores the point that it is a rule, not just a nice to have.

Ivan:

Exactly. Their core argument is that the ministerial code isn't just a suggestion. Ignoring it, they say, chips away at accountability and transparency. It makes it harder for MPs, and therefore the public, to properly examine what the government is doing.

Amy:

And the excuse of being disorganized doesn't wash, especially over a year into a term.

Ivan:

That's the counter argument presented. Yes.

Amy:

Yeah.

Ivan:

They're calling for the rule to be enforced more strongly, maybe even a review of how compliance is monitored and judged.

Amy:

So this really isn't just about parliamentary procedure. It's fundamental.

Ivan:

It is. It forces us to ask.

Amy:

In

Ivan:

today's incredibly fast-paced news environment, how do you strike the right balance? How do you ensure timely government communication while also upholding parliament as the primary place for major policy announcements and, crucially, for holding power to account?

Amy:

That question of balance is definitely the key takeaway here. Where does timely communication end and proper parliamentary scrutiny begin? Something for you to consider.

Ivan:

Absolutely.

Amy:

As always, find us on social media at Bench Report UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.

Parliament Matters Artwork

Parliament Matters

Hansard Society
Pod Save the UK Artwork

Pod Save the UK

Crooked Media