PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Ministerial Code: Compliance - 14 May 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on Government compliance with the general principles set out in paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code.

The ministerial code is clear:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

That is an important principle by which this Government stand. Already in this Session there have been 146 oral statements in just 133 sitting days—more than one per day, and more than the previous Government made in the entirety of their last Session. They have included six important statements from the Prime Minister and more than 20 from the Foreign Office, as well as statements on very important issues such as today’s statement on infected blood.

The Government and I take our obligations to Parliament very seriously, and the Prime Minister and I remind Cabinet colleagues of that regularly. There are also other ways by which the Government keep the House updated, including written ministerial statements—of which there have been 633 so far in this Session—responses and appearances before Select Committees, and thousands of responses to parliamentary questions.

Although the Government remain committed to making the most important announcements on the Floor of the House, we need to balance that with other demands on the House’s time, especially when there is great interest in the other business of the day. On occasion, developments and announcements will happen when the House is not sitting, or will emerge later in the sitting day. That is why it is not always possible to make every announcement to the House first. It is also important that Members have enough time to read and digest any relevant documents, and that they are given advance notice in order to be able to question a Minister effectively and seek answers.

However, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this aspect of the ministerial code incredibly seriously, and I will continue to work with Mr Speaker and colleagues across the House to ensure that Parliament is respected, Members are informed, the Government are scrutinised effectively, and announcements are made to this House first.

In recent times we have seen an increasing trend of the Government failing to make statements to the House first, despite there being no barrier to them doing so. Last Thursday was a mess, with the Minister of State for Business and Trade trying to withdraw the statement on the UK-US trade agreement, despite Members having waited here for seven hours for the statement to materialise.

The decision to abolish NHS England was relayed to the House on 13 March, having been trailed in the media beforehand. On Wednesday 12 March, an urgent question was granted on an announcement that had been made the day before on the sustainable farming incentive being cancelled. On 6 March, a consultation on North sea energy that had been announced to the media the day before was relayed to the House in a statement. In February, the Government changed the refugee citizenship rules, and they still have not informed the House. On Monday this week, the Prime Minister announced the contents of the immigration White Paper via a speech that mirrored Enoch Powell, despite Parliament sitting later that day.

This is a consistent pattern of behaviour by the UK Government. I am concerned that there is little point in having a ministerial code if the Government can ignore one of the key principles with no sanction and apparently no consequences. The Government are nearly a year into their term, so disorganisation or a lack of familiarity with the rules can surely no longer be cited as reasons for consistent breaches of the code. I believe that the UK Government should adhere to the principles set out in the ministerial code, and that the Leader of the House must urgently set out how she intends to improve the situation and ensure that there is adherence.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this urgent question, and I welcome the opportunity to emphasise that I take these matters very seriously. We have made a number of very big announcements to the House, often responding to world events in real time. I recognise—and I hope she will respect this—that there are judgments to be made and, at times, a balance to be struck, and I have the best interests of the House in mind.

Although the hon. Lady did not say so, there have been many times in this parliamentary Session when statements have been made to this House long before the media or anybody else were aware of them—for example, on prison capacity, increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, the response to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report into the women’s state pension age, and many others. On many of those occasions, the criticism that I received was that Members did not have enough time to properly consider the details of the statements before having the opportunity to question the Minister. Hard copies of the immigration White Paper, which is a lengthy and detailed document, were made available in the Table Office at 9.30 that morning to allow Members ample time to read and consider it before questioning the Home Secretary on the Floor of the House in a session that lasted an hour and 25 minutes.

The hon. Lady raised last Thursday’s statement on the US trade deal, and I think we can all recognise that that did not happen exactly as we would have liked. International events are often outside our control, and they do not take account of UK parliamentary sitting hours. The Trade Minister made an oral statement to the House as soon as he was able to do so, and I was trying to get the balance right. We wanted to make a statement when the maximum number of Members were here; otherwise, it would not have been made for several days, because it was a Thursday and the House was rising.

We are doing a lot. We are getting on with delivering on a huge number of policies, and we have signed unprecedented trade deals with other countries. The US trade deal, which is delivering lower tariffs for steel and car manufacturing, is absolutely critical, as is the India trade deal, which is delivering for Scottish distilleries and for Scotland. We are always trying to get the balance right, and I want to emphasise my commitment to making sure that when announcements can be made to this House first, they absolutely are.

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for raising this urgent question. As she has highlighted, there is a consistent pattern of failure to report first to this House, as is required by the ministerial code. She has rightly drawn attention to the farcical scenes that we had with the Trade Minister being required to deliver a statement, then having to be UQ’d the following Monday. He tried to give the same statement, without any recognition, and was rebuked by Mr Speaker for not knowing the difference.

Back in October we had the embarrassing sight of the Chancellor announcing intended changes to the Government’s fiscal rules to the media before informing Parliament, and having to be publicly rebuked by Mr Speaker for doing so. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has mentioned a number of other cases. I would highlight the Secretary of State for Education announcing tuition fees to the press before Parliament in November, the Deputy Prime Minister announcing planning reforms before the final national planning policy framework update was publicly available, and a Ministry of Defence leak on the global combat air programme in December.

As we all know, the ministerial code—the Government took great credit for seeking to strengthen it on entering office—makes very plain what the rule is. It does not say, “Judgments are to be made.” It says, “The first announcement must be made to Parliament when the most important announcements of government policy are made.” It does not say, “By the way, you can prioritise these things.” Does anyone seriously think that an announcement on trade, on planning, on tuition fees or on the global combat air programme would not be of the first importance to this House? No, because every single one of those would be vital.

It is not just a matter of the ministerial code and ministerial accountability. These decisions are made in breach of the Nolan principles of openness and the requirement for accountability, and they are made in breach of Labour’s own manifesto promise to

“restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards.”

Will the right hon. Lady encourage the independent adviser to make an inquiry, and will she look to the Cabinet Secretary to do the same with civil servants? Will she and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, look to Mr Speaker for adequate enforcement of the present rules, which are being widely flouted?

I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the ministerial code says that

“when Parliament is in session”,

announcements will be made to this House first. I also remind him that announcements can be made via written ministerial statements and other things as well. There is a balance to be struck, and we try to do that in the best interests of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman describes this as business question bingo. I will give him bingo: I am not going to take a lecture from him on these matters. This Government have done twice as many oral statements as his Government did in the same number of sitting days. We are ensuring that there is proper time to scrutinise Government bills—something that they did not do. We are answering significantly more written parliamentary questions than his Government ever did.

I have to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government illegally prorogued Parliament when they could not get their own way—something that he went out and defended to his constituents. The Conservatives had a Prime Minister who was found guilty of misleading this House—something that the right hon. Gentleman also defended. When an MP broke the standards rules, the Conservatives tried to change them. They had to be dragged here time and again. This Government respects Parliament. We stand up for the rights of Parliament. His Government traduced them.

Does the Minister agree that there is a certain irony in the SNP raising this matter, given the regularity with which SNP Ministers trail Scottish Government announcements in the press before coming to the Chamber in Holyrood? That was certainly the case when I served as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It is vital that important announcements on key areas of policy are made in this House first, so is it not right that this Government have come forward with so many oral statements on key areas of policy, including the vital trade deal that we have recently secured with India, which is of such importance to the Scottish economy?

My hon. Friend makes a really good point: the trade deal with India is really good for Scottish distilleries. It will bring in over £1 billion of additional trade for the Scottish whisky sector. I was not aware of his experience in the Scottish Parliament, but he makes a very good point.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this urgent question. All of us in this Chamber were elected to represent our constituents and to put the interests of the country first, and to do that we must be able to scrutinise the Government’s plans and policies. The best way to do that is in this Chamber and as soon as possible, so we are disappointed that they have chosen to make announcements in this way.

We also note that this is not the first time. The shadow Leader of the House has mentioned various examples, and I would like to add some more. On the NHS, for example, the Government have, without any statement in the Chamber, made key decisions such as dropping cross-party talks on social care, cutting integrated care board budgets by 50% and scrapping nearly half of NHS targets. The question must be: why are the Government so worried about bringing these issues to the Floor first?

I thank the hon. Member for that question, but I have to disagree with her analysis. The Secretary of State for Health and his Ministers have made eight oral statements to the House so far this Session, nearly all of which have been taken by the Secretary of State himself, and they have lasted for a long time. They have been answering many written parliamentary questions, laying written ministerial statements and appearing before Select Committees. The Prime Minister himself has made six oral statements to this House, and has appeared before the Liaison Committee twice already in this Session, far outstripping his predecessors’ record. So we are accountable, although of course we can always do better and improve, which is what we seek to do. We are so busy as a Government in getting on with delivering the change that people have voted for, but we are doing our best to inform the House.

At points over the last few years, the most senior SNP leaders in Scotland have been under police investigation, while their Government are failing, with Ayrshire ferries that should have cost £80 million costing half a billion and being years late, one in six Scots being on waiting lists and the shambolic creation of Social Security Scotland costing double at £700 million. With this constant waste of taxpayers’ money, does the Leader of the House agree that the SNP should not be looked to as the model of good government?

My hon. Friend makes the very important point that we should all hold ourselves to high standards of accountability and transparency, and perhaps the Scottish nationalist party should do that as the Scottish Government.

The right hon. Lady is an attentive Leader of the House, and I hope the Government show the same degree of loyalty to her after a tough couple of weeks that she is showing to them. Although I do acknowledge that the Government make many statements to the House, all too often they make them to the media first, as you noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your announcement on Monday:

“Mr Speaker does not understand why the Government persist in making announcements in this way, when the ministerial code is absolutely clear”.—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 47.]

Will the Leader of the House take back the message, even if she cannot confess it on the Floor of the House, that they are going too far and they need to stop?

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very kind remarks. He is a very attentive Member in raising matters with me at business questions where the Government are falling short of our commitment to transparency and openness on ministerial questions, correspondence and so on, which I follow up for him.

As I said in my opening remarks, we endeavour to make these important announcements to the House first when the House is in session. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that at times those announcements are not made because the House is not in session or we want to give Members ample time to fully consider the detailed documentation sitting alongside them. I reassure him, however, that I speak to my Cabinet colleagues about this very regularly, as does the Prime Minister, and I speak to Mr Speaker about it as well, and we will continue to raise our game to ensure that big, important statements are brought to the House.

Further to the detail the Leader of the House has set out in her response to the urgent question, can she say a little more about the modernisation agenda she is championing? I refer Members to the fact that I am a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is so ably chaired by the Leader of the House. Does she agree that all Members on both sides of the House should take the agenda seriously, so that we can faithfully and to the fullest of our ability serve the constituents whom we are here to serve?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, he knows that I am determined to ensure that this House of Commons, and Parliament, becomes and remains the crucible of national debate once again—if, indeed, it ever was enough of a crucible—and that is one of the agendas we are delivering. I want to ensure that all Members across the House—particularly, those from the smaller parties who, in our new multi-party House of Commons, perhaps do not have the access that others do—have ample opportunity to scrutinise Government legislation and make the most of this House of Commons. I want to proceed on the basis of cross-party agreement, so that every Member of this House feels they are able to scrutinise and hold to account the Government of the day.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this urgent question. It is not the first time that she has had to raise this issue during her parliamentary career. It appears that whoever is on the Government Benches conveniently forgets everything they said when they were on the Opposition Benches. The Leader of the House will recall the former shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), warning the then Tory Government:

“Parliament must be told first: we are not irrelevant.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 1169.]

That warning is as true for this Labour Government as it was for the previous Tory Administration. Is what we are witnessing a case of acute amnesia or simply a belief that it is now their turn to treat Members of the House with contempt?

I disagree with the hon. Member’s analysis. As I have made absolutely clear, this Government have made 145 statements in 133 sitting days, which is more than one a day. The vast majority of those oral statements have been made by Secretaries of State, which we did not see under the previous Government. Indeed, for many months, I and others were calling for the then Foreign Secretary to come to this House to answer questions, which the previous Government blocked because he was in the other place. We have laid 633 written statements and answered thousands more parliamentary questions in this Session. I take very seriously our duty to lay ourselves open for transparency, scrutiny and openness with this House, and we will continue to strive for ever-increasing respect and standards.

As the Member of Parliament for Dunfermline and Dollar—which was, after all, where the infamous campervan was found—I have had a front row seat for the SNP’s commitment to transparency. Having heard more from SNP Members about their position on transparency and openness, does the Leader of the House agree that it is scandalous for them to raise transparency when it took freedom of information requests to find out more about when the former First Minister met the President of Turkey to discuss, among other issues, Scottish trade?

I think my hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I do not need to add to it.

I think it would be fair to say that this is not the first Government who have disregarded this particular provision of the ministerial code, but may I put it to the Leader of the House that if the charge is that the Government, for their own calculated and tactical advantage, have breached the ministerial code by announcing something outside this Chamber, surely the person determining whether such a breach has occurred cannot be the leader of that Government? Is it not time to look again at the recommendations made by, among others, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I was once a member, about how the decision maker as to whether the ministerial code has been breached should be the independent adviser on ministerial standards, not the Prime Minister?

The right hon. and learned Member will know that the independent adviser on the ministerial code appointed by the previous Government was reappointed by this Government, and that the independent adviser’s powers were strengthened to be able to initiate inquiries. Those inquiries do not now need to be initiated by the Prime Minister.

We are raising standards when it comes to Members of Parliament, and Ministers as well. We are holding ourselves accountable to much higher standards than happened under the previous Government. I would just reiterate for the House that the ministerial code says:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

There are times when Parliament is not in session, and announcements are brought to the House at other times.

As a new Member of this House, I have noticed that on almost every single day on which Parliament sits, there is a statement from the Government, alongside, quite rightly, urgent questions. Will the Leader of the House use the Modernisation Committee to look at more ways that we can scrutinise the work of the Government without slowing down the delivery of government, which is needed to rebuild Britain?

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the balance of business in a day. We are bringing forward a number of key pieces of legislation, and hon. Members from across the House want ample time to scrutinise that legislation. Obviously, statements and urgent questions can eat into the time for doing that; a balance needs to be struck. The Modernisation Committee is looking at these issues—at how we can best use parliamentary time to ensure that the Government are adequately scrutinised and held accountable, including by Back Benchers, every sitting day.

I was here on Thursday, responding as shadow health Minister to the debate on brain tumours. The debate was brought forward because of the delay to the statement on the US trade deal. We were waiting for almost an hour for that statement. Can the Leader of the House confirm that there was no pressure from the Prime Minister, or indeed Donald Trump, to ensure that the announcement was made? She has repeatedly referred to what happens if the House is not sitting, but the House was sitting all day on Thursday. In fact, many Members had to change travel plans and meetings to be in the Chamber. The business was changed purely so that a press conference could happen before the statement in the Chamber. Can she rule out pressure from the Prime Minister or Donald Trump on this occasion?

I absolutely can rule that out. As I said, an agreement on the very important UK-US trade deal was emerging, and events were fast-moving; the timing was changing throughout the day. The deal was not agreed until the announcement was made. We were trying to balance those factors throughout the day. It was made clear to the House earlier in the day that there would be a statement once it could happen, and the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security came to this House as soon as possible. We were mindful of the fact that there were many people in the Gallery for the Backbench Business debate on brain tumours, which the hon. Gentleman talked about. We were trying to not disrupt the business of the House that day, but sometimes big global events happen, and the people in charge of those big global events are not considering the sitting hours, or the wellbeing of Members of Parliament. The timing was not the Prime Minister’s, either.

Is the ministerial code binding, optional, or merely aspirational? Given the blatant disregard of what the code says about making statements, can the House have confidence that Ministers adhere diligently to the other requirements of the code?

Ministers are subject to the ministerial code, and the Prime Minister judges Ministers by their adherence to it. As I said, the independent adviser on the ministerial code has a new power, given to him by the Prime Minister, to instigate inquiries relating to the ministerial code. I reiterate that the ministerial code says:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

There are many ways in which that can be done, other than through oral statements on the Floor of the House.

In early November, Mr Speaker asked the Secretary of State for Education in this Chamber to start a leak inquiry to find out why the announcement that tuition fees would be raised was first made to the press, rather than the House. It is now mid-May. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when that inquiry will report? Has it actually begun?

The Secretary of State for Education made absolutely clear to the House, then and on a subsequent occasion, her fury that elements of the announcement were leaked moments before she stood at the Dispatch Box to make a very important announcement to this House. The announcement had hitherto been kept completely under wraps, and no one had sight of it. She has spoken to Mr Speaker about that. I will ensure that any findings from that investigation are reported to the hon. Lady.

We have seen the contempt in which the Government hold the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, pensioners and the disabled, and their contempt for Scotland’s energy sector, job creators and the hospice sector, but that is all a function of policy. Policy is discretional and therefore, for better or worse—usually worse—legitimate. Adhering to the ministerial code is not a matter of discretion. To be honest, it is a little beneath the Leader of the House to say, “We don’t announce things to Parliament first every time, but we do some of the time, and sometimes the House isn’t sitting.” Every example presented to her today relates to a time when the House was sitting. When will she relay to the Government and the Prime Minister that Members are severely annoyed by the Government’s repeated inaction? For her information, contrary to what is being said by the three Scottish craws sitting on a wall behind her, there is no such duty on Scottish Government Ministers as that set out in section 9.1 of the ministerial code.[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 782.] (Correction)

As I have made clear, we take the ministerial code, and respect for this House and Parliament, incredibly seriously. We have driven up standards in that regard—standards that were, as I have said, woefully not upheld by the previous Government, who disregarded Parliament time after time. Can things improve? Can we do better? Of course we can, and we do our very best to. I remind the House that many times, when statements have been made to this House first, I have got the criticism from many colleagues that they were not able to consider the issues properly before questioning the Minister. We need to get that right, too. We are doing our very best, and we will continue to drive up standards.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her urgent question. The people of Britain have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is really important that what we do in this place, since the Labour Government came to power and from this day forward, is aimed at rebuilding that trust. What reassurance will the Minister give me, other Members of this House and our electorate that the Government will not deliberately or knowingly breach the ministerial code going forward?

As I have said, I am determined to ensure that the House of Commons becomes and remains the crucible of national debate, and has the highest standards and the best behaviour and culture. We have been looking at some of those issues on the Modernisation Committee. We must also ensure that independent Members like the hon. Gentleman and the smaller parties have their voice heard in this House. I think this House has shown itself at times to have all those things. I have taken steps to raise standards by taking action on MPs’ second jobs, and to ensure that those who misbehave are not on the estate and have action taken against them. I will continue to do that. I hope that he, the smaller parties and other parties across the House will join us in taking steps to ensure that we have the best behaviour and the highest standards, and that this House can hold the Government to account and be the crucible of national debate that we all want it to be.