Ministerial Code

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

15:41

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the ministerial code.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)]

Trust in Government and in politics is at an all-time low. For my constituents in Makerfield, Wigan and for others across the country, there is a crisis of faith and trust, and it is incumbent on all of us across this House to fix and restore it.

The Prime Minister has always been clear: serving this country is what we exist to do. The ethics of service must always guide all of us. We are committed to restoring trust in Government by ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. That is why the Prime Minister strengthened the ministerial code when this Government came into office and why he has put the Nolan principles back on to the face of the code.

The ministerial code is a statement of values, not just a set of rules and guidance. Because public service is an immense privilege, this Government have implemented changes to raise the standards expected of Ministers, which includes giving new powers to the independent adviser, who can now initiate investigations without the risk of veto. The new code also closed loopholes on gifts and hospitality, mandating that information on Ministers’ gifts and hospitality are now published on a monthly basis, aligning more closely with the practices of Members across this House. We have also doubled the frequency of publication of information about Ministers’ interests from twice yearly to quarterly.

The Prime Minister further strengthened the ministerial code last month to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments. Just last month, we set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, as promised in our manifesto, and reformed the business appointment rules system. The reforms introduced on ministerial severance payments ensure that payments are proportionate and fair. Before the Government introduced those reforms, we saw thousands of pounds of public money going to waste after being claimed again and again by Conservative Members in the previous Parliament. As Members will no doubt remember, it did not matter whether former Conservative Ministers were reappointed or, in the worst cases, forced to resign due to unacceptable behaviour.

I digress, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the question which aspect of the ministerial code the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about. For me, as for the Prime Minister, restoring public confidence and trust across the country in this House and in the Government is a defining mission. We will continue to seek to uphold standards in public life as we deliver and serve this great country.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thank the Minister who has been sent here, for coming to the House.

Once again I must remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance, not in the media. I understand that media announcements must be managed carefully as long as the expectations remain as they are in the ministerial code. That is the problem. It is the ministerial code that is being broken. I will continue to uphold the rights of this House and its Members to be treated with respect and to be first to hear any major announcements. Unfortunately, last week, when I also had to criticise Ministers, some of them decided to make comments about “having a bugle”. The point is, those Ministers ought to learn the facts of the ministerial code before they make comments in the media.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I mean no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have been in his shoes, but when the Government send out a junior Minister to answer a very serious question, it is normally because they have something to hide. In this case, it is clear that the Government have a great deal to hide.

We have had a whole series of scandals since the summer break, and there have recently been a number of apparent breaches of the ministerial code, in addition to the one that you just raised, Mr Speaker, referring to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code about ensuring that this House hears about serious announcements first. We have seen pre-Budget briefing become entirely endemic—to the point where the Government have successfully spooked the markets in advance of the Chancellor’s speech. Goodness knows how they will react when they actually hear the Chancellor’s speech. Will the Minister at least condemn these briefings?

Even more serious is the case relating to paragraph 1.6.f of the ministerial code, which states that Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise. In the case of David Kogan and the Prime Minister, it is clear that a perceived conflict has arisen. Mr Kogan told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 7 May that he donated money to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign. That was before the Prime Minister appointed him as football regulator. Surely given the circumstances, full transparency is required. How much money did the Prime Minister receive from Mr Kogan?

We also had the absurd situation of the Prime Minister clearing the Culture Secretary of wrongdoing in this case, despite the fact that the Prime Minister should have recused himself. How did this happen? Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that Ministers know that if there is any issue they must refer themselves to the independent adviser. Has the Prime Minister referred himself, and if not, why not? Surely the House will see that this is pure hypocrisy otherwise.

Lastly, the Information Commissioner’s Office has today said that Ministers’ criminal convictions do not have to be disclosed to the public. This seems odd. Will the Minister reassure the House that this Government will reveal any criminal convictions that Ministers have, and is he able to confirm that no current Minister has a criminal conviction?

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Member for his series of questions—connected, I think, by virtue of being in relation to the ministerial code. Things happen in politics. Things go wrong and people misbehave. But the difference between us and the Conservatives is that whenever something has come up, we have always followed processes and then acted. That is why the Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code and put public service at its heart, and strengthened the role of the independent adviser.

I notice that the hon. Member is not joined on the Front Bench by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who when faced with bullying claims and having broken the ministerial code was not sacked by the Prime Minister at the time, to whom the hon. Member was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Instead, the Prime Minister at the time made his independent adviser on standards quit. I notice that the hon. Member is also not joined by the shadow Housing Secretary—the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—who called a north-east town not that far from me a word that I will not repeat. We will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who were roundly rejected by the public for having corroded trust in politics.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for saying clearly, and quite rightly, that we should not be taking lessons from the Conservative party. What more can he say about the reforms that will follow the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that former Ministers cannot trade on their knowledge through the revolving door and—with the scrapping of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which had been derided as a toothless regulator—that there are far stronger safeguards on former Ministers taking up jobs in the private sector.

[Josh Simons]

I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work to look into and promote some of these important reforms. We made a manifesto promise to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission—now a manifesto promise kept—and abolished ACOBA, which means that there will be financial penalties for ex-Ministers who break any rules on jobs. That is something that the former Prime Minister, to whom the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, will surely be furious about.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It seems that the urgent question has been in part fuelled by rampant pre-Budget briefing, but I would argue that it is a symptom of wider dysfunction in our Budget scrutiny process. Parliament is generally relegated to the sidelines and has no real power to challenge or amend the Budget, unlike in other democracies. Will the Minister look to review the UK Budget scrutiny process and see what we can learn from other countries? More broadly, will he look to enshrine the ministerial code into law? Will he also look at the role of the ethics adviser and ensure that it is truly independent, able to initiate its own investigations, come to its own conclusions and publish reports in its own time?

[Josh Simons]

To address that question directly, we have no plans to put the ministerial code on a statutory footing. It is a standard that sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations of his or her Ministers and it is right that it remains a political document directed by the Prime Minister. That has been the approach of many Governments.

Mr Speaker, I assure you that the Government and I take our obligations to the House very seriously. Before I was elected, I regularly read about what was going to be in the Budget in the papers. That is why, to answer the hon. Member’s question, it is right that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government have already engaged with the inquiry and look forward to considering the Committee’s report in full and recommendations that it might have.

[Mr Speaker]

Just to be helpful, it was me who asked for the report.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

My constituents have not forgotten following the rules during lockdown only to find out that the then Government, who set those rules, were having raucous, drunken parties in the corridors of power. I greatly welcome this Government’s strengthening the ministerial code and ensuring that our nation’s leaders are properly held to account. What is the Minister’s response to those who served in the previous Government having the brass neck to lecture this Government on standards in public life?

[Josh Simons]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point. It is somewhat ironic to be asked the urgent question by a former PPS to a Prime Minister who did so much to corrode trust in government. Under that Prime Minister, as opposed to this one, not one but two independent advisers resigned from their posts because they did not feel able to conduct their inquiries. I will not take lectures from the Conservative party on standards in public life.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

When did the Prime Minister realise that his preferred candidate to be the football regulator had donated to his leadership campaign? From whom did the Prime Minister seek advice when he learned that? What was the nature of the advice in response? In particular, what advice was the Prime Minister given regarding his continuing involvement in the process and his ability effectively to be judge and jury on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Notwithstanding what the Minister has rightly said on the status of the ministerial code, which is authored in and policed by Downing Street, is it not time, given the problems that successive Governments have had on these issues, for serious consideration to be given to bringing the ministerial code under the orbit and auspices of this place and not No. 10?

[Josh Simons]

On the independent football regulator appointment, the hon. Member may be aware that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, setting out in detail his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements that were in place. The Prime Minister acknowledged that, in retrospect, it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment, or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret. I draw the House’s attention to the independent adviser’s conclusion that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s

“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that mistakes are acknowledged and necessary steps taken to improve processes underpinning standards in public life.”

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is clear that trust in politicians from all parties is too low, and that is why I really welcome the setting up of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, but just for the avoidance of doubt, and to place it on the public record, can my hon. Friend confirm his view on the ethics of elected Members of any Parliament accepting bribes from Russia to ask questions?

[Josh Simons]

I was truly shocked to read about those revelations, and I would direct that question to Reform Members. When, during the last Government, I saw Conservatives Members trashing the reputation of the Government with the public, I was running a charity and having my first child, and I was furious about it. We can always do more as politicians and as a Government to restore trust in politics, and I welcome those who support the measures that this Government have taken and the measures that we will take in the future.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The independent adviser on ministerial standards is currently appointed by the Prime Minister, and it is a genuine question for the whole House whether that model is still fit for purpose. If the adviser were incapacitated or ill—it is to be hoped that will not happen to the current one—what would happen? Would we all wait for many months? Might a new model involve bringing together three ministerial advisers to the Prime Minister on ministerial standards, so that if one were incapacitated, the other two could step in, or if there were deadlock in reaching any agreement, there would be a casting vote? Clearly, having the Prime Minister appointing the individual who oversees the highest standards of integrity in public life is not longer fir for purpose.

[Josh Simons]

To my mind, one cannot get away from the character of the Prime Minister and his or her relationship to that appointment. What matters is that if the post of adviser is vacant, it will not be allowed to remain so. Unlike under the previous Government, it will be appointed and the person will be respected. That is exactly what this Prime Minister has done and will always do because, in the end, the Prime Minister believes that restoring standards in public life and restoring trust in this House and in democracy is the most important mission for this Government.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, I thank you on behalf of the people of Harlow for allowing us Back Benchers to get a voice in Parliament on these issues. That is really important. Last month, the Government set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which I welcome. Could the Minister touch a little more on its scope and remit, to ensure that we avoid things like the partygate scandal in future?

[Josh Simons]

The Ethics and Integrity Commission was a vital part of our manifesto commitment to restoring trust in Government. Its scope has been set out clearly in the public domain and it will, over time, establish its reputation as a core driver of standards across the state, across Government and across the public sector. I look forward to the next series of publications that are coming later this year.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

One potential breach of the ministerial code is the briefing to the papers, but not to this House, that the Government will pay a major increase to pharmaceutical companies, seemingly at the behest of Donald Trump. Can the Minister confirm today that people who are worried about their local health services will not see a huge amount of money going to pharmaceutical companies at the behest of an outside player? Furthermore, will he ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to come to the House and explain that to us in full?

[Josh Simons]

I can assure the hon. Member, given the respect that the Government pay to this House and to their obligations in it, that if there is an important policy announcement to be made, it will be made to this House. If she writes to me with more details about the issue she raises, I will be happy to look into it and to talk to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

[Mr Speaker]

I am baffled by that answer.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s rather Kafkaesque reply, but could I ask him a technical question? Given that the Prime Minister oversees the code and appoints the independent adviser, when the independent adviser reports, who adjudicates whether to take further action, because it could be argued that the Prime Minister has a vested interest? Should another Minister take that decision—perhaps the Health Secretary, or does he have a vested interest, too?

[Josh Simons]

In this country, we have a political constitution—it is one of the great strengths of this country—and, ultimately, therefore, the Prime Minister answers to this House and this House answers to the people.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The former Environment Secretary and now Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), claimed at the Dispatch Box just a few months ago that water pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England. When it was pointed out that this is completely untrue, rather than apologising he doubled down repeatedly. Now the UK Statistics Authority has rebuked him, saying his claims “lacked enough transparency” and

“run the risk of misleading the public”.

The ministerial code is clear that he should correct the record. Does the Minister agree?

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Member for drawing my attention to that issue. I do not know the details of it, but I am happy to look into it and to refer that to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I will try a fourth time. We know that the chair of the football regulator—the chap who is now in charge—donated to the Labour party, to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary, before he was appointed. At what point did the Prime Minister know personally that he was signing off a Labour donor to be chair of the football regulator?

[Josh Simons]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), has set out already in extensive detail to the House the background to the appointment of David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State also responded comprehensively to the recent report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. She acknowledged the findings of the report, accepted responsibility for an unknowing breach related to previous donations and explained that she will ensure that lessons are learned from this process. As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser, who responded with the conclusion that his disclosures are an “important demonstration” of the Prime Minister’s commitment to transparency.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Prime Minister agreed with the independent adviser on ministerial interests to recuse himself from the appointment of the football regulator in autumn 2024. Then, in April, as the report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes clear, he confirmed Mr Kogan’s appointment, breaking that undertaking. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from Mr Kogan, and when did he declare them?

[Josh Simons]

The Prime Minister acknowledged, as I have said before, that in retrospect it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Minister says that the Prime Minister is committed to transparency, so how much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign?

[Josh Simons]

As I say, the Prime Minister acknowledged that in retrospect it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content with it. That is why he has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, dealing with the Department of Health and Social Care over the past year or so has been an exercise in opacity. One thing that we have struggled with has been the 50% cuts to NHS integrated care boards. That has left hon. Members from across the House having to piece together the facts from the media. Will the Minister confirm to Members which NHS services will lose funding to pay for the £1 billion redundancies that the Government’s reorganisation has created?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not relevant to the urgent question.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The Prime Minister boasted to ITV at the weekend that he had strengthened the ministerial code and the powers of the ethics adviser, and that any Minister who makes a mistake must refer themselves to the adviser. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was referred for breaching the ministerial code, so why has the Prime Minister not referred himself? It this just more Labour double standards?

[Josh Simons]

The independent adviser on appointments is the person to whom the Prime Minister wrote about his own ministerial interests in order to be very clear about his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements in place. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

The Welsh Local Government Association has warned today that next year’s Welsh local government settlement still fails to meet structural pressures on Welsh councils. That is the stark backdrop to the upcoming Budget. Does the Minister recognise that the pre-Budget circus of leaks, briefings and chaotic U-turns in No. 10 has only made it harder for already struggling councils to plan ahead and deliver their essential services?

[Josh Simons]

I will not comment on speculation about the ongoing Budget process. The Chancellor will come to the House on Wednesday to deliver a Budget that will put money into the pockets of working people, tackle the cost of living crisis, protect the NHS and get debt down.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The Minister said that the Government’s defining mission is to uphold the highest standards, but he is failing to answer simple questions about transparency. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from David Kogan, and did he adhere to the ministerial code in declaring those donations?

[Josh Simons]

Well, I will sound like a stuck record, but it is true that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests to set out his involvement in the process, and he acknowledged in retrospect that it would have been better had he not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?

[Josh Simons]

As the hon. Member knows, we have changed that policy. When the changed policy comes into force at the end of October, it will apply to all future such situations.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I will try to speak really slowly and ask not multiple questions but just the one. How much cash did David Kogan give the Prime Minister?

[Josh Simons]

I can speak slowly, too. The Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests to set out his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements in place. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We just want the transparency that was promised to be delivered. The Minister has been given an impossible task as a junior Minister, but the House surely deserves to know how much cash was transferred to the Prime Minister by someone who has been given a £130,000-a-year part-time sinecure. [Interruption.] If the Minister will not answer today because he is being told not to do so by the chair of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will he undertake to come back and give the House an answer? We are entitled, on behalf of the whole country, to be given an honest answer by the Government, who are supposedly committed to transparency.

[Josh Simons]

As I said, after the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, he expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his statement, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all you do to ensure that the ministerial code is followed by all Ministers—we appreciate it.

There has been much discussion this year regarding the ministerial code and how major policy announcements are made. What steps will the Minister take to give Members confidence that Ministers will adhere to the code—and to the requirements set out within it—and ensure the correct working order of this House?

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Member for that question.

May I correct myself, Mr Speaker? I did not realise that you directed the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to carry out that investigation. It is an important inquiry into how ministerial statements and the ministerial code work in practice, which is clearly a problem. The Government are already engaged with the content of that inquiry and look forward to considering the Committee’s report and any recommendations in it.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes the urgent question. Was that your first one, Minister? Well done.