The ministerial code is the official rulebook that sets out the standards of conduct expected of all government ministers in the United Kingdom.

It is a document issued by the prime minister of the day, and it is a condition of holding ministerial office that all ministers adhere to its rules and principles.

The code is not a law passed by parliament. Its operation is enforced by convention, and the ultimate judge of whether the code has been breached, and what if any sanction should be applied, is the prime minister. A serious breach of the code is expected to lead to a minister’s resignation or dismissal.

The ministerial code: key rules

The ministerial code sets out detailed rules on a wide range of ministerial conduct. Key requirements include:

Collective responsibility

All ministers are bound by the principle of collective responsibility, which means they must publicly support all government decisions. The code states that the principles of “collective responsibility applies to all government ministers.” A minister who cannot publicly support a government policy is expected to resign.

The code also requires that the internal process “through which a decision has been made, or the level of committee by which it was taken, should not be disclosed.”

Honesty to parliament

Ministers have an overarching duty to be accurate and truthful in their dealings with parliament. The code states that it is of “paramount importance” that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament.

The code adds: “Ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister.”

Ministers are also required to be “open and candid with public inquiries.”

Conflicts of interest

Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, “between their public duties and their private interests.” The code states that “responsibilities should be arranged to avoid any conflict of interest”.

The code adds: “Ministers should not accept any gift, hospitality or service which would, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence their work in government. The same principle applies if gifts etc are offered to a member of their family.”

Separation of roles

Ministers must separate their constituency roles, and must not “use government resources for party political purposes.”

Conduct with civil servants

The code requires ministers to “uphold the political impartiality of the civil service.”

It also states that working relationships with civil servants as well as ministerial and parliamentary colleagues and parliamentary staff “should be proper and appropriate.”

The code continues: “Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminatory behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the ministerial code and will not be tolerated.”

Rules for former ministers

Some aspects of the code extends to former ministers, including access to official papers of the period when they were in office. The code underlines the importance of protecting the “integrity of government” when a former minister takes up an appointment or employment, or writes a memoir. With regard to memoir-writing, former ministers are expected to abide by the so-called “Radcliffe rules”.

It states that those who have served in government must “not profit improperly” from their experience, nor should their future employers “gain any unfair advantage through privileged access to government.”

Under the code, for two years after leaving office, former ministers must abide by the business appointment rules and seek advice from the independent adviser on ministerial standards about any appointments or employment they wish to take up.

If a former minister is found to have seriously breached the business appointment rules they will be expected to repay their full severance payment.

Ministerial code: drafting and redrafting

Each prime minister issues their own version of the ministerial code, typically soon after taking office.

In 2022, a version of the code issued by Boris Johnson, the then prime minister, was accused of “watering down the rules to save his own skin” after he amended the code to make clear that ministers will not always be expected to resign for breaching the code of conduct.

A government statement said it was “​​disproportionate to expect that any breach, however minor, should lead automatically to resignation or dismissal.”

The code redraft was published at the height of the “Partygate” scandal.

Johnson was also accused of rewriting the foreword to the code, removing all references to honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability.

Keir Starmer issued a new version of the code upon taking office as prime minister. The foreword to the redrafted code placed a strong emphasis on integrity, professionalism and accountability.

In the foreword, Starmer wrote: “The British people have lost faith in its ability to change their lives for the better. For a long time, they have looked at the conduct of politicians in Westminster and not seen the high standards of public service they expect or deserve.

“This government was elected to change this. It is a crucial part of our wider mandate to return Britain to the service of working people. Because failure to meet those high standards will always weaken the bond of respect between a government and the people it must serve. A bond that, if strengthened, will accelerate our efforts to take Britain forward.”

Enforcement of the code and the independent adviser

The independent adviser on ministers’ interests is responsible for investigating alleged breaches of the ministerial code. The role was established in 2006 by Tony Blair.

The current independent adviser is Sir Laurie Magnus, who was appointed in December 2022.

Following reforms in 2024 by the recently elected Labour government, the adviser was given the power to initiate investigations based on public information without the consent of the prime minister. This power was granted with an update to the ministerial code.

The code now states that “where the independent adviser believes that an alleged breach of the code warrants further investigation and that matter has not already been referred to them, they may initiate an investigation after notifying the prime minister.”

The code adds: “Ministers are expected to provide the independent adviser with all information reasonably necessary for the discharge of their role.”

After completing an investigation, the independent adviser provides a report to the prime minister outlining their findings of fact. The adviser may also provide their opinion on whether the conduct constituted a breach of the code.

Crucially, the prime minister, as the sole arbiter of the code, alone decides on the final judgment.

The ministerial code maintains that the “final decision rests with the prime minister.”

Possible sanctions include requiring a public apology, remedial action, or the temporary removal of ministerial salary. In cases of serious breach, the minister concerned may be required to resign and may also forfeit any ministerial severance payment to which they would otherwise be entitled.

The seven principles of public life

In May 1995, the committee on standards in public life, chaired by the senior judge Lord Nolan, published the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’, establishing an ethical framework to which public servants are all expected to adhere.

The committee was set up by the prime minister, John Major, in October 1994 in a bid to restore public confidence in government, which had been damaged by a series of political scandals, most notably the ‘cash-for-questions’ affair.

The ‘Nolan principles’, as they became known, were welcomed by the government and became enshrined in codes of conduct across the public sector. They form the basis of the ministerial code.

• Selflessness: Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
• Integrity: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
• Objectivity: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
• Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
• Openness: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
• Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
• Leadership: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Case of Angela Rayner (2025)

In September 2025, Angela Rayner resigned as deputy prime minister and secretary of state for housing, communities and local government after the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Laurie Magnus, concluded that she had failed to meet the “highest possible standards of proper conduct”.

The controversy, which emerged in late August 2025, centred on Rayner’s underpayment of stamp duty by £40,000 on an £800,000 flat in Hove purchased in May 2025. The purchase involved complex trust arrangements linked to her disabled son.

After the allegations surfaced, Rayner admitted an error had been made.

On 3 September, she referred herself to the independent adviser to investigate.

Reporting to the prime minister two days later, Sir Laurie said that Rayner “acted with integrity”, but ultimately concluded that a minister, particularly one with oversight of housing policy, should have sought additional specialist tax advice.

His letter, addressed to the prime minister, found that:

a) Ms Rayner was open about the existence of the Trust and considered that, between them, the firms advising her had appropriate knowledge and awareness of the details and circumstances of the Trust;

b) on the basis of the advice she received, Ms Rayner believed that the lower rate of SDLT would be applicable; indeed she was twice informed in writing that this was the case; but

c) in those two instances, that advice was qualified by the acknowledgement that it did not constitute expert tax advice and was accompanied by a suggestion, or in one case a recommendation, that specific tax advice be obtained; and

d) if such expert tax advice had been received, as it later was, it would likely have advised her that a higher rate of SDLT was payable.

Sir Laurie concluded that Rayner’s “unfortunate failure to settle her SDLT liability at the correct level, coupled with the fact that this was established only following intensive public scrutiny, leads me to advise you that, in relation to this matter, she cannot be considered to have met the ‘highest possible standards of proper conduct’ as envisaged by the [ministerial] code.”

In her resignation letter to the prime minister, Rayner accepted she “did not meet the highest standards” when purchasing her property.

She wrote: “I deeply regret my decision to not seek additional specialist tax advice given both my position as housing secretary and my complex family arrangements.”

Rayner said she took “full responsibility for this error”, adding: “It was never my intention to do anything other than pay the right amount.”

Rayner also resigned as deputy leader of the Labour Party.

Case of Nadhim Zahawi (2023)

On 29 January 2023, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, sacked the Conservative party chairman, Nadhim Zahawi after an investigation by the independent adviser on ministers’ interests (Magnus) concluded that Zahawi had committed a “serious breach” of the ministerial code regarding his tax affairs.

The controversy that ultimately led to Zahawi’s dismissal centred on a tax bill over the sale of shares in YouGov, a polling firm he co-founded. The shares, worth an estimated £27 million, were held by Balshore Investments, a company registered offshore in Gibraltar and linked to Zahawi’s family.

HMRC began its investigation into Zahawi’s affairs in April 2021, during his tenure as vaccines minister. Zahawi failed to disclose the probe when appointed education secretary by Boris Johnson in September 2021, and again when appointed chancellor in July 2022.

In August 2022, Zahawi reached an in-principle agreement with HMRC that included a penalty. He failed to declare this settlement when appointed to the cabinet by Liz Truss in September 2022, as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or when made Conservative Party chairman by Rishi Sunak in October.

In January 2023, the Guardian reported that Zahawi had paid a penalty as part of a multimillion-pound settlement with HMRC. As a result, Sunak tasked Sir Laurie Magnus with investigating the timeline of disclosures. The report, delivered on 29 January, concluded that Zahawi’s “omissions” constituted a breach of the ministerial code.

The independent adviser on ministers’ interests found that Zahawi, upon his appointment as education secretary, did not declare the ongoing HMRC investigation into his tax affairs “despite the ministerial declaration of interests form including specific prompts on tax affairs and HMRC investigations and disputes”.

His declaration of interests form, completed upon his appointment as chancellor in July 2022, again “contained no reference to the HMRC investigation”, Magnus found.

The report deemed Zahawi to have been “inconsistent with the requirement for openness” on ministers.

In a letter to Zahawi, Sunak wrote: “When I became prime minister last year, I pledged that the Government I lead would have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level…

“Following the completion of the independent adviser’s investigation – the findings of which he has shared with us both – it is clear that there has been a serious breach of the ministerial code.”

In his reply, Zahawi attacked the conduct of the “fourth estate”, citing a headline that suggested a “noose was tightening” around him.

The case of Priti Patel (2020)

A famous instance of a prime minister appearing not to act following a perceived breach of the code came in 2020.

The prime minister, Boris Johnson, asked his then independent adviser, Sir Alex Allan, to investigate the claims of bullying made against the home secretary, Priti Patel.

The inquiry followed the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as permanent under-secretary of state at the Home Office (a senior civil service role).

In his final report, delivered to the prime minister in November 2020, Allan concluded that the home secretary had “not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code”.

The report added: “Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.

“To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the ministerial code, even if unintentionally.

On 20 November 2020, Johnson publicly backed Patel, stating that he had “full confidence” in the home secretary. He urged Tory colleagues in a WhatsApp message to “form a square around the Prittster”.

In immediate response to Johnson’s decision, Allan resigned as independent adviser.

In a public statement, Sir Alex noted: “I recognise that it is for the prime minister to make a judgment on whether actions by a minister amount to a breach of the ministerial code. But I feel that it is right that I should now resign from my position.”

Patel remained in post until July 2022, when the Johnson ministry collapsed in the face of a mass ministerial exodus.

Lord Geidt’s resignation (2022)

In June 2022, Lord Geidt became the second independent adviser to resign from his position during Johnson’s tenure as prime minister.

The resignation came shortly after Geidt had told MPs that it was “reasonable” to suggest that Johnson may have breached the ministerial code after being fined for attending a lockdown party in No 10.

He also said that Johnson had been “in potential scope of the code” on several occasions, citing an investigation into the refurbishment of the prime minister’s flat, and senior civil servant Sue Gray’s report into lockdown-busting events.

Geidt’s resignation was reportedly triggered by a request from the prime minister for advice on a prospective government decision concerning the extension of tariffs on steel imports. Concerns had been raised that this action could fall foul of the UK’s obligations under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

In his letter responding to Geidt’s resignation, the prime minister said he wanted advice on the use of tariffs for “protecting a crucial industry”, which “might be seen to conflict with our obligations under the WTO”.

In his resignation letter, Geidt told Johnson he had been asked “to offer a view about the government’s intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code”.

He added: “A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the code to suit a political end. This would make a mockery not only of respect of the code but license the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty’s ministers. I can have no part in this.”

Geidt suggested that he had previously come close to resigning over the partygate scandal.

In a subsequent letter to constitutional affairs select committee chair William Wragg, Geidt said he “could not be party to advising on potential law breaking”.

He argued that the “emphasis on steel tariffs is a distraction”.

He added: “It was simply one example of what might yet constitute deliberate breaches by the United Kingdom of its obligations under international law, given the government’s widely publicised openness to this.”

Geidt noted that, while reference to international law had been removed from the ministerial code in 2015, it was “widely still held that a breach of international law would, in turn, represent a prima facie breach of the ministerial code”.

Geidt’s resignation led to vacancy that was not filled until the appointment of Sir Laurie Magnus in December 2022.

Additional resources

• GOV.UK – The Ministerial Code: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-code
• The House of Commons Library – Speakers’ statements on ministerial policy announcements made outside the House: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05647/