A ministerial statement is the primary method used by government ministers to make important announcements and to communicate policy decisions to parliament.

The ministerial code sets out that “the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in parliament.” Ministerial statements are a means of fulfilling this obligation. They are therefore a key mechanism for ensuring government transparency and accountability.

Statements are made in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and they come in two forms: oral statements, which are delivered in person by a minister at the dispatch box, and written ministerial statements, which are published as official documents.

An oral statement provides a crucial opportunity for MPs and peers to question the government and scrutinise its actions, including on major, often fast-moving events.

Oral ministerial statements

Oral statements are reserved for the most significant government announcements. A minister will make an oral statement to announce major new government policy or legislation, reflect on the outcome of an international summit, respond to a national or overseas natural disaster, report on serious national or international events, or announce the findings of a public inquiry or a major review.

Erskine May, the authoritative account of parliamentary procedure, states that ministers have a “presumptive right to make statements in the House”. This means the speaker’s permission is not required for a statement to take place (provided it comes at the usual time). Ministerial statements generally take place in the main chamber at the end of departmental oral questions and any urgent questions (UQs).

Ministers can also be hauled before the commons to deliver a statement in response to UQs. If the speaker grants a request from an MP, often the relevant shadow minister, to ask a question on a matter of public importance that requires an immediate answer from the government, a minister is obliged to respond.

Standard oral statements follow a well-established procedure in the House of Commons.

• In order to make a statement, departments send a completed bid form to the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.
• The relevant minister delivers their prepared statement from the dispatch box. The prepared statements should last around 10 minutes.
• As soon as the minister sits down, copies of their statements can be distributed to members in the chamber.
• The official opposition spokesperson (the shadow minister) responds with their own speech and questions. Opposition spokespersons should be given 45 minutes’ advance sight of a statement to enable detailed scrutiny. This requirement is set out in the ministerial code. A copy must also be provided in advance to the speaker. Failure to provide this notice can result in a reprimand from the speaker, and the sitting may be suspended to allow shadow ministers time to consider the statement.
• The minister on duty then responds to the opposition spokesperson’s response.
• The spokesperson from the third largest party in parliament (the Liberal Democrats in the current parliament) is then called by the speaker. The minister on duty responds.
• The speaker then calls individual backbench MPs from all sides of the House to ask brief questions. The order in which MPs are called can be dictated by seniority, expertise or the topic’s relevance to their constituency.

The entire process typically lasts between 45 and 90 minutes, depending on the significance of the subject and the number of MPs who wish to ask a question.

Controversy: announcing policy outside of the commons

Speakers have criticised successive governments for the practice of briefing the media on the substance of government statements before they are delivered to parliament. This is regarded as a simple breach of the ministerial code, which requires that significant policy announcements be made to parliament first.

In June 2025, the commons speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, reprimanded the government for making major policy announcements outside the House. He described the conduct as a “blatant” breach of the ministerial code and called on the cross-party public administration and the constitutional affairs committee (Pacac) to investigate the matter.

Hoyle pointed in particular to the publication of the strategic defence review, which was accompanied by a speech and press conference by the prime minister in Glasgow, following several days of advance media briefing.

Responding on behalf of the government, the leader of the House, Lucy Powell, argued that ministers had made a number of important oral statements and that she was “satisfied that this government is coming to the House regularly to keep parliament informed.”

Sir Lindsay rejected this defence, declaring: “I am not satisfied. I think that’s the key, because both backbenches quite rightly should hear it first.”

Written ministerial statements

Written ministerial statements are used to make announcements that need to be placed on the formal parliamentary record, sometimes to meet a legal requirement, but which do not warrant the time required for an oral statement in the chamber.

They are used for a wide range of purposes, such as providing updates on policy implementation, unveiling the launch or outcome of a consultation, setting out allocations of funding, publishing government reports, or announcing more detailed or technical government decisions.

Written statements are published on the parliamentary website and in Hansard, the official report of parliamentary proceedings, usually on the morning of a sitting day. A list of daily written statements is printed in the commons order paper.

The written statement was introduced in October 2002 to reduce the long-standing practice of governments arranging for a “friendly” backbench MP to table a written question in order to publish a ministerial announcement in response.

As there is no formal rule determining whether an issue requires a written or an oral statement, ministers may opt for a written statement to avoid the glare of the commons chamber. However, matters initially dealt with by written statements can, if judged sufficiently significant, be pursued through the urgent question mechanism.

Statements in the House of Lords

By convention, any significant oral statement made by a minister in the House of Commons is repeated in the House of Lords.

Michael Gove unveils ‘levelling up’ white paper

On 2 February 2022, the government published its levelling up white paper, a 332-page document dedicated to Boris Johnson’s flagship policy. The white paper, spearheaded by Michael Gove as levelling up secretary, established 12 national “missions” to be achieved by 2030 – targeting gaps in pay, productivity, health and transport infrastructure.

The “levelling up agenda”, a central pillar of Johnson’s political vision, encompassed a loosely connected set of policies designed to reduce regional economic inequality. The February 2022 white paper represented the most detailed expression of the government’s ambition in this regard.

On 2 February, Gove delivered a statement to the House of Commons, marking the publication of the white paper. He described the government’s objective as enabling “overlooked and undervalued communities to take back control of their destiny.”

He added: “While talent is spread equally across the United Kingdom, opportunity is not. Our country is an unparalleled success story, but not everyone shares in it.”

Lisa Nandy, the shadow levelling up secretary, described the white paper’s missions as “12 admissions of failure”.

Nandy stated: “After all the delays, all the slogans and all the big promises, is this it? Is this really it?

“The sum total of ambition for our coastal and industrial towns, our villages and our great cities is a history lesson on the rise of the Roman empire, and ministers scurrying around Whitehall, shuffling the deckchairs and cobbling together a shopping list of recycled policies and fiddling the figures.

“Is this really it?”

Theresa May defends Syrian airstrikes

On 16 April 2018, the prime minister, Theresa May, faced MPs in the House of Commons to defend her decision to authorise military airstrikes against Syria without first seeking parliamentary consent. The action, taken in coordination with the United States and France, was a direct response to a suspected chemical weapons attack in the Syrian city of Douma on 7 April, which resulted in civilian casualties.

Two days earlier, on 14 April, four Royal Air Force Tornado jets had fired Storm Shadow missiles at a Syrian military facility near Homs, which was believed to be involved in the production of chemical weapons.

In her statement, May argued that the targeted strikes were “not just morally right but also legally right… to alleviate further humanitarian suffering.”

She insisted the action was not about regime change. “This was not about intervening in a civil war”, May said.

She added: “It was about a limited, targeted and effective strike that sought to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people by degrading the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their use.”

May went on to set out the “legal basis” for the action, which she said was composed of three conditions.

“First, there must be convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief.

“Second, it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved.

“And third, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim.”

The decision to act without a parliamentary vote proved controversial, with opposition parties and some Conservative backbenchers arguing it ignored an emerging constitutional convention established since the 2003 Iraq War. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, accused of adhering to the “whims” of Donald Trump, who was then the US president.

Corbyn declared: “This statement serves as a reminder that the prime minister is accountable to this parliament, not to the whims of the US president.”

The Labour leader called for a “war powers Act in this country to transform a now broken convention into a legal obligation.”

He contradicted May and claimed all “non-military means had not been exhausted”.

He added: “Her predecessor [David Cameron] came to this House to seek authority for military action in Libya, and in Syria in 2015, and the House had a vote on Iraq in 2003. There is no more serious issue than the life-and-death matters of military action.”

In her opening statement, responding implicitly to the criticism expressed by the Labour leadership in the media, May maintained: “We have not done this because president Trump asked us to; we have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do. And we are not alone. There is broad-based international support for the action we have taken.”

May took questions for nearly three hours in the chamber, defending her decision not to seek parliamentary approval.

Mike Gapes, the Labour MP for Ilford North, defended the prime minister’s action and criticised Corbyn. He pointed to a “long-standing and noble tradition on these benches of supporting humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect.”

May repeatedly contended that seeking a vote would have involved the disclosure of sensitive intelligence, placing military operations at risk.

She said: “The speed with which we acted was essential in co-operating with our partners to alleviate further humanitarian suffering and to maintain the vital security of our operations… it was a decision that required the evaluation of intelligence and information, much of which was of a nature that could not be shared with parliament.”

As for her right to authorise military action, May was plain: “It is parliament’s responsibility to hold me to account for such decisions, and parliament will do so. But it is my responsibility as prime minister to make these decisions – and I will make them”.

Theresa May responds to Salisbury poisoning

On 14 March 2018, the prime minister, Theresa May, announced a series of punitive measures against Russia in response to the attempted assassinations of the former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, in Salisbury.

At the time, the Skripals were critically ill in the hospital. In a ministerial statement to the House of Commons, May declared that the Russian state was “culpable” for the attack, which was carried out using a Novichok military-grade nerve agent.

The announcement followed the expiry of a deadline the prime minister had set for Moscow to provide a credible explanation for the incident. May told the commons that the Kremlin had responded with “sarcasm, contempt and defiance” to the deadline and went on to spell out a robust package of sanctions “to dismantle the Russian espionage network in the UK”.

May said: “There is no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state was responsible for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter.”

The centrepiece was the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats who had been identified as “undeclared intelligence officers”, the largest such expulsion from the United Kingdom in more than 30 years.

Further measures included the suspension of all high-level bilateral contacts and a boycott of the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia by government ministers and members of the royal family. The Foreign Office had previously called for an urgent meeting of the UN security council to update members on the UK’s investigation.

May told MPs: “We will not tolerate the threat to life of British people and others on British soil from the Russian government. Nor will we tolerate such a flagrant breach of Russia’s international obligations.

“We will freeze Russian state assets wherever we have evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents. There is no place for these people – or their money – in our country.”

The prime minister also pledged to introduce new government powers to counter hostile state activity, a crackdown on “corrupt elites” and to increase checks on private flights and freight. Some measures, May said, could “not be shared publicly for reasons of national security”.

In his response to May’s statement, Corbyn offered the government only equivocal backing. The Labour leader’s spokesperson infamously cast aspersions on the evidence that had been presented, raising Iraq as the reason to be suspicious over intelligence presented to the public. They said the most likely explanation was Russia that was “directly or indirectly responsible” for the attack but “culpability takes many forms”.

A succession of Labour MPs pointedly expressed their fulsome support for the government’s response. Pat McFadden, a former frontbencher, said showing resolve when your country was threatened was an “essential component of political leadership” and “more than words” was needed as a response.

The UK’s response received strong international backing, leading to a co-ordinated expulsion of 143 Russian diplomats by the UK’s allies in the subsequent weeks. In a statement issued on 14 March, Nato requested Russia provide “full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW]”.

David Cameron responds to the 2011 riots

In August 2011, parliament was recalled from summer recess for an emergency session to debate the wave of rioting that had swept across London and other English cities over the preceding five days.

The riots had begun in Tottenham, north London, on 6 August following an initially peaceful demonstration over the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by police. The disorder rapidly escalated and spread, initially across London, and then to cities including Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Nottingham.

The session on 11 August began with a statement from David Cameron, the prime minister, outlining the nature of the government’s response and principles that underpinned it. He condemned the violence as “completely unacceptable” and “criminality, pure and simple”.

Speaking to MPs, Cameron said: “We have seen houses, offices and shops raided and torched, police officers assaulted and fire crews attacked as they try to put out fires.

“We have seen people robbing others while they lie injured and bleeding in the street, and even three innocent people deliberately run over and killed in Birmingham.”

The PM vowed to do “whatever it takes to restore law and order” and rejected any link between the disturbances and the death of Mark Duggan, which he called “preposterous.”

In his statement, Cameron outlined a three-part response: restoring order, supporting victims, and tackling the “deeper problem.”

For the first part, restoring order, Cameron pointed to the increase in police deployment from 6,000 “to almost 16,000 officers” and the cancellation of police leave. He stated that over 1,200 people had been arrested, with courts sitting “through the night” to process cases.

Cameron then turned to the “deeper problem”, arguing that while “responsibility for crime always lies with the criminal”, society must also consider the “context”.

He stated there was a “major problem in our society with children growing up not knowing the difference between right and wrong.”

Cameron announced a “cross-government programme of action to deal with this gang culture”, referencing anti-gang tactics used by Bill Bratton, former commissioner of police in New York and Los Angeles. On 13 August, Bratton was announced as Cameron’s new crime adviser.

The prime minister concluded: “To the law-abiding people who play by the rules and who are the overwhelming majority in this country, I say: the fight back has begun. We will protect you. If you have had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you.

“We are on your side. To the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say: we will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.”

Cameron’s statement was followed by questions from 160 MPs, including Labour leader Ed Miliband, across a session that lasted for over 165 minutes. The prime minister took to his feet at 11:00 am to deliver his initial statement, and sat down for the final time at around 1:45 pm.

David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, relayed the anger of his constituents, 45 of whom “lost their homes, which were burnt to the ground.”

David Cameron responds to Saville inquiry

In June 2010, David Cameron issued a formal apology in the House of Commons, describing the infamous Bloody Sunday killings as “unjustified and unjustifiable”.

On 30 January 1972, soldiers from the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment opened fire on a civil rights march in the Bogside area of Derry/Londonderry, killing 13 people and injuring many more. A fourteenth victim, John Johnston, died some months later on 16 June 1972, reportedly from his injuries.

The massacre, which became known as “Bloody Sunday”, was the deadliest single shooting incident during the Troubles.

The initial Widgery tribunal, which reported on 19 April 1972 after just 11 weeks, was widely condemned as a whitewash. Widgery concluded that the first shots fired on Bloody Sunday were directed at the soldiers, who were largely exonerated.

The Widgery findings remained the official account for 26 years until Tony Blair established the Saville inquiry in 1998 as part of the Northern Ireland peace process.

The Saville inquiry, so-called after its chairman, Lord Saville of Newdigate, reported on 15 June 2010 after 12 years of hearings and at a cost of £191 million – making it the longest and most expensive inquiry in British legal history. Its conclusions comprehensively overturned Widgery’s report.

Saville concluded that all those killed were unarmed and posed no threat. He stated that the soldiers who entered the Bogside did so on the basis of an order “which should not have been given”.

He found that “none of the casualties shot by soldiers of support company was armed with a firearm”.

Addressing the House of Commons, Cameron stated: “Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces, and for that, on behalf of the government – indeed, on behalf of our country – I am deeply sorry.”

Mark Durkan, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) MP for Foyle, welcomed the prime minister’s statement.

He called on the prime minister to confirm that “every one of the victims – Bernard McGuigan, 41; Gerald Donaghey, 17; Hugh Gilmour, 17; John Duddy, 17; Gerard McKinney, 34; James Wray, 22; John Young, 17; Kevin McElhinney, 17; Michael Kelly, 17; Michael McDaid, 20; Patrick Doherty, 31; William McKinney, 27; William Nash, 19; and John Johnston, 59 – are all absolutely and totally exonerated by today’s report.”

Cameron replied that those killed on Bloody Sunday were “innocent of anything that justified them being shot.”

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Gregory Campbell argued there had been “10,000 other bloody days in Northern Ireland’s recent history”.

He added: “Many have said that the difference between Bloody Sunday and the other atrocities that I have alluded to was that Bloody Sunday was carried out by state forces, whereas other murders were carried out by terrorists.

“There has been no similar inquiry into the financing of the Provisional IRA at the inception of that organisation by another state – the Irish Republic.”

Campbell said he was pleased that the “sorry saga of the report is finally over and done”.

Additional resources

• UK Parliament – Parliamentary Business: https://www.parliament.uk/business/
• UK Parliament – Commons written statements: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/#written-statements