Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on two counts: first, on securing this debate—she always holds me to account on European matters at Cabinet Office questions, and I very much welcome the scrutiny that she provides—and, secondly, on her appointment as the Government’s trade envoy to North Africa. The case that she is making today about deepening trade links is one that I am sure she will be able to employ in that role as well, so I look forward to her doing that and to hearing all about it.

When I hear the hon. Lady speak about a more co-operative, close relationship with the European Union, I entirely agree. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to build. I would, however, introduce one note of caution. As the hon. Lady can imagine, I read the Financial Times avidly; it is a fine, authoritative publication. However, although we now move towards the first of the UK-EU summits, we have not actually entered that intense period of negotiation yet. She should perhaps treat what she reads in the FT, including about what that negotiation will consist of, with a little caution.

I will turn in a moment to the specific issue of youth mobility, but I want to set in context the EU-UK reset this Government have embarked on. First, I am very pleased with the progress that has been made so far. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, going into this more intense phase of negotiation, it was very important that the new European Commission was formally in place. That happened in December and we can now move into this new phase. However, the Government have already been making significant strides forward. There have been dozens of ministerial visits across Government and we have been working co-operatively with our European counterparts.

The Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on 2 October. I was with them in Brussels when that meeting took place. They agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, put it on a more solid, stable footing and then move forward in their discussions ahead of the first of the summits. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in October, the Chancellor attended the Eurogroup meeting in December and I have had frequent meetings and discussions with my counterpart at the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič. Those discussions are, of course, ongoing.

On 3 February—Monday of next week—we will see the Prime Minister attend the European Council. He was invited by the President of the Council António Costa, who I met with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street just before Christmas. As I say, we will then move towards the summit, which we have said will take place in the first half of this year.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Minister is giving a good account of the diaries of various Ministers. If meetings were a measure of success, we would all say that the Government were very successful, but they are not. When will we see outcomes from this rapprochement with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not share the hon. Member’s downbeat assessment, and neither does the European Union. Maroš Šefčovič himself said last week that our relationship with the EU is definitely in a more positive place. I hope the hon. Member welcomes that.

What we have is a very co-operative relationship. For example, I am responsible for the Windsor framework taskforce, which is in the new EU relations secretariat at the Cabinet Office, in the centre of Government. I am sure he would welcome the creation of this new secretariat as it prioritises this relationship, which is precisely what is being argued for in this debate. I will give him an example from when we first came to office, that of dental amalgam and EU regulations on mercury. In previous Administrations, that would have blown up into a significant row, but it did not. With our new, mature relationship, it was dealt with very pragmatically. He will not have to wait too long until the EU-UK summit, after which he will be able to see the concrete progress and deliverables he is asking for starting to take place. I say gently that he should welcome the progress and the constructive relationship that we have. I hope he does not have too long to wait for some more concrete outcomes, which are hugely important.

We are taking the discussions on the reset forward, and they fall, essentially, into three categories—three pillars, if you like. The first is about foreign policy and a more structured defence co-operation. We have already made progress. The Foreign Secretary and the High Representative have already agreed on six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. That agreement is already in place and we will move further forward on that.

The second category is about the safety of our citizens, so on judicial and law enforcement co-operation. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) challenges me on concrete progress and we have already increased the National Crime Agency presence at Europol. I visited Europol in opposition, as did the now Prime Minister and the now Home Secretary. We are determined to work more closely together on serious and organised crime—from the vile crime of people smuggling to issues such as fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking—to ensure that there is nowhere on our continent where criminals can find a place to hide from the force of the law.

The third category is looking to make significant progress on trade and reducing trade barriers. We were elected on a manifesto with a very firm framework that we would not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement, but that manifesto contained examples of what we wanted to secure, which we have a mandate from the people to negotiate. That includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will reduce trade barriers significantly for agriculture and agri-food products, mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our services industries, and what we can do to make it so much easier for our touring artists to once again be able to tour the EU, and for European artists to come here. On those aspects that are within the trade and co-operation agreement as it stands, we will already have to move forward on negotiation. A good example of that is energy, where the trade and co-operation agreement is already putting an obligation on the UK and EU to look at how they operate the emissions trading scheme. There is a substantial agenda that the Government will be taking forward.

[Caroline Voaden]

Since the election, I have seen and heard lots of evidence of more conversations happening between the UK and the EU than did over the previous few years, so I accept what you are saying about a rapprochement and a more positive engagement. You say that the Government are keen to increase trade—

[Caroline Voaden]

I apologise, Sir Jeremy. The Government are saying that they want to increase trade with the European Union. Could the Minister comment on how helpful he thinks it is when suggestions are put forward by the European Union? Last week, for example, we had a suggestion of a pan-European Mediterranean customs agreement, which could benefit the just-in-time supply trade and complex manufacturing in this country, but was instantly dismissed by the Government. Would the Minister like to comment on how helpful he thinks that is?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s descriptions of PEM as a customs agreement—that is not quite how it operates, or is meant to operate.

Secondly, I observe that on the various proposals and comments, the Government will of course be expected to refer to their manifesto commitments, for which we have a mandate. I have always said constructively that of course, within our red lines, we will always listen to the proposals that the EU puts forward. That was the message the Government sent out. I also observe that my very constructive, positive relationship with Maroš Šefčovič is evidence of proposals going between us that are being very constructively received on both sides. Do not take my word for it: have a look at Maroš Šefčovič’s interview from last week where he was asked about his relationship with me and how that is going, and he was very clear about what a positive, different place it is in. The proof is in what is being said on both sides.

Further, I am interested in this press on progress, because I took the time before coming to this debate to have a look at the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election, which included a four-step process. I would gently say that if we were doing a four-step process we might take significantly longer than has been taken.

[Sarah Olney]

First, our four-step process was about a much more comprehensive programme of engagement with the EU than what we are solely calling for today, which is a youth mobility scheme. Secondly, I put it to the Minister that since our manifesto was published back in June of last year, there has been substantial change in the global arena, in terms of trade and defence, with the re-election of President Trump in Washington, so naturally the environment has moved on since then. That is why we are now renewing and intensifying our calls for greater co-operation with the European Union, because we think that the issue is so much more pressing.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will just say, first, that when the hon. Lady talks about a “comprehensive programme of engagement”, that is precisely what the Government have been engaging in.

The hon. Lady is certainly right to observe that of course world circumstances change, and I am sure that that will be the case in the years ahead as well. However, what will not change is the Government’s prioritisation of deepening our trade links with the European Union. It is also really important to say that that is of mutual benefit—it is of benefit to the United Kingdom and it is of benefit to the European Union that we move forward together on this agenda. That is precisely what will happen over the next few months.

[Ms Creasy]

I know more than most how much work my right hon. Friend has been doing on this issue. As for rejoining the pan-European scheme, it already exists; it is not a bespoke scheme. On youth mobility, it would be very helpful for us to understand things from the Minister’s perspective, because there are a lot of issues to balance in the best interests of the British economy and British growth. May I bring him back to that point? When there are so many challenges in the world, it is wonderful to have UK leaders in Europe who do not question whether we are friend or foe to our colleagues there, but we also need to speak up for British interests. I hope he can set out a bit more about what he considers those to be.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. It was a particularly low moment for the country when one of its Prime Ministers could not answer a question as to whether the French President was a friend or foe. France is our NATO ally, with huge and deep ties to us. The fact that we ever reached that point was, frankly, disgraceful. However, we are not in that position any more. We are very clear with our European friends and partners that our relationship with them is constructive and positive, and that we will make it even closer in the years ahead. That is hugely important. My hon. Friend also makes a really powerful point about national interests, because our national interests and those of European economies go hand in hand. This process is not some sort of zero-sum game. It is a negotiation—a set of discussions—from which both sides can mutually benefit.

Let us take, for example, an SPS agreement, as seeking negotiations on that is one of our specific manifesto pledges. It works for and reduced barriers on both sides. That is good for businesses and the agricultural sector on the European continent, and it is good for the agricultural sector here in Britain. Cultural exchanges are also good for both sides, as is mutual recognition of professional qualifications in services. That is not just about our brilliant services exports; it is about those services that we can get from the European Union.

I am conscious, Sir Jeremy, that this is a short Westminster Hall debate and we are coming to the last few moments. People-to-people contacts are hugely important; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous Government eased the position regarding school trips, particularly with France. We have just indicated our reinvestment in the Turing scheme. There are also numerous deep people-to-people links with Europe right across the United Kingdom.

As we have had this exchange across the Chamber many times, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that youth mobility was not part of the plans that the Government set out at the election. We have said that we will not go back to freedom of movement; that is a very clear red line. However, I approach the negotiations with the European Union in a constructive spirit. I, of course, will put forward and advocate for our national interests. It is, of course, for the EU to come forward with its negotiating position.

Who knows whether points in the Financial Times on this matter are accurate or not? They may or may not be, but I look forward to these negotiations. This is going to be a really positive period in relationships between the UK and the EU, and I am sure we can come back with the deliverables that are being asked for by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

Finally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, for your chairmanship of this debate.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful, too, to the Minister and to everyone who has contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

19. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, putting it on a more solid, stable footing. I am taking forward discussions with my EU counterpart, Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič. In two weeks’ time, the Prime Minister will attend a summit with fellow European leaders on European defence.

[Richard Baker]

Does the Minister agree that the arts, musicians and the wider creative sector play a vital role in our economy, which is why working to negotiate a deal with touring artists is so important? Will the Minister confirm that this is still a priority for him?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I can confirm that our priority remains ensuring that UK artists can continue to perform and promote themselves around the world. That is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working collaboratively with the creative sector and across Government to address key issues for our brilliant artists and their support staff touring the EU. As we set out in our manifesto, we will work with the EU and member states to explore how best to improve those arrangements, but without seeing a return to freedom of movement.

[Joe Morris]

I am frequently contacted by businesses in my constituency who are deeply concerned about the trade barriers put up by the previous Government that are damaging growth in the north-east. May I urge my right hon. Friend in the strongest possible terms to prioritise pragmatism in our relations with the EU and to ensure that businesses in my part of the country can get the support they need and export the goods they manufacture?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. Of course, we set out in our manifesto that we would not return to the single market, to the customs union or to freedom of movement. Within that framework, we absolutely take a pragmatic approach, putting the national interest first to tear down trade barriers wherever we can.

[Rachel Blake]

The end of this month will mark the anniversary of Brexit. Will the Minister assure me that we will not return to the appalling divisions of the past, and does he agree that the forthcoming summit and reset negotiations are a vital opportunity to discuss growth, not just for the diverse communities and businesses in my constituency, but for our nation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is a time to look to the future, not to go back to the divisions of the past. The forthcoming EU-UK summit presents significant opportunities to make people in the UK and the EU more secure, safer and more prosperous.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

For more than 15 years, the European Union has been in breach of its international treaty obligations to join the European convention on human rights. What are the Government doing to address the arrogance of the European Union on that issue?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would say, first, that the Government are committed to our membership of the European convention on human rights, and secondly, that the hon. Gentleman talks about bodies and organisations not being compliant with international treaties, but one of the big problems with the previous Government was how they signed international treaties and then sought to condemn them when they themselves had put pen to paper.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Maroš Šefčovič is today dangling the prospect of the UK joining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. Of course, the quiet part is that that would once again turn this country into rule takers, not rule makers. Ahead of the summit, can the Paymaster General rule out the prospect of the UK falling in line with so-called dynamic alignment—in other words, taking EU rules and regulations—and will we instead strike out in the world and do new deals with America and around the Pacific rim?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not accept the binary choice that the hon. Gentleman presents. We want to increase trade and export all around the world—that is hugely important. As the Prime Minister said, we do not choose between allies; we look to deepen all our relationships. Of course, we welcome the positive and constructive tone from Commissioner Šefčovič. We are always looking for ways to reduce barriers to trade, but within our manifesto red lines, because we take a pragmatic view on where the national interest lies. We do not currently have any plans to join PEM, and we will not provide a running commentary on every comment that is made.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

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

Yesterday in Davos, Mr Šefčovič suggested that the UK and the EU were talking about dynamic alignment. As the Paymaster General will be aware, that is, if true, a very significant step. Will he be clear with the House: is dynamic alignment on the table?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have to give the hon. Gentleman top marks for audacity. I do not know whether Conservative MPs have heard, but a week ago, the Leader of the Opposition gave her new year speech, and, as I am sure they know, we listened to it extremely carefully. Do they know what she said about previous EU-UK negotiations? She said that the Conservative Government were engaging in them

“before we had a plan for growth outside the EU… These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”

Why doesn’t the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we are in danger—[Interruption.] I am not going to sit down, Minister. [Interruption.] Thank you. We have a lot of questions to get through. If you want to make a statement on that in future, I would welcome it.

[Alex Burghart]

I would welcome that, too, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman was not answering my question—just as he did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and just as his Department is not answering questions of any hue at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made clear. It comes to something when Mr Šefčovič is a better guide to what is going on than the British Government. If the Government are committed to dynamic alignment, that is a significant step, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, because it could bring the European Court of Justice back into having jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. So, for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out the ECJ having jurisdiction over the UK in any regard in the future?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am astonished by the question, because the hon. Gentleman is also the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and will know the role that the European Court of Justice plays in the Windsor framework. Turning to his question about the negotiations, we have set out our red lines in the manifesto, and have set out examples of things that we are seeking to negotiate—that is already there.

The Leader of the Opposition was apologising last week for the conduct of the Conservative party in its relationship with the EU. Why is the hon. Gentleman not starting with an apology, or did he just not get the memo from his leader?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses, which have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages, and reams of red tape creating huge barriers to growth. The return of a Trump Administration in Washington changes the landscape of trade deals globally with the threat of high tariffs, and will be deeply worrying for many businesses across the country. The UK must lead on the world stage again, standing up for our interests by working closely with other countries—most importantly, our European neighbours—as set out by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats in his new year’s speech last week. I urge the Minister to be more ambitious in rebuilding our relationship with Europe. Does he agree that the best way to boost growth and fix our relationship with the EU is to agree a new UK-EU customs union?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question, but as I indicated in an earlier answer, we do not choose between allies. We are looking to deepen our trade links right around the world with different partners, but the hon. Lady should be aware that we are ambitious on the UK-EU relationship, and we will take that ambition forward into the UK-EU summit.

[Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)]

4. What recent progress his Department has made on reform of the House of Lords.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

17. What recent progress his Department has made on reform of the House of Lords.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

As an immediate first step in reform, the Government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That Bill was amended and passed in this House, and will soon be in Committee in the other place.

[Jade Botterill]

I regularly meet talented, hard-working and intelligent young people across Ossett and Denby Dale who often feel detached from politics. How quickly can the Government make progress on this legislation so that all young people have an equal chance to make the laws and shape our future, not just those born into privilege?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we want to see this Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session. The role of hereditary peers is completely indefensible in this day and age. Last year, the Bill was resoundingly approved by this House, and it is currently going through the other place, where it will soon be in Committee. It is a clear manifesto commitment by the Labour party, and I look forward to it being delivered.

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Being the MP for Leeds South West and Morley is the greatest privilege I could ask for, and constituency boundaries ensure that all parts of our country are represented in this place. The same is not true of the other place, which is not representative of our nations and regions. What work is being done or considered to remedy that, to ensure that all of our communities are represented in the other place?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As the Member of Parliament for the seat where I grew up, I share my hon. Friend’s passion for representing my area. He will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reform the process of appointments to the House of Lords so that it better reflects the country it serves, and we will consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

In 2022, the then shadow Leader of the House rightly accused Boris Johnson of abusing the honours system by appointing cronies to the House of Lords, and promised that an incoming Labour Prime Minister would never do such a thing. Now, having lost her seat at the general election, that former shadow Leader of the House is one of 30 new Labour peers waiting to be appointed by the Prime Minister to sit in the House of Lords. Could the Minister explain how the Labour party stuffing the House of Lords with its cronies is any less of an affront to democracy than when the Tories did it?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can seriously compare the appointments we have put forward with what happened under the Conservative party. We have already set out that each and every appointment will be accompanied by a citation indicating the experience to be brought to the upper House, and the people he refers to will make an excellent contribution there.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on payments to infected and affected people under the infected blood compensation scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

21. What steps he is taking to monitor compensation payments for people impacted by infected blood.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has made the first compensation offers to 11 people, with a total value of more than £13 million. The Government have also paid over £1 billion in interim compensation, and in the Budget we announced £11.8 billion of funding for the scheme. Yesterday, I visited the Infected Blood Compensation Authority office in Newcastle, and I was reassured to see the progress that is being made swiftly and compassionately.

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his update to the House. I note the press release that went out yesterday, and no doubt there will be another one on 5 March, the day before the next Cabinet Office questions. However, I want to be constructive in my approach; I, too, will be visiting the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in Newcastle, next Thursday.

The legal representatives of the complex web of stakeholders in the infected blood and affected communities remain concerned about the status of the arm’s length body, the appeals process and the role of victims in the oversight board. I am absolutely clear that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the necessary authority and will work through those issues. I urge the Minister to work with and reassure the victims’ representatives, so that the lawyers can be more constructive in supporting these people along this difficult pathway. No doubt hon. Members will come in with more questions, but does the Minister agree with me that we need to move forward in a constructive manner?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I look forward to the former Paymaster General’s reflections after his visit next week. I was delighted yesterday to meet the user consultants— three victims; two infected, one affected—who are certainly making their voice heard at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. That voice of victims is hugely important, as is the constructive approach the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

[Jessica Toale]

I welcome the £11.8 billion allocated in the Budget for the infected blood scandal, which is a clear commitment from this Government that they are acting on this injustice. However, parents and partners of the infected, including in my constituency of Bournemouth West, are rightly apprehensive about when they will receive compensation; many are elderly or in poor health. Given the urgency of the situation, can the Minister outline when they might receive compensation and whether he will consider including them in the initial waves?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In October, applications opened for eligible estates to claim interim compensation payments of £100,000. So far, more than 230 estates have received payments. I hope those payments are welcomed as the beginning of recognition for those who have lost loved ones to this devastating scandal. The delivery of compensation payments is rightly a matter for IBCA, which is an independent arm’s length body chaired by Sir Robert Francis. The Government expect payments to eligible affected people to begin this year, following a second set of regulations that I will be laying before Parliament in the coming weeks.

[Gregor Poynton]

I do not imagine there is one MP in this House who has not had constituents come to talk to them about the infected blood scandal. In fact, this week I spoke to one such constituent, Linda Cannon, who told me her story, saying:

“I lost my husband, Billy, in February 2013 to Hepatitis C after a blood transfusion in 1986, for a stomach ulcer, at Bangour Hospital. He was not informed till 2011 that he had been infected, only finding out after presenting with a sore back. He underwent severe treatment, without success, which will live with me forever. Life has been difficult to deal with after this”.

The consequences have been completely devastating for her family. Mr Cannon will not see justice, but several of my other constituents must. I welcome the urgency with which this Government have moved forward with this issue, because justice for the victims of this injustice is long overdue. Can the Minister update the House on how he has been working—not just in England, but across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to make sure that payments get to those who need them immediately?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The whole House will be moved by the story of my hon. Friend’s constituent. It is a story from this appalling scandal that many of us across the House will be hearing from our constituents. I am pleased that first payments have been made to people who have waited far too long for compensation. Those payments were made by the end of 2024, as I committed to the House to do. I also commit specifically to my hon. Friend to working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that victims across the United Kingdom can achieve justice.

[Liz Jarvis]

The victims of the infected blood scandal, including those from my constituency who attended Treloar college in Hampshire, have been fighting for justice for decades. They have raised deep concerns about the slow progress of compensation payments; the Infected Blood Compensation Authority projects that by the end of March just 250 people will have been offered compensation. Will the Government accelerate the roll-out of the compensation scheme to ensure that victims see justice within their lifetimes?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am restless for progress on the speed of payments, and I will do everything in my gift as a Minister to lay the regulations before this House speedily. IBCA is obviously operationally independent and—I was having this discussion yesterday in Newcastle—the test and learn approach that it uses, which starts with a representative sample of cases, will allow it to ramp up delivery. When I was in Newcastle yesterday I saw a group of public servants working efficiently in a compassionate way to deliver.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to reduce the cost of ministerial travel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

12. Whether he has had recent discussions with the fishing industry on the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I engage with a range of stakeholders relevant to our relationship with the EU, for example through the UK-EU trade and co- operation agreement’s domestic advisory group, which I last met in September and which includes representatives of the UK fishing industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the responsible Department, and has ongoing dialogue with the industry. I recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs to discuss fisheries matters, and I will meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry in the very near future to discuss their interests in our fisheries relationship with the EU under the trade and co-operation agreement.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am delighted to hear that those meetings are scheduled, because the review of the TCA is seen by fishing industries around the UK as an opportunity to undo some of the damage that was done by Boris Johnson at the end of the Brexit negotiations. I met the EU Commission official who will be leading the EU side of the negotiations and it is clear that she is informed of their industries’ priorities and has a plan for achieving them. The EU sees this as an important piece of work. The Minister can only do what needs to be done if he is prepared to engage with and listen to the views of our fishing industries and communities.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I understand and recognise the strong interest in what happens in 2026 when the arrangements that were negotiated by the previous Government end. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will listen and engage. We will protect the interests of our fisheries, and also fulfil our international commitments to protect the marine environment.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reform public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

T8. Travelling and working abroad can be an incredibly enriching experience, and I welcome the Government’s steps to strengthen our relationship with the EU. My young constituents would like to know specifically what steps are being taken to increase their opportunities in Europe. What discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues and EU counterparts regarding an EU youth mobility scheme and any other further actions to ease work and travel for young people in Europe?

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have arrangements with France to make school trips easier. I think we agree across the House that school trips are an enriching experience. The Department for Education works with the British Council on the learning assistance scheme, which the Government hugely support and want to drive forward. With regard to a youth mobility scheme, I am not going to give a running commentary. What I will say is that we will, of course, always act in the UK’s national interest and that we will not go back to freedom of movement.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

How much longer will it be before we get an answer from the Government on the review of the vaccine damage payment scheme? It was initiated when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) was in the Cabinet Office about a year ago. When will we get an answer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

What progress has been made on improving engagement with those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal? As the Paymaster General is aware, there has been a great deal of concern among those people and the organisations that represent them. May I urge him to sit down with his opposite number in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for getting aid to the organisations that support those people who are infected and affected, because they are desperately in need of the resources?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will be carrying out another round of engagement with victims next week. As I said in answer to the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the role of user consultants in the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is vital as well.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

There are still, sadly, two victims of the contaminated blood scandal dying on a weekly basis. Will my right hon. Friend say what is preventing the Government from instructing IBCA to issue core payments today to all living infected victims registered with the existing support schemes?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

IBCA is operationally independent, but I expect the first payments for the affected to be made before the end of this year. I am restless for progress and will do all I can as a Minister to drive this forward.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Public sector procurement is a fantastic way to drive productivity, innovation and local value in public services, but too often, small businesses, start-ups and voluntary service providers in Newcastle tell me they have difficulty accessing public sector contracts; they do not have as many lawyers, consultants or project managers as bigger businesses. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure better access to public sector contracts?

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will say, first of all, what a remarkably efficient Committee stage that was. In that tradition, which has now been set, I will keep my remarks brief.

The Bill will continue the positive effects seen from the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 for a further five years. The 2015 Act followed the very welcome decision made the year before by the Church of England to allow women to be ordained as bishops, and the legislation passed the following year began to allow ordained women bishops to enter the other place as Lords Spiritual earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

I want to take the opportunity to thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill for their support to me and to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), as well as to my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House of Lords.

I thank all those who spoke on Second Reading and today: my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), as well as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), who showed that wonderful talent today of being succinct in the passage of the Bill. In all seriousness, I wish to put on the record my thanks for the spirit in which the official Opposition have approached the Bill. We are grateful for that. Finally, I give particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) in her position as the Second Church Estates Commissioner.

During the passage of the 2015 Act, the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), described the legislation as “unopposable”. I am pleased to say that nearly a decade later, that sentiment continues to ring true. I commend the Bill to the House.

Infected Blood Compensation Authority: Contingency Fund Advance

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I hereby give notice of the Cabinet Office’s intention to seek a Contingencies Fund advance to make compensation payments to victims of the infected blood scandal.

The Cabinet Office’s capital annually managed expenditure estimate does not provide funding for compensation payments already approved by Parliament through the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. This advance will be used to quickly compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. While this will be received through the supplementary estimate, this advance will enable compensation to be made ahead of Parliament formally approving the ambit and the associated expenditure through an estimate, in line with the Government’s commitment.

Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £272,000,000 for this capital will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £272,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS321]

Government Response to the Infected Blood Inquiry Recommendations: End-of-year Update

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The infected blood inquiry’s final report was published on 20 May 2024 and made 12 recommendations. The recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff are wide-ranging, well considered, and necessarily complex.

In the months since the publication of the inquiry’s report, Parliament has come together a number of times to discuss the infected blood scandal. In the course of those debates, I committed to providing an update on the Government’s response to the recommendations by the end of this year. This update fulfils that commitment. Alongside this statement, I am publishing a Command Paper detailing the full update on www.gov.uk, and I have requested that copies be deposited in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

The Government accept in full or accept in principle all of the recommendations made. Where recommendations are accepted in principle, we have sought to explain the rationale for doing so. Many of the recommendations are wide-reaching, and proper implementation needs time to be delivered effectively. The Government have worked to progress implementation and assess the deliverability of each of the recommendations. We are committed to making meaningful change. As per recommendation 12 of the infected blood inquiry, I will provide a further final update on the progress made on Inquiry’s recommendations by May 2025.

I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their co-operation, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), for his leadership on the recommendations for which his Department is responsible. I am also grateful to Ministers in the devolved Governments, in particular the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health in Scotland, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Wales and the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. Their engagement has been invaluable in ensuring that we have as consistent an approach as possible across the whole United Kingdom.

The victims of this scandal have suffered immeasurably. It is my utmost intention to deliver what justice and compensation the Government can as quickly as possible. This Government are taking concrete action to deliver on the compensation scheme. The Chancellor announced £11.8 billion of funding in the autumn Budget, and I am pleased to update that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has been able to make the first payments to the victims of this scandal in the last few days.

Furthermore, I can also confirm today that the Government have extended their eligibility criteria for siblings for the infected blood compensation scheme to ensure that the scheme provides fair compensation to those who have been devastatingly impacted as a result of their sibling’s infection.

Under the new definition, siblings of infected people will be eligible if they, while under the age of 18, lived in the same household as an infected person for a period of at least two years after the onset of the infection, or would have been expected to live in the same household were it not for the impact of the infection. Siblings in this scenario will receive an injury impact award in line with the severity of the infection, and a social impact award of £12,000.

Alternatively, siblings will also be eligible as long as they cohabited, or were expected to cohabit with the infected person were it not for the impact of the infection, for at least two years while the affected sibling was under the age of 18. This is the case even if that period was prior to the infection, including if the infection happened during adulthood. Siblings in this scenario will receive an injury impact award in line with the severity of the infection, and a social impact award of £8,000. This mirrors the social impact award available to carers, parents, where the onset of a child’s infection began after age 18, and children, where the onset of a parent’s infection began after their child turned 18.

I hope that both these updates provide the infected blood community with some assurance that we are learning from and acting on the mistakes of the past.

[HCWS320]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce trade barriers with the EU.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission met on 2 October in Brussels and agreed to strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU. Maroš Šefčovič, on behalf of the European Union, and I, on behalf of the UK Government, will now take forward that important work. We are committed to reducing barriers to trade, including negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to reduce checks on food and put food on people’s tables more cheaply.

[Dr Chambers]

We are very proud that UK agriculture has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. It is for this reason that the production of foie gras was banned in 2007, as it is considered to be too cruel. While we are desperate to reduce trade barriers with the EU, are there any steps to ban products like foie gras to ensure that all animal products sold in the UK are produced to at least the same animal welfare standards as those in the UK?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of very high standards of animal welfare in food production. This Government will prioritise that in trade policy, unlike the Conservatives who, when they were in government, negotiated free trade agreements that consistently undermined agriculture in the UK.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

We all support efforts to remove unnecessary trade barriers, but we must also be clear with our European partners on what we cannot accept. What is the Paymaster General prepared to say is off the table: dynamic alignment, British fishing rights, or maybe asylum burden-sharing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Labour party manifesto set out our red lines in this negotiation. We will not go back to the battles of the past. We will not return to the single market. We will not return to the customs union. We will not return to freedom of movement. What we will do is negotiate with the European Union to make the British people safer and more secure, so we have closer law enforcement co-operation. We will negotiate to reduce trade barriers to make the British people more prosperous.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are glad that the Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to rebuild trust and our relationships with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council.

Establishing a UK-EU youth mobility scheme would mirror existing capped arrangements that the UK already has with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power that was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. Will the Minister confirm that he will have discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and the European Union?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of the Foreign Secretary’s attendance at the Foreign Affairs Council. It is hugely important that we work together with our European partners on security, particularly in the dangerous world environment we find ourselves in at the moment. On youth mobility, we have of course listened to what the EU has to say, but we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme and we will not return to freedom of movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

18. What recent progress his Department has made on reform of the House of Lords.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The Government have brought forward the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill as an immediate first step in reform. That will remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Bill passed this House unamended and will have its Second Reading in the other place next week.

In addition, I am proud to announce today that I have laid a written ministerial statement that will ensure that political parties nominating people for peerages in the other place will now have to publish, alongside the nomination, a 150 word summary as to why they are putting that person forward. That is another reform that this Government are proud to announce as part of our wider agenda.

[Ms Billington]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response, particularly the fact that it will increase transparency for the other place. Does he agree that we have a mandate for reform, and while respecting the individuals, we are absolutely determined as a Government to progress the abolition of the hereditary principle in lawmaking?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It just should not be the case, in a modern legislature, that there are places reserved for people by accident of birth. The Bill has now passed this House unamended. As I have indicated, it will now go before the other place for Second Reading next week. We want to get that Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

T3. Last week, the Government released their latest departmental lobbying transparency data. The data was two months late and relates to the last months of the previous Government, namely April to June 2024. The public will learn who the new Government met during their first weeks in power only at the end of December, a full six months after the election, and that is only if the data is released on time. UK lobbying rules have more holes than Swiss cheese, so will the Government set a timeline for creating a central database of departmental transparency data, with monthly updates, thereby closing the litany of loopholes in the current lobbying rules?

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

The Government are committed to transparency around lobbying. That is why we will have regular transparency updates. The approach that we take will frankly be in stark contrast with that of the Government who preceded us.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

T8. Last week, I listened earnestly to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the cyber-security conference, which was timely, given that my local council was subject to a cyber-attack, possibly by a foreign actor, just in the last four weeks. What measures has he undertaken to improve cyber-security resilience in local councils and critical national infrastructure that might impact us in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will of course look at the specific document that the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to. He also referred to the important consent vote taking place in the Northern Ireland Assembly next week. This Government support the Windsor framework. That is why, when we were in opposition, we voted with the then Government to support it. We are committed to implementing it in good faith, and that is what this Government will do.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Public procurement is a vital lever for delivering our growth mission, and growth must be felt by people in every part of our country. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that when taxpayers’ money is spent on private contracts, the key workers delivering the contract and local communities such as mine in Darlington maximise the benefits of that public money?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to a duty of candour for public bodies. In the light of the appalling crimes of John Smyth, who left over 100 children assaulted and traumatised while senior members of the Church of England looked the other way, what steps is the Minister considering in conjunction with the Church so that bishops, dioceses, cathedrals and national church institutions are designated as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In relation to my hon. Friend’s second point, it is right that the Church of England looks very carefully now at its procedures in the light of what has happened and been brought forward. In relation to the duty of candour, I have no idea why the Opposition Front Benchers were laughing about that. It is a hugely important reform that we are bringing forward, and it will make a significant difference across public service. We will have public servants putting the public interest above their own personal reputations and above the reputation of institutions. I hope the Opposition Front Benchers will come to support and help with the leadership required for that step change—that culture change—across public service.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Golden Valley development adjacent to GCHQ in Cheltenham will pay a vital role in our nation’s cyber-security. The recent confirmation of £20 million from the Government for that development is welcome, but will the Secretary of State confirm that the project will continue to feature in future iterations of the national cyber strategy?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to the infected blood compensation scheme, and everybody in the House and across the country is pleased to see it. As of this month, how many individuals have registered for infected blood compensation payments, and can the Minister provide an update for the delivery of compensation in 2025? I would be pleased to get those figures for the United Kingdom, but in particular for Northern Ireland.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures for Northern Ireland, as I have done in the past; he knows that I am always happy to do that. On the timescale for payments, I have already indicated that the first payments for infected people will be out the door by the end of this year. I have undertaken to bring forward regulations relating to the affected people, and to get them through the House—subject, of course, to the House’s approval—by 31 March of next year, so that payments to the affected can start in 2025.

House of Lords Appointments

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

From today, political parties will be required to provide citations when making nominations for appointment to the House of Lords, summarising why an individual has been put forward.

It is for party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords when nominating individuals for appointment to the upper House. From today political parties will need to provide a citation for each of their nominees, which will be published on gov.uk on successful appointment.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission will collate these citations, and will maintain its existing role in vetting all nominations for appointment as life peers, including those nominated by the political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety.

The Government will keep the appointments system under review as we progress wider reforms to the House of Lords.

[HCWS284]

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to open the debate on this important but straightforward piece of legislation. I should start by welcoming the shadow Paymaster General to his role. I have no doubt that we will have some great, robust debates over the Dispatch Boxes. I will just say to him, now that he is in the shadow role, that I very much hope we can continue the cross-party work that his predecessor and I were pursuing on infected blood compensation. That cross-party working has been extremely important.

Members will of course be aware—we debated this on Tuesday—that this Government are pursuing reform of the House of Lords. I should be clear with the House that this Bill is distinct from those reforms. It does not seek to make fundamental changes; its simple effect is to extend, by five years, the arrangements for the appointment of Lords Spiritual contained in the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015. And like the 2015 Act, this Bill has been introduced at the request of the Church of England.

I think it may be helpful to give the House a little background as to how we arrived here. There are 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, and, before 2015, the process for how and when they sit in the other place was determined solely by the Bishoprics Act 1878. Five seats are automatically allocated to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, followed by the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The remainder were filled on the basis of seniority—in other words, length of tenure.

In 2014, the General Synod of the Church of England passed legislation to allow women to become bishops for the first time. However, because of the rules of seniority, we would have had to wait many years before those first female bishops could have been eligible to receive their writs of summons and become Lords Spiritual. That would have created a situation whereby women were prominently involved in Church leadership but were unrepresented in the House of Lords.

To address that, at the Church’s request, both Houses passed legislation in 2015 to fast-track female bishops into the House of Lords. The effect of that legislation is that if there is a female diocesan bishop available when a Lords Spiritual seat becomes vacant, she will be appointed to the seat ahead of a male bishop irrespective of seniority.

Since enacted, the 2015 Act has had a clear effect. We have seen six female bishops sit in the other place earlier than they otherwise would have done. The Bishop of Gloucester was appointed to the House as the first female bishop on 7 September 2015. Since that first appointment, the Lords Spiritual have welcomed six more women to sit on their Benches.

The value of the legislation is about to be seen in action again. Following the recent retirement of the Bishop of Worcester, Debbie Sellin, the Bishop of Peterborough, will soon replace him in the Lords under the provisions of the 2015 Act. And then, the recently appointed Bishop of Coventry, Sophie Jelley, will be first in line for appointment to the House of Lords upon any future retirements.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you can see, there has been progress, but there remain only a handful of female bishops on the Lords Spiritual Benches today. The issue is that that 2015 Act will expire in May 2025. What the five-year extension contained in this Bill does is to allow more time for the positive effects of that 2015 piece of legislation to operate.

The Bill means that if any of the Lords Spiritual seats that are not automatically allocated become vacant between now and 2030, they will continue to be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop—if there are any available at that point.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying immensely my right hon. Friend’s very detailed explanation of how we got here. May I ask him what conversations he has had with the Church about the steps that it can take to increase the diversity of potential bishops and to ensure that, ultimately, there is a wider pool of people to appoint to the House of Lords.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As he would imagine, I certainly have had discussions with the Church of England, and not just prior to the introduction of this Bill, but prior to the wider reform of the Lords in which the Government are engaged. Those conversations are hugely important, as is diversity. This legislation will extend the diversity—having women bishops in the House of Lords—that we have seen since the 2015 Act reached the statute book.

The Government’s view is that five years is an appropriate length of time to extend these provisions to consolidate the positive effect that there has been so far. I hope that this very narrowly focused and simple Bill, which will extend an Act that has achieved such positive change over the past nine years, will gain support from all parts of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Thank you for your firm chairmanship of this debate, Madam Chairman. The hon. Member made a strong and powerful intervention, which I hope is noted down. I can see him being the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the junior Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs very soon. I am not sure if my commendation and support helps him in his endeavours, but I hope that it does. Of course, the hon. Member makes a thoughtful and interesting point. The Government do have time to introduce further legislation, but the reality is that pressure on time in this place is one of the greatest pressures—time is the most precious thing. I certainly would not engage in any form of political betting—I hope that can be recorded in Hansard—but if, perhaps in a previous age, I were a betting man, I might have offered this wager to the Paymaster General. I would wager a whole £5 that the Paymaster General will not be in a situation of getting any more legislation on Lords reform. I will give way to the Paymaster General, who is going to refute that.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I certainly would not enter into a wager. I would have hoped that the Conservative party would have learned its lesson on that.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I had hoped that the Paymaster General would have given a categorical assurance that there would be further legislation and that in the next King’s Speech a retirement age in the House of Lords will be introduced as part of that legislation, along with a minimum participation level, but he stayed silent. He made a little quip. I will give him another opportunity to do so, although he will probably stay in his place, which is of course his right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a matter for those on the Front Bench. I see members of the Conservative Whips Office in their place and I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sitting behind the Dispatch Box. These days, I am merely a highly regarded, distinguished and senior Back Bencher. [Laughter.] The days when I had any say in how the Conservative Opposition—or in previous times the Conservative Government—chose to vote in Divisions are gone, but they are not gone forever; this is only a sojourn on the Back Benches. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Let me return to my principal theme, which is that of authority. The authority of this House is partly born of its relationship with the other House. Were the other House to become elected, its authority would by definition grow and our authority by comparison diminish, so I am strongly opposed to an elected second Chamber. While I accept the principled argument of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and others, it is not for me. There is also the matter of the authority of our constitution. Our constitutional settlement, which we have rehearsed briefly in the debate, is dependent on that relationship, but also—I think it is fair to say—on reforms of this kind being measured.

It might surprise Members to hear that last night, I was looking at a short book written by Hilaire Belloc and Chesterton. That book, which is available from the Library of the House, rehearsed the arguments that prevailed at the time of the debate on the Parliament Act—it was then the Parliament Bill—in the House of Commons. It might surprise right hon. and hon. Members to learn, as I learned last night, that when Asquith introduced those changes—when the House of Lords rejected Lloyd George’s Budget and it became necessary to curb the powers of that House—rather than rushing to legislate, he set up a conference between both sides of the House to determine a compromise. Belloc, as Members will remember, was elected as a Liberal MP. He parodied that process and said that what came out of it was no better than what went into it. None the less, it was an attempt, at least, to reach a settlement in a dignified way on how we might reform the second Chamber. [Interruption.] It did take two elections. It took the 1906 election, as the Paymaster General will know, when the Liberals triumphed. I wonder whether he wants to intervene on me to sharpen up the history.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

That particular constitutional convention did not produce a consensus. It took two general elections in 1910—one in January and one in December.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is precisely right. In the first general election, there was an assumption that the Government would proceed, but the constitutional conference did not produce an outcome that brought about a reform that both sides could agree on. A further general election followed, and the right hon. Gentleman rehearses exactly what that short book describes. The point is that even Asquith at that time, who was determined to reform the House of Lords, felt that ideally that reform should be based on some kind of consensus, or at least a conversation about how that reform might happen and what shape it might take. That is important, because the authority of our constitution to some degree depends on its dignity.

Finally, I want to talk about the authority of Government. We have talked about mandates. It was long ago that the term “elective dictatorship” was first used. The nature of the relationship that I described earlier between Government and Opposition and between different sides of the Chamber is important to counter the risk of a Government with a very large majority ignoring counter-arguments and becoming—I hesitate to say corrupted—altered, changed or distorted by the scale of the majority. Frankly, in this Parliament, the Labour party will be able to legislate as it chooses at every turn. As experienced Members of the House know, including those on the Treasury Bench, Governments are better when they need to compromise, reach agreements and consider amendments.

When I was a Minister, many times in Bill Committees in particular, the shadow Minister would table an amendment. I would routinely and systematically have the argument and make sure that the amendment was voted down, but I would often go back to my civil servants and say, “I think that was rather a good argument. Why aren’t we doing it? I think he or she was right. We ought to alter the Bill.” I would engage with the shadow Minister privately and look at ways in which we could improve the legislation through that kind of scrutiny. Good Ministers and good shadow Ministers always worked in that way, as I did with the now Prime Minister when he shadowed me as Security Minister.

Governments need to understand that to alter their position through that kind of exchange and consideration improves the exercise of government and adds to, rather than subtracts from, the Government’s authority. Good Governments behave in a way that, rather than taking advantage of their power, mitigates it by the choices that they make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am grateful to all those who contributed in Committee, as well as those who contributed to the lively debate on Second Reading last month. I also thank you and your colleagues for their chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed).

This Bill is a matter of principle. It has been introduced to address an outdated and indefensible feature of our legislature, rather than as a criticism of any contribution made by individual Members. The Government have listened to the debates in this House with interest and I look forward to following the Bill’s passage in the other place, where I am sure there will be further thoughtful contributions. I thank my officials and the whole team who have worked on the Bill.

This House will send to the other place a Bill that fulfils a manifesto commitment, and our manifesto was very clear:

“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”

That is precisely what the Bill does. It has a clear and simple purpose, a single focus, and it completes a process that started a quarter of a century ago. It sends a powerful message to people growing up in my constituency —in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran—and beyond, right across the country: “You do not need to be born into certain families to make our laws.”

On Third Reading of the Parliament Bill—that landmark reform of the House of Lords—on 15 May 1911, the then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, said:

“I repeat, as I began, that our first duty, in view of the electoral and Parliamentary history of this measure, is to place this Bill on the Statute Book. It is stamped, if ever a measure was stamped, with the authority and approval of the electorate of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 15 May 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1699.]

In that spirit, I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on whether Ministers disclosing policies to the media before the Budget are in contravention of the ministerial code’s statement that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

Mr Speaker, I reassure you that what you said yesterday, and indeed what you said a moment ago, has been heard not just by me but across Government.

The Government take their obligations to this House very seriously. Yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House on the fiscal rules, in which he made it clear that details will be announced to the House in the Chancellor’s Budget statement tomorrow, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Treasury Ministers have also answered questions in the House this morning.

The Chancellor will come before the House tomorrow to set out in detail the Government’s Budget to fix the foundations of our economy, and the House will then have a further four days of debate on the measures announced in that Budget. Throughout it all, Members of this House will see a Government who are committed to fixing the foundations to deliver the change our country so desperately needs. This Labour Government will invest in Britain’s future so that we can rebuild the national health service and our country, while ensuring that working people do not face higher taxes in their payslips.

[Laura Trott]

The response from No. 10 yesterday, and Labour’s whole argument, seems to be, “We did it because you guys did it.” But I am old enough to remember a fresh-faced Prime Minister coming into Downing Street and promising change. Labour justifying its actions based on things that the Conservatives have done does not seem like the change we were promised, does it? We are learning the lessons of why we lost the election, but this Government seem to be taking lessons from the worst bits of our record. And not just ours—from the last Labour Government, too. It is like the greatest hits of Government mistakes being replayed in just 100 days.

Cronyism? Is it Blair? No, it is the fresh-faced Labour Government giving civil service jobs to donors. A gross betrayal of pensioners? Is it Brown? No, it is the new Chancellor deciding that those on £13,000 are rich and do not need their winter fuel payments. Rampant politicisation of our institutions? Was this not something Labour accused Boris Johnson of? No, it is the Chancellor again, who said this weekend that the ex-Prime Minister and ex-Chancellor will have to answer to the Office for Budget Responsibility, despite the OBR saying that the report has nothing to do with previous Ministers and led The Times to argue that the OBR has been reduced

“to the provisional wing of the Treasury press office.”

Disrespectful statements emanating from No.10 about your decisions, Mr Speaker? Not the Conservative party, but the No. 10 press office, just yesterday. And potentially breaching the ministerial code with abandon about Budget leaks? Right again, it is this Government.

This Government’s false piety has been breached comprehensively by the Downing Street passes scandal and crony appointments to the civil service, and their hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see. Yet still they bleat on about the Tories like some broken spell they mutter over and over again in an attempt to conjure up the old magic, but it is not going to work. Labour is so obsessed with playing political games that its Members find themselves going over the Budget, simultaneously claiming that the Conservatives spent too much, but also spent too little. It is nonsense.

The question that I want to ask the Government today is who is going to take responsibility for the Budget leaks? What assessment have the Government made of whether this is a breach of the ministerial code?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As I have said, I have the deepest respect for this House and its Members. The coming days will be very important to debate the Budget in full. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me if I have a degree of cynicism about the Conservative party’s new-found passion for parliamentary conventions, given the number of times it failed in its 14 years in office to update the House ahead of major announcements.

The truth is that Conservative Members are desperate to speak about anything other than the appalling mess in which they left our national finances. There are many groups of people who I would listen to on budget management, but certainly not Members of the party that crashed the economy. We would think they might have learned some lessons from attacking independent financial institutions, but they have not. The shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury are attacking the Office for Budget Responsibility once again.

Families in my constituency and across the country are still paying higher rents and mortgage costs because of the mini-Budget two years ago that created and wreaked such havoc on our economy. Unlike the Conservative party, this Government will never play fast and loose with the nation’s finances. Tomorrow we will see a Budget focused on investment, to get the economy moving again. This Government will take the long-term decisions needed to rebuild Britain and fix our schools, hospitals and our broken roads. The Conservatives have not changed. All they offer is decline and more austerity, with working people paying the price.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

In Bury North, rents and mortgages are still sky high as a direct consequence of the economic legacy of the last Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is no surprise that the Conservatives want to talk about anything other than their economic record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I certainly do agree. I am sure it will come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members that one of the Conservative’s former Chancellors decided to comment on the September 2022 fiasco. What did Kwasi Kwarteng say the other day? “Okay, my Budget wasn’t perfect”—the master of understatement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a sad state of affairs when the run-up to the Budget of this new Government so closely resembles that of the previous Government, with consistent leaks and briefings to the media rather than announcements being made where they should be—in this House—so that Members can scrutinise them on behalf of their constituents. The previous Conservative Government did so much damage to trust in politics, including by consistently undermining the ministerial code. Will the Minister put things right and toughen up the status of the code by enshrining it in law?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have already said that the Prime Minister will publish an updated ministerial code shortly. There is a stark difference between this and the previous Administration. The approach of the previous one is probably best characterised as, “If you break the rules, try and change the rulebook,” but we on the Labour Benches take the ministerial code seriously. That is why we want to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects of all who have the privilege of serving in his Government.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I am sure the whole House will welcome the constructive response from the Minister today. Will he confirm that the former Conservative Treasury Front-Bench team had to have paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code drawn to their attention twice this year—in both April and May? It is do as they say, not do as they did.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Frankly, when I heard Conservative Members talk about ethics and standards in Government, I thought that irony had died.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can we take it that the Government did not think that the Chancellor’s announcement in America last week was important? I think most people in this House felt that it was. Therefore, if it was important, did the Chancellor break the ministerial code?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House yesterday. The entire Treasury team has been here answering questions today. The Chancellor will deliver a Budget tomorrow and we will have four days of debate on it. I doubt that the House has seen so much of the Treasury team since the Tories were forced to deliver two emergency Budgets in September 2022.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

My constituents in North East Derbyshire are still paying the price of the mini-Budget, with rises in their mortgages and rents. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives should be talking about that and holding themselves to account rather than throwing out chaff to distract everyone?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the contribution of the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, one word was noticeably missing: sorry.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

As Chair of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament, I made a point of making sure that when Ministers had breached the rules, it was clear to them that both the Committee and others were very unhappy. Will the Minister confirm that he will make sure that the revised ministerial code makes it clear that announcements need to be made to this place first, as has always been the case?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, she will not have long to wait for the ministerial code. In my opening remarks to Mr Speaker, I indicated my respect for this House in regard to the matter that she is talking about.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The chutzpah from Conservative Members is quite incredible. Does the Minister agree that although they make a point today about process, they totally ignored the Office for Budget Responsibility ahead of the disastrous mini-Budget, which is still causing immense pain to my constituents?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely. It is no surprise that we have a Conservative party that wants to talk about process, but it will not take responsibility for the £22 billion black hole that it left in our finances.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you made the strongest statement of condemnation on a subject of this sort that I have heard from the Chair in 27 years in this House. The Minister is a decent chap and, for all I know, he may be a skilled cricketer, but he must admit that he is batting on a sticky wicket today. Does he understand that if his defence is just to say, “We did it because the previous party did it,” nobody will ever break this cycle? His party has a big majority. It could just say sorry and resolve to do better in future.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a cricketer, as it happens, so I cannot comment on the condition of the wicket. With regard to Mr Speaker, I did initially set out in my remarks today my respect for what he said both yesterday and today, and my respect for Members of this House.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I think we all understand that Conservative Members are desperate to talk about anything other than their record of 14 years of failure in government. We hear from hon. Friends and Opposition Members how those failures are affecting constituents every single day. My question is, what next? How will the Conservatives distract us next?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the Conservative party’s desire to distract from its record, whether it is the lockdown parties or the PPE VIP lane for contracts. This Government are appointing a covid corruption commissioner to get the public’s money back.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Those of us who have been in this place for some time will remember the outraged indignation of the now Government, when they were in opposition, every time the now Opposition pulled a stunt like this. The only constant is you, Mr Speaker, and your efforts to have whichever of them is in power treat this House and its Members with respect. Can the Minister not see that the Government displaying such arrogant contempt for the rules only feeds the public perception that one is as bad as the other? Rather than delivering the change it promised, the Labour party is really saying, “It’s our turn now.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be saying that there is any comparison with breaching the rules during the covid pandemic. He really cannot; that is not a serious proposition. Nor is it a serious proposition to suggest that this is comparable with the money that was lost in the PPE VIP lane—it really is not.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

Despite the rumours being spread, including by the Conservative party, can my right hon. Friend confirm that not a single change to taxation has yet been announced, and that they will in fact be announced at the Budget tomorrow?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As my hon. Friend says, the measures will be announced at tomorrow’s Budget in the normal way, with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal forecast. The Conservative party may denigrate the Office for Budget Responsibility, but this Government respect our financial institutions.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Can the Paymaster General confirm that the Chancellor receiving £7,500-worth of free clothes and declaring them as office support is a breach of the ministerial code?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I must say, the Conservatives have learned absolutely nothing. They trashed ministerial standards and standards in this House when in government. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Shannon, you are meant to sit down again.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Conservatives trashed standards in government. My suggestion to them is to reflect on the past 14 years.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to several Conservative Members for admitting to quite a lot of the mistakes that they made in government. People in my constituency are still paying the price, in their mortgages and rents, for the disastrous Conservative economic record. Is it any wonder that the Conservatives are so desperate to speak about anything other than their disastrous record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservatives will talk about anything but their own record. Is it any wonder that they did not conduct a spending review before they called a general election? The reality is that they made unfunded spending commitments and then ran away.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

A remit of the new Modernisation Committee is to enhance the ability of Members of this House to hold the Government to account. In the light of the failure that has been exhibited over recent days, would the Minister be in favour of referring this issue to the Modernisation Committee?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I was not aware that financial mismanagement by the Conservative party was a matter for the Modernisation Committee, but it should certainly be referred to something.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Like others, I am surprised to hear that Conservative Members recently rediscovered their moral compass—the one that they lost perhaps when the former Prime Minister sent out the “bring your own bottle” invite to Downing Street, when he spent taxpayers’ money jetting his girlfriend around the world, or when they unlawfully suspended this place. Perhaps the Minister agrees that there might be another motivation. Does the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) want to keep her job next week?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Of course, we wish the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) well for the reshuffle next week. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very persuasive point. The Conservatives will talk about anything apart from their record.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

At 10 pm last night, the Government announced a £70 million increase in funding for radiotherapy. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for radiotherapy, I very much welcome that, but would it not have been better and right for the Government to make a statement to the House so that the policy could be properly scrutinised? That £70 million equals about 30 linear accelerators, but it will take 70 linear accelerators just to replace those that are going out of date this year. It will not meet the needs of people living in rural communities such as mine. We desperately need a satellite radiotherapy unit in Kendal so that people can get to treatment quickly. Will the Paymaster General put that lack of scrutiny right by arranging for a Health Minister to meet me and the rest of the all-party group, so that we can work closely to take forward those plans together?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly pass on that request to the relevant Health Minister. Putting aside the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about scrutiny, I am sure that he joins us in welcoming the focus on radiotherapy, and there will be a real desire to work on it with him across party lines.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I was elected to keep the promises that we made in our manifesto. The Conservative party broke nearly every promise that it made in its 14 years in government. Does the Minister agree that it is only right for this Government to confirm that we will honour the pledges we made at the election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that trust was one of the many things that the Conservative Government destroyed over 14 years, and this Government are determined to rebuild it.

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

The Chancellor, the Education Secretary, the Health Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary have all made significant announcements to the media and not to the House. Will those breaches of the ministerial code be investigated? Why has the Prime Minister not yet published an updated version of the ministerial code—are the Government still working out whether it is right to accept suits and glasses?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have already said that the Prime Minister will update the ministerial code and publish it shortly to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole, as I have said, and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

We hear a lot about “14 years of failure”, but it seems to me that this Government have had 14 years to learn how the ministerial code works. In reality, the announcement made by the Chancellor last week moved the markets: bond yields went up, which means that mortgages and people’s bills have gone up. The right thing for the Government to do is to apologise.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, we will see the impact of what the Chancellor announces tomorrow and in the days afterwards. The ministerial code will be published shortly. That stands in stark contrast to what the previous Government did. I watched from the Opposition Benches as they tried to tear up the entire rulebook to protect one of their friends—that is not something that we will do.

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

After your statement yesterday, Mr Speaker, I think you will have been as disappointed as I was that when the Chancellor came to the Chamber for Treasury questions this morning, she failed to apologise for the serious and important announcements that she had made outside the House. Without deflecting any further by talking about the previous Government’s record, will the Minister promise now that the ministerial code, and the Speaker of this House, who represents us all, will be respected by the Government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Of course this Government respect both Mr Speaker and the ministerial code, but I make no apology whatsoever for holding the Conservative party to account for its record.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Conservative Members, in their faux outrage, have complete amnesia about their series of egregious failures in government, for which people in my constituency are still paying the price. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to consider the future that this Government can bring to the people of Central Ayrshire?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In recent weeks, we have had the investment summit, where this Government—an active Government —got pledges of £63 billion of investment into our economy. That is already a much better record than that of the Conservative Government, under whom investment was in decline.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and a family member of mine has a shareholding in a health company. Yesterday, I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether he would commit to urgent funding for the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I was told very politely to wait for Wednesday’s Budget. Does the Minister agree that there is a democratic deficit when elected MPs cannot get an answer on issues that affect their constituents, but details of the Budget are, at the same time, being briefed to the press?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There are a range of ways in which the hon. Gentleman can get answers for his constituents, from written parliamentary questions to securing a debate in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate. He does not have long to wait for the Budget, and he will have four days of debate afterwards to raise that point.

[Jim Shannon]

I say this very gently to the Minister, but it must be said: throughout his term, Mr Speaker has been painfully clear that there is a procedure for this House that we must all follow. Does the Minister not agree that this Government, who have come to power on a mandate to do things the right way, must pay respect to that convention? It is not in place simply due to tradition but to ensure that policy changes are heard and debated in this Chamber first, which is the purpose of this House, rather than heard and debated in TV studios throughout the country with a simple nod in the direction of the discourse of democracy.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have huge respect for this House, to which the hon. Gentleman is a frequent contributor. The Government’s respect for the ministerial code, for Mr Speaker and for Members of this House is absolute.

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

Over the past few days, we have had multiple leaked definitions of what working people are. Will the Government place in the House of Commons Library a definition ready for tomorrow’s Budget, so we can all understand who they are talking about?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman about working people. Working people are the people who have been so appallingly let down by the Conservative party. They are the people who are paying extra costs in their mortgages and their rents every month; they are the people hit by the cost of living; they are the people left on record waiting lists by the Conservative party; and they are the people who this Government are determined to deliver for.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Paul Holmes.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—there I was ready to defend your honour, Sir. Even after your ruling yesterday, the Government made more announcements on the BBC this morning concerning health services, so has the Paymaster General asked his advisers at the Cabinet Office whether they think the Chancellor or any other Minister has broken the ministerial code? If he has not asked for that advice, why not?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Come on. The Conservative party, which showed zero respect for the ministerial code in office, trying to put questions like that is appalling—it is double standards. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect better of a senior Whip!