Charlotte, if I may say so, I think that was a very pertinent declaration of interest, as that is the first topic we are going to discuss. Before I come to the details, I should say at the outset that the service, or lack thereof, that is being provided to people who have worked for many years and given their lives to public service is completely and utterly unacceptable. I will turn to the permanent secretary to give details of the recovery plan that we have put in place, but there are some other specific matters that I want to deal with first. Chair, you may recall that the original pensions provider, MyCSP, was providing the service. The Capita contract was signed in November 2023 and the formal handover, or changeover, was in December 2025. It should be said that a significant backlog was inherited. The most up-to-date figure that I have is about 86,000 cases, so a very significant backlog was passed from MyCSP to Capita. What we have been seeing—Members around the table are probably getting this in their inboxes from public servants who live in their constituencies—is a variety of things, including newly retired people who are not able to access their pensions when they should be able to; delays to quotes; people logging in and finding that details are incomplete; and people getting inaccurate quotes. So there is a real set of problems here that we need to deal with. I have already met Adolfo Hernandez, the chief executive of Capita. I met him back towards the end of last year, and I made clear what my expectations were in respect of this contract. We all recognised that there was going to be this problem of the backlog. Capita have subsequently said that they underestimated the complexity of the scheme, and that may be one of the explanations why we find ourselves in this position. I will be directly seeing the chief executive of Capita again tomorrow to once again set out not only the unacceptable situation that people seeking to use the scheme are facing, but what we will be doing and our expectations going forward. We have put in place a recovery plan. It will be led by Angela MacDonald, the second permanent secretary at HMRC, so it is at a very senior level. We are providing a surge capacity of 168 people to Capita to try to urgently fix this problem, and I have today signed off hardship loans that can be administered by the different Government Departments for civil servants who frankly find themselves in a position of hardship as a consequence of not receiving the pension payments that they should be receiving. In the recovery plan, we are also putting in place prioritisation. As Members would expect, that includes things like death in service and ill-health retirement. When people find themselves in situations of hardship, they need to be prioritised in this recovery period. Before I turn to Cat to ask her to set out that plan in a bit more detail, I want to make it absolutely clear that we do reserve our rights, not only under the Capita contract but the previous contract too—the MyCSP contract. You will appreciate, Chair, that there is commercial sensitivity to such matters, but I do observe the size of the backlog that Capita inherited. It is in that context that I say that our contractual rights are being reserved under both contracts, not just the current one.

The straight answer to that is yes, and I will come to the permanent secretary to set that out. To be clear with Members, it was known that there was a backlog; it is something that I had spoken to the chief executive of Capita about, so it did not come as a surprise. On that aspect and the recovery plan, I will turn to the permanent secretary, but I want to say to the Committee that our priority now is dealing with the issue of the immediate hardship and the problems caused to people. That is why I have signed off the hardship loans. Getting a grip of this is the priority now.

First of all, on engagement with MPs, I will certainly be looking to circulate a “Dear colleague” letter with details. We will be holding drop-ins tomorrow as well, so that parliamentary colleagues can come along with specific cases. Charlotte, to your number of points about the portal, please do feed those details into the Cabinet Office because I will take them up directly with Capita. As I said in the previous answer, we are reserving our rights under both contracts—both MyCSP and Capita—in terms of the performance that not just the Cabinet Office, but frankly all those people who rely upon them are entitled to expect in terms of level of service. The hardship loans are going to be administered by Government Department. We have done that very quickly precisely because of the kinds of circumstances that you are talking about, where people who have obviously paid into their pensions for very many years entirely and rightly expect to then receive that in a timely manner. That is very important. But I say this openly to everyone around the table. I am sure that everyone around the table will have messages in their inbox from people affected, and it is really important that where experience is falling way short of what is expected, we are aware of that for our ability to hold Capita to account.

Yes, I was described quite recently as “long-serving”; I was surprised, given what feels like the relatively short amount of time I have been in the role in the Cabinet Office, but maybe that is just relative to recent years. In terms of the UK-EU relationship and the progress since the May summit, I think we have made good progress. That would be exemplified by the announcement that was made—I think, Chair, you were in Parliament for the statement—that included the re-accession to the Erasmus+ programme in 2027. That will give opportunities to many young people but, it should be noted, the scheme includes adult learners as well. Tens of thousands—we think around 100,000—people will have opportunities from that, so I think that is very positive. We also announced, in that statement, that we would be starting negotiations on participation in the internal electricity market. We also announced that, by the time of the next summit, which is obviously this year—there is not a specific date that has been set for it yet—we want to, by the time of that summit, have concluded the negotiations on the food and drink agreement, the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and, in addition, on the emissions trading system linkage and the youth experience schemes. Those are the three objectives. That is not to say that we do not wish to continue to make progress on those things we would like to have made more progress on at the first summit. In that regard, I would point to something like the ability of our touring artists to go more easily around the EU, and vice versa in respect of those who come from the EU to here, and things like, in services, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. As we said just before Christmas, though, it is those three big-ticket items, if I can put it that way, that we want to have concluded negotiations on by the time of the next summit.

First of all, I would say that the UK can of course still participate in SAFE in up to 35% of the content, and that remains the case, irrespective of the outcome. Let me go back for a moment, because you highlighted the extraordinarily serious position that international politics is in at the moment. The Prime Minister had a leading role in the coalition of the willing, and we signed the security and defence partnership with the European Union on the same day as the May summit last year. I should say that NATO is and remains the cornerstone of our defence and security policy, but the security and defence partnership and the coalition of the willing complement NATO in terms of our approach. On participation in SAFE and that negotiation in November, I always said throughout the negotiation that I would only sign up to things that involved value for money. I did not take the view, in this case, that it did offer value for money; that said, I am not at all ruling out participation to 35% in projects. I think that it is really important that we have that on the table. I would also observe our very significant defence contracts, whether with Turkey or with Norway on the frigates. We continue to play a leading role not only in European defence more broadly, but in defence procurement as well. That is hugely important, not just for hard-edge security, but for jobs up and down the country. The straight answer to your question is that it continues to be our policy that participation up to 35% works in our interest.

Absolutely. I am not ruling it out. If it was on the basis of terms that I felt were in the national interest and were value for money, then absolutely.

I would describe a termination clause as standard in international agreements. That is simply because international agreements are between countries, and not between the Governments that happen to be in power in those countries at the time. It is something that I would expect as standard in any of these agreements, whether it is SPS or any of the others.

Yes, there are.

Certainly.

That is a very good question. When I originally took on this role in shadow form in Opposition, in the late summer—I think it was September—2023, there was a debate about where the role should lie, because there is an argument that it could be located in the Foreign Office or in other Government Departments. The real advantage of it being at the centre has been the direct authority of the Prime Minister. That has meant that I can negotiate with the full authority of the Government, and that decision making can be quick, when it needs to be, and without barriers, which has been a real advantage. I am conscious that the permanent secretary is sitting to my right, but I guess that the disadvantage is that I have been adding to the numbers in the Cabinet Office by bringing in the European Union relations secretariat. I have to say that I have been extremely well served by the permanent secretary of that, Michael Allen, and other excellent officials, including Hermione Gough, who is here to my left. That set-up and that group has worked extremely well.

I am looking at ways in which we might be able to speed up decision making across Government—I am sure we will come back to this at a future Committee meeting, Chair. Obviously, my role is unique in Government because I am the lead negotiator, so I am not sure you could transfer my model directly to other Departments. However, on your general point, Markus, about delivering more quickly, absolutely there are lessons on that.

No. I think this is my ninth appearance before a Select Committee, here and in the Lords, to discuss the EU-UK relationship. I am not objecting to appearing before Select Committees—

Quite right. However, I have to make a judgment about the number of Committees that I appear before. If you saw the number of invitations I have, you would see that I could literally spend most of my time doing that. The issue about my role, as even our discussion has set out, is that it covers so many different Government Departments. There is a reasonable case for most Select Committees to invite me along, but if I were to go to every single one of them, then I am obviously taking down the amount of time I have to do the core nature of my job. As regards the EFRA Committee, I am sure that there will come a moment when I will appear before it. I enjoy Parliament and I enjoy coming to answer questions in Parliament, but there is a limit to the number of Select Committees that I can appear before.

The best way for them to do that is to continue to do what they do: turn up at Cabinet Office questions and ask me questions about it, which they regularly do. To be clear, Markus, I am not ruling out appearing before that Committee. As I said in answer to a parliamentary question last week, there may be an appropriate moment when I will appear before it and I will be happy to do so.

You already have what was in the common understanding of May 2025, which I think was pretty detailed. It is not a legal text. We will obviously then publish the legal text when it is agreed at the summit, when we have set the date of the summit. But I should just surface the dilemma here: I am always keen to be as open as I reasonably can about the ongoing negotiations, but it is not in our national interest for me either to negotiate in public through the press, or to try to conduct some sort of public negotiation. That is not to say that the manifesto that you and I were elected on did not contain the objectives of this negotiation, because it did, and it set out the framework in which the negotiations take place. It is well known what our objectives are in terms of the SPS agreement. But I am always making sure that I do strike that balance by being obviously open to answering questions and giving statements in Parliament, but also trying to conduct the negotiations in the negotiating room, not outside.

Well, the negotiations are taking place. I think we are 10 or 11 rounds in at the moment—Hermione can talk to that. What I have been delivering is the manifesto, and that is what we have set out. I have also given various speeches in public, setting out what I thought were the objectives of the negotiation. I gave quite a big speech on it last August, in fact—at the end of August. What you are going to see now is a quite intense period ahead of the summit. Of course, we will publish the full legal text of the summit.

First of all, the common understanding envisages that there would be certain carve-outs that we would require and would negotiate. That is the basis upon which we are negotiating. More broadly, though, on the point about rules, subject to that, the Government is taking a conscious decision to align with another high-standards jurisdiction. We are doing that pragmatically because it is in our national economic interest to do so. Just to give some examples on SPS, there are firms at the moment that are, say, paying £61 for an identity check. If you get selected for sampling, they are paying £1,400. They are paying £200 per consignment for export health certificates. If we conclude the SPS agreement and implement it, these are all fees that we can take away from those businesses. I think that is very important for us to do.

Obviously, we are not an EU member state anymore, to state the obvious. So obviously we do not have representation in the European Parliament, we do not have commissioners and so on anymore. But that is not to say that my negotiating team is not engaging. This will obviously be fully scrutinised in Parliament because we will have a piece of primary legislation. I have said that I want to get that through Parliament by the end of the year. The kind of issues that you are quite rightly and quite reasonably raising to me, Markus—there will be every opportunity for parliamentarians to raise them in the course of the passage of the Bill.

In order for me to get it through by the end of the year, we will not go through a pre-legislative scrutiny process. The Bill will be introduced, but I assure you that there will be lots of debate on it when it appears. You will have every opportunity in its passage, as would ordinarily be the case—for Markus in the Commons and colleagues in the Lords as well—to do that.

Absolutely. To be clear, whether in respect of DEFRA, the Secretary of State or myself at the centre, it is hugely important that we are engaging properly with major stakeholders and stakeholders more generally. There will be thousands of businesses affected. There will obviously be significant benefit to businesses who will not have to pay these various fees and so on anymore. It will make it much simpler for them to export into the European Union. However, I totally agree that stakeholder engagement is hugely important.

That is not set yet. I have said that I want it to be through Parliament by the end of the year. That may require it to be introduced in this Session before the King’s Speech in May. My objective now is to make sure that we have it in place. I am always subject to the upper House and how long they wish to take on these things, but I would like it through by the end of the year. I also want to have the SPS agreement implemented by the middle part of next year.

I am afraid that we come back to the desire to ensure that the cost-of-living benefits are felt as soon as reasonably possible. In terms of the choreography that you are talking about, the common understanding was agreed in May 2025, so we know what areas we are dealing with. I think that is pretty clear before the Bill is introduced. On alignment, the mechanism is already known. Initially, there would be a rule-shaping role for the United Kingdom. There is then the pragmatic decision to align. However, it is also the case that where there are disputes, they would go to an independent arbitration panel. There have been various debates about the role of the European Court of Justice. It has a role in terms of issues of the interpretation of European Union law being referred to it and it being referred back to the panel—but it is not binding on the overall decision of the panel. That is the structure, and I have been clear about that for months.

Evidently, as we go forward, the way that the alignment mechanism will work is around Parliament having a say. Laws and secondary legislation going forward will set out exactly how that will work in terms of the Bill. Certainly, there is absolutely a role for Parliament. Indeed, when we agreed the common understanding, mutual respect for each other’s processes and arrangements was a central part of it. Parliament is at the heart of it.

Select Committee arrangements are a matter for Parliament rather than for me, but I have no doubt whatsoever that we will be discussing that and other appropriate mechanisms in the passage of the Bill.

It is a matter for Parliament. Markus asked about the EFRA Committee. I find myself before lots of different Select Committees, which is fine, but I am sure whatever agreement we reach will be an important aspect of the debate. It is a matter for Parliament how it wishes to hold either the alignment point or me personally to account.

I would certainly have thought that the Leader of the House of Commons would play a facilitating role in it, as he always does.

First of all, the two aspects involving alignment that we are looking to conclude by the next summit are the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and the emission trading systems linkage. As I have said, the electricity trading negotiation began back in December, but that is not timed to finish by the next summit. With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, there is absolutely a role for Parliament in terms of the statutory instruments and so on that would be required. I am sure there will be an open debate on the best way in which Parliament can scrutinise going forward, and I would welcome that debate. First and foremost, it is about this initial Bill, and Parliament will have every opportunity to debate and scrutinise it, but I do not disagree with you at all about the role for Parliament. It is hugely important.

I am sure you could raise it at business questions. That would be one way to do it. The Select Committee Chairs may well have something to say about it collectively as well.

I guess the direct answer is that you could also raise it with your Chair.

It will be on the Bill. As is ordinarily the case, Parliament will have a vote on the Bill and what the Bill contains. Hopefully you won’t have too long to wait for that.

Precisely what it looks like will obviously be part of the negotiations going forward. Broadly speaking, I expect it to be at official level and to look at what exactly is coming down the track and at our particular arrangements. While we are discussing the role for Parliament and the arbitration panel, I should say that the policy intent is to have alignment with another high-standards jurisdiction. That is a policy choice that the Government are making. We have more than £800 billion-worth of trade with the EU every year across all sectors, and there is obviously a significant amount of trade in agrifoods and agrifood products. I hope we can increase that. I cannot rule out the possibility that with that depth and breadth of trade, we will end up with disputes in the future. None the less, the objective is to have alignment with another high standards jurisdiction because it is good for growth, good for the cost of living and good for saving costs for businesses.

I want to answer that question. Can we vote and then come back?

The answer to that is absolutely, in terms of having respect for and working with the devolved Administrations. One issue is that obviously UK foreign policy is reserved, while some of the implementation, particularly in SPS, is devolved. I chair an appropriate interministerial group that involves representatives from the devolved Administrations. I have been working with them throughout the negotiations. I chaired a meeting last week in which I was talking about precisely how we are going to put in the arrangements going forward. I am absolutely determined to work closely with them on this matter.

The specifics are obviously for the usual channels, but, frankly, I welcome debate and significant scrutiny of this Bill.

I am not sure how different they are on the EU, in terms of the work that I am doing. There is obviously a difference of view, to say the least. The Scottish Government have a very different view of the future of the United Kingdom to my view or yours, let alone their view of the EU. In terms of the work that I have been doing recently, there may well be differences of view on where you end up, but I think that there has been quite a degree of consensus and support for the actual work that the Government have been doing. But just putting that to one side for a minute, what does that mean in practice? It means two things. At an official level, it means me ensuring that I have given instructions to my officials to be working with the devolved administrations. That is formalised ahead of what we call—there are so many acronyms in Government—the IMG, the interministerial group. That would essentially involve me chairing meetings. I have actually chaired them around the United Kingdom. Sometimes I do them online, for the purposes of convenience, but I go around the constituent parts of the United Kingdom as well—in fact, I have been to Edinburgh to do that. That is where the devolved Administrations can feed in their particular priorities, so it is an ongoing iterative process and my intention, ministerially, is to continue with that, whether in terms of the passage of the Bill or moving beyond the legal text—in May, we hope to get into the implementation phase. The one caveat I put on that is that there will be devolved elections, so there will be a hiatus: there will be a purdah period for the devolved Administrations where you will not have, as it were, Ministers who I can directly deal with. There is obviously also Government formation after that. There will be that period—of which I am very conscious—in April-May but, subject to that, my objective is to continue with the approach that I have tried to take throughout.

I was talking more broadly about the work that I have been doing, which is very broad, across youth experience, SPS agreement, emissions trading system linkage, and Erasmus+, which had very wide support. Since you have raised the issue of fishing, Scottish salmon obviously took a different view when we made that agreement back in May. Regarding the different bodies that you spoke about, I would say that my door is always open. They may disagree with me sometimes and agree with me sometimes, but I will always engage. Regarding fish, the Scottish Government know that I do not agree with them about that characterisation. We agreed a 12-year period from 2026. I believe that gives, first, some medium-term stability for investment in coastal communities and our fleet. The fishing and coastal growth fund of £360 million that we announced—which obviously would have Barnett consequentials for Scotland in particular—is hugely important. The other point is that over two thirds of our catch is exported to the EU, so there is a very clear benefit to the SPS agreement for our fishing communities, among other export industries. As I stated in my answer to Peter earlier, I am determined that those benefits are felt as soon as possible, whether by our fishing communities or across different business sectors.

Let us just be clear: as I said to the Committee at a previous session, I make the decisions, ultimately, on the trade-offs, John. That is my role. Some people will criticise, others will perhaps take a different view, but it is ultimately my role and responsibility to do that on behalf of the United Kingdom. Where did I start from in the negotiations? I started from the manifesto that we were elected on, which sets out the framework of the negotiations that I am pursuing. On the issue of fishing, we obviously made decisions—not just on fish, by the way, but on a variety of issues. I remember that weekend before 19 May very well: I remember how late that evening and those weekend evenings were. That is how I would expect the negotiation to be. Of course, I made a decision on the trade-offs that weekend, as you would expect me to, but the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive all had every chance in the nine or 10 months—whatever it was—beforehand to feed in their views as they wished. The Scottish Government expressed their view on the deal we had reached on fishing; I just happened to disagree.

I am talking about overall trade-offs.

Where I fundamentally disagree with some of the fishing industry, although not all of it—if you look at what Salmon Scotland said, they took a very different view—

They certainly do. I take the view that the deal we struck is very much in the interests of our fishers, and I think we will demonstrate that in the years ahead, both in the significant investment in our fishing fleet with which we are accompanying this, and when we reduce the barriers to exporting fish to the EU. Both those things are of significant advantage to our fishers and to coastal communities more broadly.

I am not aware of that, but if it were happening, I would want it to be drawn to my attention. To conclude on a point of agreement, John, we may disagree on many things, but we do not disagree on the benefit of the United Kingdom.

This is a really important issue, in my view. I will first say that, broadly, I do think that public inquiries play an important role for victims, in a real moment of public justice. I do not think we should underestimate that at all, but I would also observe that there are concerns around the time inquiries take, and there are concerns, which I certainly see in the work I do, around cost. There is also a concern about recommendations. If Governments are accepting recommendations, they should implement them in a timely fashion. I also worry that if you have an inquiry during which many years pass, it may well be that the policy recommendations become frankly outdated because events have overtaken them. There are a variety of ways in which we can look at change. On where we are so far, you have referred to the change to the ministerial code, which I think is important. That is to try to get an overview of the public inquiries that have been ordered at the centre. That is why we are now asking Departments to come to the centre—to the Prime Minister, but in effect to Cabinet Office Ministers—to look at whether it is appropriate to order a public inquiry. That is an important additional lock that now exists. Secondly, I introduced on gov.uk a way of tracking recommendations for particular inquiries; I think we are doing that for infected blood and for Grenfell. I have had a number of examples, particularly on infected blood, where it is all very well to give a view on a recommendation, but people very rightly want to see what the Government subsequently do. The third thing that I think will make a real difference in this sphere is the Hillsborough law, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, when it can be brought on to the statute book and implemented. It would introduce, through the duty of candour, a new way of having investigations and inquiries that do not need to be on the same footing as a public inquiry and can be much quicker. That gives an additional option when various issues need to be looked into. There is also a broader point, Sam, and I am very interested in the work of this Committee, because I know it is looking at the inquiries landscape. I will be looking with great interest at any suggestions. This issue, I suspect, is not a party political issue, but a cross-party issue. There is a great deal of interest across the House in how we can take that real public moment of justice, which is important to victims—we certainly do not want to lose that in our public inquiries system—and ask whether it can be, frankly, cheaper and quicker and whether the recommendations can be more timely. I think all those things are true.

I do not have a precise date for you, but that is certainly in train. We certainly want to be in a position to do that. Again, having that guidance available sits as a really important part of this landscape. I go back to the previous question, though: this is an area in which I welcome debate across the House. I do not know whether there is a timeframe yet for your report, but we are certainly looking forward to seeing it.

There are two things here, I think. First, there is the role that we play in the original ordering of the public inquiry. That is why we have introduced that change to the ministerial code, which it is to try to get co-ordination at the centre and a sense of when inquiries have been ordered and how many are being ordered. The other area—this is why I have started that piece of work on tracking recommendations on gov.uk, because we need a cross-governmental look at this—is having a single place for people to go, whether they are victims, stakeholders or even policymakers who happen to have a particular interest. That is important for holding the Government of the day, of whatever colour, to account, but also for people to track the implementation process.

I confess that digital design is not one of my strongest points, but of course we keep accessibility across all Government communications under review. I am not saying for a moment that the particular design at the moment is necessarily the correct one. I am always open to suggestion or review. If it comes back to us that particular aspects are not as accessible as we might want, I am always more than happy to look at that.

I do not know the specifics of the point that you have raised, but my officials can certainly take that away and the Home Office can write back to you on that specifically.

Let me move on from the specific example, because I think you have raised a couple of really important broader points. First, with some public inquiries, it may be that by the time they have reported, the processes of Government or the public sector will have changed anyway. I am not referring to your particular case—I am talking more generally—but it may be that it has been overtaken by events, in which case it might not be implemented, it might already have been implemented in a different way, or there might be a better way of implementing it. Secondly—this is where I come back to this Committee a little bit—there is a role for holding Government to account on inquiry recommendations, and this is the obvious forum for that. Although there is a distinction between the specific inquiries and the responsibility of individual Departments, as the inquiries sit within the Cabinet Office, this would seem to be the obvious forum to hold Government to account very specifically on the recommendations. You are right to say that if a public inquiry is closed, it may well be that the inquiry chair moves on and does something else. At that point, it seems that it is this Committee that has the role of saying, “Well, how have Government done on this? Where are Government on the various recommendations?”

I am not aware that the power has ever been used. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think it has ever been used. I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which that might happen—perhaps if a chair behaved in an appropriate or unreasonable way. I do not know; I cannot envisage the circumstances at the moment. Fortunately, to my knowledge, we have not had chairs who behaved in such a way as to make that necessary. It has never been used, so I could not give a definitive answer on when it might be.

Yes. I can see why the power is there, and there is theoretically the possibility that you had a chair who started behaving in an unreasonable or unacceptable manner. Fortunately, we have not had that situation as yet.

I would not pick one and say, “As of today, that is the one we will choose to emulate.” Everyone around this table will remember the covid inquiries, and there were some countries, particularly in Europe, that were doing their inquiries in a very quick fashion. What I will undertake to you, as will my officials, is that as we do this piece of work going forward, we will certainly look to the examples of what is happening. I obviously take into account the fact that we are a common-law jurisdiction, and there are different jurisdictions, which I appreciate sometimes has an impact on how this landscape is shaped. Having said that, I am always willing to learn from best practice. It seems that whenever I have a public discussion about this, most people are agreed on the problems, but it is about finding the way forward while also making sure that victims have the essential public moment of justice.

That is one of the ones that is under this new process, which has been signed off in the Cabinet Office. But, Cat, on an official level I think we have some—

I don’t think there is a constitutional reason, to my knowledge, but I defer to Home Office colleagues on the scope of the inquiry. I have not been involved in that particular decision, John, but I would be quite happy to get them to write to you if that would be helpful.

Yes, and of course—without straying into a new topic entirely—the issue with infected blood is that it is a pre-devolution age scandal. Part of the issue with infected blood is that, while of course it is UK-wide, some of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations actually require the devolved Administrations to—

I understand.

Of course I would like it to be achieved very soon. I am not disappointed—in the sense that I never had an expectation, given the history of Lords reform, that this would happen quickly—but we are coming to the end of this parliamentary Session, so I would sincerely hope that it will be achieved soon.

Their lordships themselves will have answer as to what their motivation is, but I would just observe—to go back to 1911—that the history of reform being delayed is there in our UK political history.

The Standing Orders and procedures of the House of Lords are, obviously, a matter for them. I think that work on the abolition of the hereditary principle in our legislature is important. I think it is a first step. We now have a Committee, which has been set up by the Leader of the House of Lords and others, to look at some of the wider issues around retirement age and participation. I use the word “participation” because I am very conscious that, although attendance is obviously a part of that, you can still have a peer with very specialist knowledge who might not want to contribute right across the vista of topics, but who can bring something particular. That I why I use the word “participation”. That is the next stage, which will move to when, hopefully, the hereditary peers Bill finally reaches the statute book.

The Parliament Act has been used very rarely. I sincerely hope that we do not get into that territory. That is not what I am seeking to do. I want it done in this Session, and that is exactly what we are seeking to do.

The point is this: there is no barrier to hereditary peers being appointed—I accept that it is slightly different for the Cross Benchers. For example, I understand that two Liberal Democrat hereditary peers have just been appointed as life peers. There is nothing stopping the Leader of the Opposition—who will obviously get the opportunity, through the usual channels—appointing them if she wishes to. There is no barrier to that happening.

Certainly, we are keen to look at it in the round, but it is also the case that we have a democratic mandate to deliver our programme. It is interesting that you used 1999 as the previous example. Obviously, what was happening then was that it was after the 1979 to 1997, 18-year period of Conservative Government, and when one of the parties is in government for a long time, there is a bigger division between the number of peers from a party political point of view. It does not surprise me that you used 1999, because what would have been happening there is that the new Labour Government in office were trying to, as it were, correct the imbalance that would have appeared in the previous 18 years. Similarly, on what is happening now, we have had 14 years—first the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, and then solely Conservative Government for nine years after—so of course, the division grew between the number of Government peers and Opposition peers. The Government are trying to correct that imbalance—frankly, to be able to get into a position for them to get their programme through.

The other mechanism is around participation. There are people who are appointed peers and then do jobs of great public service. I am not talking about people like that, but that is one of the issues that the Committee that is now looking at the second stage of reform will consider. I have identified the issue around retirement and participation, but it may well be that the Lords, going forward, looks at other methods of reducing the size as well. One of the reasons for having that Committee is to try to do this in a consensual way, if we possibly can—and I very much hope that we can.

These are all matters now for that Committee to decide. I think the Lords plays a really important role in our constitutional arrangements; it brings expertise and a considered approach to debate that is greatly appreciated, so I certainly do not want to take away what is best about the House of Lords. But your points about size and how, if we have a trajectory moving in one direction, that it does not go back in the other, are perfectly reasonable. How we seek to achieve that is one thing that the Committee needs to look at.

The first thing—and we have already done this—is to introduce citations for when people are appointed to the House of Lords. I always thought it was an anomaly that, in our honours system, if you were lucky enough to receive, say, an OBE, CBE or MBE—whatever it might be—there was a reason given, broadly speaking, for why that honour was bestowed upon you. We have altered that now and the citations exist, so why people are being appointed to the Lords is more open and transparent. I think that is very important. I have piloted what I think is a very important Bill on the hereditary principle that is narrow in scope through the Commons, but this is the moment to consider these different issues in the round—of appointments and around numbers and participation. I would very much like not to be in this position. When you are, quite reasonably, asking me questions about the Parliament Act, I would rather be in a situation where we are moving forward on a much more consensual basis. Most people, when they speak about the Lords, broadly agree moving forward on issues such as size and so on and what needs to happen. I hope we can find a consensus in that Committee.

Obviously, the broader appointments process is about much more than that and the assessment, so it is not a comment on the very detailed procedure that people have to go through to be appointed to the upper House. In terms of what is public—and a member of the public glancing down on it—it is not an unreasonable amount, but it is not a comment on the detailed nature of process.

I am interested to hear about that, and I will quite happily go back and have a look at that now that you have identified it to me, and as a historian I am always very interested in these things. I shall take it away and consider it.

Listen, I am all for convenience. After Sam’s question, quite rightly holding me to account on the design of the dashboard, I will also take away and review how exactly we are presenting that on gov.uk as well.

There are different aspects going on here regarding the appointments system. There are obviously the Cross Benchers, who are in their own category. It is a matter for party leaders who they seek to nominate through the usual channels in the usual way. I would not for a moment seek to look into the minds of the different party leaders as to the decisions that they make, but the broader point you make is sound. Broadly speaking, having a variety of not just expertise but life experience in the Lords is really important. I hope we can continue to have people from all walks of life and areas of expertise.

On this, under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014—if I recollect correctly—you are disqualified if you receive a prison sentence of a year or more. That is the automatic disqualification bit. Then there is the House of Lords Conduct Committee, which is a matter for the Lords in terms of its own regulation, but it is clearly for the Conduct Committee to regulate it when there have been particular breaches—outside of that automatic disqualification. Again, I emphasise the need here to try to move forward on a consensual basis, particularly when aspects of the Conduct Committee are things that are regulated by the Lords themselves. I will obviously be following the work of the Committee very closely in the Lords, and it will obviously be looking at a range of aspects going forward.

I will tread carefully. There is obviously a very specific process going on regarding the case that I think you are referring to, so I will tread carefully in that regard, for reasons that I am sure you will understand, Chair. We keep all these things under review, but as I say, what I do not intend to do is embark on another process of reform ahead of the Committee; that is very much the second stage. I am obviously very keen—going back to the start of the discussion—to make sure that we get the hereditary peers Bill on to the statute book, but the next step for me is not to get ahead of the Committee. I have just said that I hope it will come up with something consensual, so me trying to get ahead of it would certainly not facilitate that. What I am hoping is that, working closely with the Committee, we can then move on to the next stage.

Just to be absolutely clear, the Government’s position on this Bill is neutral.

If I am correct, the leader of the Cross Benchers, Lord Kinnoull, has recently become a life peer.

More generally, this is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister, so I will tread carefully, but I do think that the broad point that you are making is an important one. Indeed, when I was answering Charlotte’s questions, I was making it clear that I was making some reference to party lists, but of course I am very conscious that, when making that point, I was not including the Cross Benchers. By the way, I agree with the central thrust of your question: I think that the Cross Benchers play a really important role. I think it is one of the things that gives the House of Lords its distinctiveness from the House of Commons.

First of all, before I come to the specific issue of lobbying, can I refer to some of the more general points in the ethics and integrity sphere? I am very proud to have created the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was a manifesto commitment and was brought in back in October. I am also proud that the Prime Minister has given the independent adviser on ministerial standards the power to initiate investigations themselves. That is another important change that we have made. You will also be aware of the introduction of a monthly register of Ministers’ gifts and hospitality. All those things are important changes that we have made. In terms of lobbying specifically, again I do not see why this has to be a particularly party political issue. In the UK, we have always taken a different approach to lobbying from, say, the one they take in the United States or other jurisdictions. More generally, we are always looking for high standards across our politics, and if there is work done in this Committee and changes that could be made, I am more than happy to look at that. To your point about the review, I do not think that there is a set timeframe, but I am quite open-minded, for example, about things that might be thought to improve the system coming before me.

I understand that there is a review taking place. We have a group in the Cabinet Office to look at this, among many other things. Again, as I say, it is something I am very open to ideas on. To be absolutely frank with you, Peter, the focus of the first part of the Government’s life has been on those changes to the Ministers’ gifts and hospitality register, creating the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which was a manifesto commitment, and the changes we have made to the independent adviser.

Okay. That is perfectly reasonable. We can write back to the Chair on that.

There is a wider debate, I guess, about what should be included. Again, I am more than happy to look at this as part of the review. As for ministerial meetings, I think that quarterly is as appropriate as anything else. It is a period that is not unduly onerous in terms of the work that officials have to do, but I think it is still transparent in terms of the meetings that Ministers have in their official capacity. However, to your wider point, again I am more than happy to look; I am open-minded, Peter, as you have probably gathered, about these things. I am being absolutely frank with you: my delivery priorities have been the manifesto things that I have been delivering. But I am more than happy to take the point away and look at it.

To be clear, it is not anything inappropriate. We are obviously moving forward on a variety of policy streams here in different ways. I will just take the ethics and integrity point at the top. The change to allow the independent adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, to initiate his own investigations is a step that this Prime Minister has taken that had not previously been taken. That is openly allowing an independent person—Laurie Magnus does a really excellent job, and has done on a variety of—

There we are. While you are quite right, Peter, to push us—whether with regard to lobbying or some of the other issues about responding to you, which we are more than happy to do—I do not think that should move the focus away from the changes we have made. To pick up on the Ethics and Integrity Commission, once we get the public accountability Bill—the Hillsborough law—on to the statute book, that commission will be tasked with producing the model and the core of the codes of ethics that are then going to be rolled out right across the public sector. That is a really significant change that we are introducing to try to prevent state cover-ups in the future. It is a really significant change. In terms of that work—that culture change—Sir Brian Langstaff, in his report on infected blood, said that when you look at the various scandals and state cover-ups that have happened, the issue was not so much that individual people were deliberately hiding things; indeed, if you did, it might be easier to deal with, because you could identify those people. What Sir Brian Langstaff said was that we have to get to a stage where we change what in some areas, but not all, is a pervasive culture of people, when they are under pressure and terrible things have happened, putting personal and institutional reputations above the public good. Leading that cultural change will be really transformational. It is perfectly reasonable and right for you to push us on these issues, but if we are talking about transparency and accountability, I would argue that getting the Hillsborough law on to the statute book, and driving the implementation of the duty of candour, is one of the most radical changes we have seen in the transparency and accountability area.

You are absolutely right to identify the issue of trust in politics. I do not think we disagree about that. I do not think we disagree either on the importance of transparency, generally speaking. But I would still argue, and I think this came out in one of the answers I gave to Markus earlier, that in the national interest some things should remain not immediately in the public domain—I am talking about totally different contexts, such as negotiations with the EU, and there are lots of examples in the security sphere as well. The question is not so much, what price transparency? The question is, with the resources we have, what can we do in that area? To take the answer I just gave to Peter, if we are able to get the Hillsborough law on to the statute book, I will then look to lead a ministerial implementation board to try to drive that cultural change, both in terms of what I would describe as the Government civil service loosely, but then also the wider public sector. None of these things comes without cost—official time and so on—so it is not so much about the cost of transparency; we all agree that it is essential, but it is more about prioritising what things are going to be most important in driving it.

I understand precisely the point, Chair. I would just make this observation: it is always going to be the case that one Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. That said, I always think that the test—certainly the historic test—of whether policies stick and make a difference is whether a Government of a different colour subsequently do not undo them. That is certainly something we need to have in mind with change in this area.

It is certainly the case that something that is embedded is more difficult to change subsequently.

We have had quite a thorough run around the various issues.