Welcome to this earlier-than-normal session. We know that the Paymaster has Cabinet duties later this morning, so we are very grateful that you could find the time to see us today, Nick. Just for the record, I will ask you to briefly introduce your team and we will then turn straight into questions. Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Paymaster General.

I am Darren Tierney, director general for Propriety and the Constitution Group in the Cabinet Office.

I am Hermione Gough, director of the EU Relations Secretariat in the Cabinet Office.

Thank you; you are all welcome. Postmaster General, could you set out what you think your strategic approach is in looking to drive forward an EU-UK reset? Nick Thomas-Symonds: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to come and discuss these matters before the Committee. With regard to the UK-EU reset, broadly speaking, that exists in what I refer to as three pillars—three different areas. The first is around security; it focuses on foreign policy and defence issues. There has already been some progress on this, given that the former EU high representative and the Foreign Secretary have agreed already six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. That is a very important co-ordination function, and we will look to deepen that still further. The second pillar is around the safety of citizens. We are talking there about deeper law enforcement co-operation, and that obviously applies across a range of serious and organised crime that crosses borders, which, quite frankly, no single country can deal with on its own. We are talking about fraud, money laundering, counter-terrorism and people smuggling—all these crimes that are often perpetrated by criminal gangs and are, in the case of people smuggling, for example, perpetrated across thousands of miles, where that co-ordinated action is hugely important. The Government have already increased their National Crime Agency presence at Europol, and that close relationship with Europol is one of the really important aspects of the safety pillar of the reset going forward. The third pillar is on trade and pragmatically reducing trade barriers where we can. The manifesto we were elected on sets out the framework for that. It sets out that we will not return to the single market or customs union or freedom of movement, but it also sets out examples of things that would have the pragmatic effect of reducing trade barriers—for example, a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union in things like agricultural products, agrifood products, and in respect of services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications. We have an over 80% services economy; it is one of our great strengths. The more that those who provide services—very talented people across our country—are able to do that across the European Union, that can only be to our economic benefit. There is also the cultural sector. There is an issue with our touring artists, in terms of the rules that exist, and we want to make it easier for our touring artists to be able to perform around the EU. Finally, in terms of energy, it is already the case in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement—this is in article 392—that the EU and the UK should consider the relationship between their emissions trading schemes. It is also about energy security more generally, which has been brought into sharp focus by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the impact that that had on international energy prices. Therefore, Chair, broadly speaking, we will want to push forward in those three areas.

Thank you. They may have been oversights, but I just want to clarify this. You talked about the intensification of co-operation on security and combating crime matters. In the lists that you set out, which was quite a full list, is it envisaged that more European co-ordination on illegal migration is part of those discussions as well? I know you talked about people smuggling and so on, but those can be and often are two entirely separate things. Nick Thomas-Symonds: Yes. I do think this is an area where increased co-ordination is going to be hugely important. Chair, we have already announced our Border Security Commander: Martin Hewitt, a public servant with a very distinguished record. In a previous life, when I was shadowing the Home Affairs Department, I saw the work that he was doing. He is now in that role. The Border Security Command is partly about co-ordination of our agencies—whether that is police, Border Force, or the Crown Prosecution Service International then reporting directly to the Home Secretary—but clearly an important aspect of that is also co-ordination across Europe. People do not become refugees in northern France. They have often come on journeys of thousands of miles, so disrupting across those routes does require deeper co-operation. For example, how quickly we are able to share data with Europol is a real issue.

It is on the agenda. Nick Thomas-Symonds: Thank you.

A number of organisations and people will welcome your comments with regards to travelling artists and the complications there. Some eyebrows have been raised at what is perceived to be the Government’s unwillingness, or whatever it is, to consider, for young people, Erasmus and any form of—small l—liberalisation of travel arrangements and so on. Are the Government fluid on that, or is it fixed? Nick Thomas-Symonds: To your first point around the touring artists, we have an issue at the moment, which is around—

I know; that is welcome. I think we all know what the issue is, but I want to drill down into the wider youth. Nick Thomas-Symonds: That is obviously a mobility issue as well, because of the limits of only having so many days—within 180 days—within the Schengen system.

You have to provide all this valuation documentation if you are taking your cello to Prague or something. Nick Thomas-Symonds: Yes, precisely.

Not that I ever take cellos to Prague, I just want to clarify. Nick Thomas-Symonds: Take what you wish to Prague. But on the wider youth mobility point, what we have always said about that is that if you look at our manifesto, it is not part of our plans or examples in the manifesto. The red lines that we have are around the single market, customs union and freedom of movement. We are going to stick to those red lines. That is our position in the negotiation. What obviously will now happen, as we move towards the EU-UK summit on 19 May—it is a matter for the EU what it wishes to prioritise, but that is our position in terms of our priorities.

This is more a question, I suppose, for Treasury, but the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the family farms tax was not in your manifesto either, so it is interesting that the Government now feel that they are hog-tied to their manifesto in some respects. But let me just talk— Nick Thomas-Symonds: Chair, I know I am straying away from strictly what I am giving evidence on, but I am sure Committee members would also recognise the scale of the economic situation that we inherited and the very difficult decisions that had to be taken as a consequence.

Yes. We will not push that to a Division, Paymaster. Let me ask you two further questions on the European issue. We are a third country, a close third country, with a lot of history between us. How do you assess the appetite within the corridors of power of the Commission and the wider EU for that strategic reset of which you speak? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think there has been a very positive response. As you can imagine, Chair, there has been a significant amount of engagement. The Prime Minister met the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. He has also met the European Parliament President, Roberta Metsola, and both Council Presidents, because first of all it was Charles Michel and then António Costa. And I have met Maroš Šefčovič, who was my interlocutor on a number of occasions. I think, at this time, there is real good will on both sides. There is recognition that we are now in the mid-2020s. We share significant challenges and opportunities with the European Union. There is a real desire to look forward, not back, which I find in the corridors of the Commission, but also with the new Government here in the United Kingdom. So I think there is a real opportunity now to work on shared priorities together.

The Prime Minister has—I think with some legitimacy—resurrected Lord Palmerston’s dictum that Britain really has no friends, only interests, and wants to be friendly with both the United States and the European Union. You will have seen mention in the media this morning of tariffs on steel, with the UK seeking to straddle the issue. If push comes to shove, with whom does the Government instinctively hop into bed? Is it America, or is it the EU? At some point, President Trump appears to be wanting to drive the wedge. Do we play along with that? Nick Thomas-Symonds: To begin with Lord Palmerston—as you did, Chair—our interests are eternal and perpetual, as Palmerston once said. That is certainly what drives this Government. It is our national interest. As the Prime Minister made clear only a few weeks ago, we do not accept that that means choosing between allies. In respect of the European Union, we think there are significant opportunities to deepen trade. We think there are also significant opportunities to deepen trade and make the special relationship with the United States even more special, and to deepen it into the 21st century. We do not see in any sense a conflict between those two things. In fact, we think it is in our national interest to work more closely with both the EU and the United States.

That is readily understood, and I am grateful for the clarification. But if push comes to shove and the Commission turns around and says, “You want a reset. You want liberalisation. You want less friction, and so on. The price that you have to pay for that is that you have to declare for the EU in this issue against the United States, and not enjoy exemptions from US-imposed tariffs on Europe”, where does the Government jump? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I can say that that has not arisen.

No, but I am saying— Nick Thomas-Symonds: There may well be various hypotheticals across the course of the Parliament, in terms of international events that, sitting here today, none of us can foresee, but the Government’s firm position is that we do not choose between allies. We share deep values with both the European Union and the United States, and our firm policy is that we will continue to deepen relationships with both.

We are happy to cut, Solomon-like, the baby in two? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think it is perfectly possible to cuddle more than one person at the same time.

I am sure Mrs Thomas-Symonds will be delighted to hear that, and I challenge any other Select Committee to have both Palmerston and Solomon referenced in the same question.

How do I follow that? Thank you very much for the very comprehensive opening answer, which has answered a number of my initial questions, and the points I was going to explore. You spoke about the red lines and the manifesto commitments that you made. What a lot of people are quite concerned about is that we see circumstances changing very quickly. You mentioned hypotheticals, but as the Chair mentioned, this morning we suddenly have tariffs on steel being discussed with the US, so we do not really need to talk about potential hypotheticals. We have these circumstances directly in front of us. I want to press on the economic impacts—so the third pillar. Obviously, we have prioritised growth, and the Government have prioritised finding growth wherever they can, but what assessment have you made of the economic impact of the red lines that you have drawn and the commitments that were made in the manifesto a year ago, almost with very different circumstances and a very different world picture in mind? What impact will those red lines put on us and our ability to trade with the EU, for example? Nick Thomas-Symonds: First, in terms of the economic impact of arrangements that we may reach with the European Union, we have the first EU-UK summit, which will be on 19 May. For any agreement that we reach on different pillars, or different parts of the pillars, I am sure that there will be not just Government but numerous independent economic assessments of where we get to. Specifically on the red lines, the economic impact of these things depends on what happens over time. For example, the previous Government signed free trade agreements with New Zealand and Australia and acceded to the CPTPP. We will have to see how that develops, but our position is that we will continue to seek deeper trading links. We want to increase our exports. I gave evidence about this with Minister Alexander to the Business and Trade Committee only a few weeks ago. So we will continue to deepen trading links. In my answer to the Chair, I said that we do not accept this binary choice of having to choose between allies. We will continue to deepen trading links. In terms of the economic impact of our policy on the reset, I have no doubt there will be significant analysis of it when we get to the summit.

You talk about seeing the change and dealing with circumstances as they arise, yet they will always be constrained by these red lines, if you are committing to stick to those. The specific question was about the economic impact. Has the impact of those red lines—which were written a year ago with different circumstances in mind—been quantified? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I do not want to relive the 2017 to 2019 Parliament and what was done in that period, but ultimately, the economic impact depends upon events across the course of this Parliament. I am sure that we will be judged on that as on everything else. We are seeking to have a new partnership with the European Union, but I would argue that we are doing so with a strong democratic mandate to do that from July of last year. We are doing it on the basis of what is in that manifesto, and with examples in the manifesto of what we are seeking to negotiate. To answer your question, of course, as events develop, the Government are going to have to be agile in their foreign policy. I do not think there is any question about that. At the same time, the democratic point is crucial as well, in terms of how we have been elected and the basis upon which we have been elected.

Just to go on to how the reset is being conducted across different policy areas, obviously your role is to bring that into a single point so you can see within the various silos. Hopefully, they are working fairly in an integrated way. How are you working between those Departments, and how are you overseeing that and co-ordinating between various groups? Nick Thomas-Symonds: First of all, we established through a machinery of government change the European Union Relations Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. That was done last summer. That brings officials formerly in the Foreign Office together with the Windsor framework taskforce, and with a very small number of officials from the National Security Secretariat. They are based with me in the Cabinet Office. That then becomes the co-ordinating, central responsibility in Government for our relationship with the European Union and for the work that we need to do now on the EU-UK reset. The bilateral relationships between the UK and European countries remain with the Foreign Office. We will work very closely with both the Foreign Secretary and the Europe Minister, Stephen Doughty, on those bilateral relationships. If you look at the pillars that I identified, the co-ordinating responsibility then becomes extremely important. Let us take, for example, the issue of irregular migration, which I was discussing with the Chair in the opening. Clearly, the Home Office leads on that, but we work very closely with the Home Office. On something like a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, that would obviously be DEFRA in the detail, but again, the co-ordinating function, the negotiating function, and dare I say it, even the ultimate trade-off decisions, obviously belong in the Cabinet Office with me. In terms of the relationship with the Commission, which is the negotiating body for the European Union, the negotiator for the Commission is Maroš Šefčovič, and on the UK side it is me. That direct relationship is important going forward.

So the co-ordination between the Foreign Office, the practical steps and the decisions on those trade-offs sits on your lap. Nick Thomas-Symonds: Many things sit on my lap, as I think we will discover in the course of the Committee, but it is not only the Foreign Office and not only the Home Office. We work very closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary as well, in terms of the Windsor framework. For example, the issue of touring artists would be DCMS—so it is not only the Foreign Office; this is very domestic facing as well. We work and co-ordinate very closely with a number of Government Departments.

On the touring musicians, for example, when the calls are made for a scheme to simplify that—a colleague of ours has put in a ten-minute rule Bill to simplify the rules around that—does that come to the Foreign Office? Where would that go to? So you then sit there, and you look at the trade-offs around— Nick Thomas-Symonds: No. The negotiation is my direct responsibility. As you can imagine, I work very closely with DCMS on how exactly we would deliver that, but delivering that is my responsibility as the negotiator.

That is good to know. John, you mentioned during the briefing you might want to ask about the devolved Administrations at this point.

I will come on to that.

Okay, fine. I will steam on to the final point, about engaging with Parliament. How is that going to be managed? How are we going to be informed on progress? How will we be informed on how the negotiations are going and, ultimately, the trade-offs that you are making? When are we going to get the chance to celebrate or decry the decisions that have been made, rather than through the press or social media? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have no doubt that there will be a range of reactions. This is an important point. Accountability to Parliament is very important for the Government, and it is very important for me. I think this is the fourth Committee I have appeared before in the space of seven months, so I don’t think anyone can say I have not been offering myself for scrutiny. I have appeared before the House of Lords European Affairs Committee, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Business and Trade Committee and I have appeared here—not that I am suggesting that this is the fourth most important, of course, Chair.

I am sure, at a very high level, that you were saving the best until last. Nick Thomas-Symonds: Absolutely. I am sure there will be a few more of these Select Committee appearances, so I am perfectly happy to do those and to be held to account. Obviously, there are departmental questions—Cabinet Office questions. I am committed to regularly updating Parliament. For example, I gave a statement to Parliament last Thursday, because last week, we had the Prime Minister attending the European Council dinner on Monday. I spoke at the EU-UK forum on Tuesday and then had a meeting with Maroš Šefčovič on Wednesday, and my priority was to give a statement to Parliament on that on the Thursday. I will, of course, continue to be held to account in that way.

I would echo colleagues and encourage you to continue to make statements as regularly as possible, rather than there needing to be urgent questions in the Chamber, because that is a much more constructive way to have that discussion. Nick Thomas-Symonds: I entirely agree, and I very much prefer proactive statements.

On the economic growth priority that you mentioned, there have been reports in the press that some Ministers consider that services will be one of the most difficult areas of negotiation, but I am very conscious that that is one of our huge strengths. I think 80% of Britain’s economy is based on services. Could you talk a bit about the trade-offs between things that might not be easy but may be a bit less challenging, versus things like services that might be more challenging but would certainly bring more bang for buck, in terms of economic growth? Nick Thomas-Symonds: At this stage, we have not gone into what I call the steep phase of the negotiation before the summit on Monday 19 May. In a previous life, I conducted many negotiations, and you do not tend ultimately to really see what the trade-offs are until a very late stage, frankly. I am talking generally here, but parties in a negotiation may well have a series of objectives. However, ultimately, when it comes to the crunch, you do not often see what exactly the order of priority is on the other side until a very late stage. What we think may be more difficult or not is not clear at this stage. On your point about services, obviously that is a hugely important part of our economy. You are entirely right. We have an over 80% services economy. I get lots of advice from different newspapers on what is easy and what is not, but ultimately, the proof for that will be the action over the next few months. Services are certainly a priority for us, and mutual recognition agreements are important in terms of greater flexibility and openness for us, where we have very talented people delivering services across the United Kingdom. Being able to do that more easily across borders is helpful.

Financial services are hugely important to economic growth as well. I appreciate you might not necessarily be able to outline what you are looking to see in a negotiated agreement, but can you talk a bit more about what discussions you have had with City figures and what industry wants to see from the EU-UK research? Nick Thomas-Symonds: The City Minister in the Treasury has the direct relationship with the City, as you would expect. But in terms of the various business groups, from BusinessEurope to the CBI, on a regular basis—it is not confidential to Government or anything like that. They are publishing quite regularly the things that they would like to see. Fundamentally, in the services sector—we have particular strengths in financial services and in my former profession of legal services, and so on—we are always looking to advance our interests in those areas. Various practical proposals have been made, but ultimately that is going to come down to the negotiation. As I say, it is easing of trade, playing on our strengths here in the UK, that is important.

Good morning, Minister. I want to ask you more about the summit in May. What are your ambitions for that summit and the outputs that you hope to achieve? Nick Thomas-Symonds: When we were first discussing this matter, I was in Brussels with President von der Leyen and the Prime Minister. Maroš Šefčovič and I were both there, and both the Prime Minister and President von der Leyen said to each of their negotiators, “Look, it is time to explore what the deliverables are now. What can we deliver in terms of the summit?” On your direct question, what we will do over the next couple of months is try to progress all three of our pillars. It may be that we can progress some more quickly than others, and I think we will be able to see that over the next few months. This is the start of a series of summits. This is the first one. I appreciate that it is important and symbolic because it is the first one. We will obviously want to progress on the three pillars. How far we can progress will depend on the next few weeks. For me, it is about the importance of the examples that are in our manifesto—how quickly we can, first, negotiate them and, secondly, deliver them. Those two things are different in terms of being able to negotiate something in principle but then implement it. What I am doing in the tests that I set myself in negotiation is looking for progress across all three pillars.

You speak about the three pillars, but I do not think you have published a detailed strategy or policy paper on this. It is quite hard for Parliament to measure whether the summit in May is successful or not, isn’t it? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I don’t agree, because we have a manifesto that sets out clear examples of what we want to do. Parliament will be able to hold us to account on the manifesto and on the promises we made about the structure of the negotiation. That document has the endorsement—the strength if you like—from having delivered the majority that it did last July. So I think Parliament is more than capable of holding us to account on that.

At the time of the last Government’s trade and co-operation agreement, I think you were quoted as saying that there were holes that needed to be fixed. Can you give us a bit more detail about those holes and whether they might be some of the outputs that you might hope to achieve as part of the summit? Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are a number of examples. There is the whole issue of foreign policy and defence co-operation. When we were an EU member state, you would have found, at the various meetings, committees and structures that existed, that politicians and officials would have had that regular, structured co-operation. The TCA does have certain areas of structure—for example, the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly is an important body. So different structures have been set up. That is an obvious example of where having that structure in place would fill a gap. On the safety pillar, the speed with which you can share information is another gap we can deal with, and that is because there is a distinction between—to take the Europol example—sharing data in real time versus requesting data and it later being provided. When you are dealing with serious and organised crime, those moments in the early stages of criminal detection really matter. The obvious place is on the trade pillar. There is a gap in agricultural products and agrifood products that the SPS is trying to deal with. There is the gap in services, again, and the gap in culture. On energy, although there is an energy chapter within the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, article 392 commits both parties to future talks rather than identifying an issue and then encouraging the parties to have talks later to seek to resolve it. There are a number of areas that I suggest would deal with some of the holes that I identified.

Although the UK Government have not published a detailed policy or strategy paper, the EU has drawn up a list of aspirations from this process, which I am sure you have seen, given that it has been quite widely leaked. Do you have any views on the contents of that document? Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the EU’s position, there have been various documents at different times over the last seven months and beyond that have been leaked, but I respect the EU to carry out its internal processes to get to its final negotiating positions. It will now be doing work, and has been doing work, with its member states. So I don’t think it is appropriate for me to comment on some earlier documents that are part of a process that is yet to reach its completion. I expect whoever the negotiating partner is to come forward with its priorities. That is a matter for the EU.

On the devolution settlement—as a Scottish MP, I have a keen interest in this, and lots of these policy areas are in the devolved policy space—what discussions have you had with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament about the potential changes you are seeking to make? What consenting role will they have to whatever agreement the UK Government make with the EU? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I share your passion as a Welsh Member of Parliament, and the devolved Administrations are a real priority. There are a couple of points. First, I chair the inter-ministerial group, and it is really important I keep the group updated. That consists of representatives from the Northern Irish Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but early December or November was the last one that I chaired formally. Secondly, when I was in Brussels last week, I made sure that I met officials from each of the devolved Administrations. I will continue to facilitate the involvement of the devolved Administrations in the process. That is hugely important, first, in terms of respect for the devolution settlement; and secondly, because we want the reset to be of benefit to the whole United Kingdom. I will just say a specific word on Northern Ireland, because I also have the Windsor framework taskforce within the Cabinet Office, as part of the European Union Relations Secretariat. I work very closely with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in respect of the Windsor framework. As I am sure you will recall, Chair, when it was negotiated by the previous Government, we supported it in Opposition. That cross-party support for the Windsor framework was really important, and I will continue to work very closely with the Northern Ireland Secretary on that. In summary, the whole of the United Kingdom and the position of the devolved Administrations is very important.

Just to force the point on consent, as you will accept, the politics in Scotland is somewhat different from the rest of the UK. We have an SNP Administration. If they decide to be awkward and say that they do not like something that you have agreed to as part of this reset, do they have any ability to stop it happening or to withhold consent? Nick Thomas-Symonds: Obviously, foreign policy matters are not devolved. That is just our constitutional arrangement. I appreciate your point that each of the devolved Administrations has its own unique circumstances, but I am seeking to try to keep the devolved Governments informed throughout the process. I am keen to have detailed discussions in particular areas, and I have made that offer to the devolved Administrations. Ultimately, whether a devolved Administration, for political or other reasons, wishes to criticise part of what is negotiated is a matter for them. That is politics. We have devolved elections coming up next year. What I undertake to do, through the course of the process, is to work closely with the devolved Administrations. That is precisely what I have been doing since last July.

Good morning, Minister. You have largely answered my first question, which was about what the EU’s formal position was going to be. In other words, we do not know yet. We have heard various linkages that have been coming out, for example, on fisheries and youth mobility. How are you working to calibrate our negotiating position in the light of the likely things that will be in the EU’s position? Nick Thomas-Symonds: Our national interest is paramount in any foreign policy. That is the point I made to the Chair at the outset, but I also think we have to move away from this as the idea of some zero-sum game—the idea that there is one part that benefits the UK and one part that benefits the EU. There are so many parts of this that are actually of mutual benefit. I have made that point several times, including in a speech at the EU-UK forum last week. If you look across the three pillars, it is clearly of mutual interest to co-ordinate on foreign policy and security matters. On the safety pillar, if we are to tackle serious and organised crime together, that is of benefit to citizens right across the European Union. On trade, where we are seeking to reduce trade barriers, that is helpful for imports and export. I am seeking to make that point loud and clear, because for too long, we have had this sense that somehow one party wins here and another party wins there. So much is of mutual benefit, and that is the mindset that I take into negotiations.

I agree—who wouldn’t?—but the EU has a structure. It has shared ideas, freedom of movement across the EU and things like that. It will have its red lines, just as we have our red lines. How are you trying to plan our negotiations so that you know how you will respond to their red lines? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am pragmatic; I am looking at what is negotiable and deliverable, and that is important. Of course, the EU has its institutional structures. It has its single market freedoms. It has its processes that we will see over the next few weeks, in terms of how it develops its negotiating positions as agreed with member states. I am loath to get into particular scenarios, because I think what will happen is you will see not just objectives, but what is, in reality, the hierarchy of those objectives from the European Union. What I do think is that the United Kingdom has its framework—its red lines, as I have set out. The European Union has its structures, which we respect, but I do think—again, I answered this earlier—that there is real good will to find pragmatic solutions that are of benefit to people here in the UK and in the EU.

How are you working with the various Departments that will be impacted? Your Government’s major priority is growth, so obviously, business and trade will have a big interest in these negotiations. But in terms of the youth mobility scheme, how will you be working with the Department for Business and Trade, the Home Office and other Departments to balance out where we can give a bit? Nick Thomas-Symonds: In terms of the co-ordinating structure, the Cabinet has a Europe Committee. While it is well established that one does not comment on the duration, length or content of the committees, that it exists is a matter of public record. That is the co-ordinating function that exists. In respect of different issues that may arise during the negotiation, what will happen is that the relevant Secretary of State would have the opportunity, as part of our collective decision making, to make the case as they see fit. However, it is obviously me, as the negotiator, who has to go and negotiate with Brussels.

It was helpful that you brought up the point about how negotiations with our European neighbours are not a zero-sum game and everybody benefits. I just worry, when we look across the Atlantic, that we have a President who sees everything as a zero-sum game, where somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. While we talked at the beginning about how we look between the two, how do you marry up and correlate the two approaches that we are likely to see, particularly when you have red lines that apply to negotiations with one? As far as I recall from the Labour manifesto, I do not remember many red lines in negotiating with another incredibly major trading partner, North America. Are we at risk of having to bend and break with a partner who will not necessarily negotiate with everybody’s growth in mind, but be constrained by red lines with another? Nick Thomas-Symonds: No. Look, whoever is the American President, I would expect them to be guided by their national interests. They may all have individual styles—as they have in the past—but I don’t think it is any surprise that any American President would pursue vigorously the United States’ national interest. As the UK Government, we put our national interest first. However, to the first part of your question, there are so many things in our national interest that are in the interests of a number of other countries as well. If we take the safety pillar, for example, we see that co-ordination across the world’s democracies on tackling crime is evidently in all our interests. For me, it is for other countries to pursue their foreign policy, to pursue their interests, but I will continue to make the case that, on a number of these issues, agreements we can make will benefit both parties and, in some cases, more than one party. For example, when we talk about something like irregular migration, I would argue that if we tackle criminal smuggling gangs together, that benefits member states across the European Union.

Good morning, Minister. How would you describe the overall state of the Government’s preparations in advance of formal negotiations? For example, would you be ready to start formal negotiations in areas such as the sanitary and phytosanitary checks you mentioned earlier or emissions trading if the EU were to pursue these negotiations now? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think we are in a positive space, in terms of preparation. We have been in office since last July, but I would also say that there has been real building of personal relationships. You are right that I can answer the question in terms of preparedness across Whitehall, and that is obviously very important. It is hugely important that work is going on. For example, there is work going on in DEFRA in preparation for a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. The building of personal relationships is hugely important. There have been just over 70 ministerial engagements—visits—at a number of different levels in Government. For example, the Chancellor—I am just checking the date in my papers—was at the Europe group on 9 December. The Foreign Secretary was at the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 October. I have spoken to Maroš Šefčovič on a number of occasions. The Prime Minister has spoken, I think either in person or by telephone, five times to the Commission President. We have been doing the work of building those relationships, which are important in foreign policy, so I do think we are in a positive space. The evidence of that is that last week in Brussels, both parties agreed on that summit date of 19 May. I think it is an indication of our level of preparedness that we are in a position to actually put a date to that.

Thank you, Minister. The benefits of developing positive personal relationships are shown by the announcement of the summit date, and I completely appreciate that, but detailed proposals and the structure of those and the outcomes we are seeking will also be important. You mentioned that there might be some areas where we are able to move faster. For example, you discussed touring artists. In an area like that, would we be close to being able to set out a detailed proposal to our European partners and a road map to get into the position we would like to see? Is that an area where we would be ready to move quite quickly, for example? Nick Thomas-Symonds: That depends on the negotiating partner. This is a well-established ask for us, in terms of the visas for touring artists and the current situation. At the moment, you can only have a certain number of days of travel—within 180 days. How precisely the EU were to find a solution for that is a matter for negotiation. Our ask is pretty clear. We want that freedom. By the way, it is not just about UK touring artists touring the EU, and the numbers have gone down significantly in recent years; it is also about welcoming fine European artists here. As for your point about things moving up the pillars at different speeds, on the security pillar, we have already agreed six-monthly foreign policy dialogues between the high representative and the Foreign Secretary. You can see, on the safety pillar, that we have already increased our National Crime Agency presence at Europol. You can see the progress moving at slightly different speeds. I am satisfied with the detailed work that is going on. We have been extremely well served since we came into Government, but remember as well the machinery of government change that has happened. We do have the officials—I described this earlier—now in the Cabinet Office. I am very lucky to be served by those officials at the centre of government. It should indicate a sense of priority that that unit is at the centre of government. We have made the machinery of government change. You are entirely right to highlight the work in Departments about proposals. It is also important that we have built those linkages and personal relationships to take this forward.

Good morning, Minister. The European Commission publishes the EU’s opening position for negotiations with partners like the UK—it has done so on youth mobility, for example. Are the Government intending to do anything similar? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I do not think the EU has published a final negotiating position yet. Various documents internally have been going round. The EU has consulted member states on various things, but we will need to see where we get to in what I call the steep part of the negotiation. I am not intending to publish a detailed policy paper between now and May, because, as I said earlier, the manifesto is the democratic mandate that we have for the negotiation. It contains both the framework and the red lines. It also contains examples of what we are seeking to negotiate. As I indicated, we will be held to account on that manifesto. I think that that is what is setting out the structure, the guide, to what we are seeking to do.

Do you think it is likely to lead to a better outcome if we do it that way, rather than being a bit more transparent and open about the way things may have moved since that time? Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are two things there. First, it is very important that I continue to update Parliament and am held to account, as I unquestionably will be. Indeed, I welcome Parliament’s scrutiny. I will continue to do that; it is a very important part of what I do. Secondly, in terms of the conduct of the negotiations, it is hugely important, in terms of the approach, that both sides act in good faith. Obviously, we are not always going to agree. That is the case in any negotiation, but I will always be a good faith partner who is negotiating in the UK’s national interest.

We have discussed being held to account, which we are all big fans of. Nick Thomas-Symonds: I gathered.

Obviously, the negotiations that are going to be held are of massive significance. Will you commit to providing the House with a vote to approve the outcome of those negotiations? Nick Thomas-Symonds: At the moment, I do not know what legal form the ultimate position we reach will take. We will also have a series of summits going forward. At this stage, all I would say in relation to that is that I am certainly committed to accountability to Parliament, both during the process and after it. I would also say that there will be a series of summits, not simply one—in terms of there being a distinct point, which is what I think you are describing. Again, Chair, I think back to the many votes in the 2017 to 2019 Parliament without a great deal of fondness.

We are at one on that.

I am just going to try to nail you down a bit on this—I apologise. You referenced the incredibly impactful negotiations that occurred between 2017 and 2019. It was agreed, at that point, that the level of impact of those agreements was such that having votes on them by the Parliament that was elected to represent the country was appropriate. As these negotiations move forward, if there are points where major steps are being taken, do you think that it is appropriate that there is a vote at those points? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will obviously keep that under review. We will have to see the final form, the particular form that we get to. There are already parliamentary processes that exist for certain types of international agreement—for example, the CRAG process exists for particular agreements. So there are already processes if the agreement takes a particular form. I will continue to look at this, but the priority for me over the next few months is to conduct a negotiation. Please be assured—I hope you all take my presence here as my good will towards coming and being questioned on these matters.

Before we leave Europe and go to the House of Lords—not literally—I will just go back, Paymaster, to your answer to my first question on crime and migration-type issues. Do you see a path—and/or if there is a path, a benefit—for the UK to rejoin Dublin IV? Nick Thomas-Symonds: That isn’t part of our plans at the moment. Let’s just take the migration issue for a moment, Chair, which you are rightly highlighting. Countries around Europe are facing the problem of irregular migration. There is a problem in the Mediterranean. There is an issue with smuggler routes—different routes, some coming through the Balkans, others coming through central Europe. We look at this on the basis of taking a pragmatic approach—a recognition that, in terms of the boats in the English Channel, we all want to see that reduced. We all want to see people not risking their lives in the channel, but we recognise that the problem is continent-wide and it is by co-ordination that we think we can be most effective.

Before we get to Lords reform, can I just pick up another part of your brief, which is public inquiries? I think the review of the framework for inquiries is due next month, as we understand it. Are you able to advise on the progress of that and, in broad terms, what the review is considering and how the House will be updated on any proposed changes? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I published yesterday the Government’s response to the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on public inquiries. But I wonder if it might help to ask Darren to set out the work of the public inquiries response, and then I will come specifically to your point.

Yes, thank you. I do not think we have seen that response yet, but we certainly will do.

The Minister mentioned those three things. We provide advice to the Minister on reform policy. We also provide advice to individual Ministers on the setting up and design of specific inquiries. The second thing that it does is act as a hub for best practice and information on how to run inquiries, and that is a resource for sponsor teams and secretaries to inquiries. The third thing we do is sponsor individual inquiries, particularly those where the PM is the lead Minister. Recently, that has been the Grenfell Tower inquiry, the infected blood inquiry and the covid inquiry. Those are the three main focuses of the team, but it is the reform element that you are asking about that we will advise Ministers on shortly. Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think that is the nub of the question, Chair. Recent years and recent decisions have continued to show the value of the public inquiry, both in our political life and in the administrative justice system. They are regarded as being independent, legitimate and trusted. I think statutory public inquiries have that particular position in our politics. They serve a number of functions: they shed light on what happened; they often provide a means for victims and survivors to have their voices heard; and they can be part of rebuilding trust and learning lessons. So there is no question about our recognition of their value. I also think we are starting to see issues arising in terms of duration and cost, and there are some issues of effectiveness in how we monitor, for example, Government responses to recommendations from public inquiries. As for the response that I published yesterday, the Committee found: “The 2005 Act”—the Inquiries Act 2005—“and the wider governance structure of public inquiries must be improved.” I have accepted that recommendation. I will not go through them all—the Committee will be able to read the Government’s published response—but the Government have accepted a number of recommendations. For example, we have accepted the recommendation: “Ministers should, where appropriate, consult with victims and survivors on the overall terms of reference.” I have also accepted the recommendation: “When establishing an inquiry, the sponsoring Minister should consider including an indicative deadline in the terms of reference, keeping in mind the particular purpose…of the inquiry.” There is another recommendation about interim reports that I think is very important. One of the problems is that if you have an inquiry that is making recommendations about considering changes in Government policy—it is always up to the Government of the day whether to accept them—and they are coming years and years down the line, the issue is that they may well have been superseded by intervening events. For example, it is useful to note that Grenfell was in two phases. The covid inquiry is being held on a module basis. That is another very useful thing to look at. There is also a wider question—this is a role for Parliament—about where Parliament stands and how Parliament chooses to hold whatever the Government of the day are to account on Government decisions on recommendations. Governments, essentially, can accept in full; they can accept partially; or they can, as the democratically elected Government of the day, not accept something. Two things are important—first, that there is a full explanation from the Government as to why they have taken the position they have. Secondly, one of the aspects of the House of Lords Committee looking at this was about how Parliament sought to hold Ministers to account. Is it that you have a specialist Committee within Parliament? That is a matter for Parliament, but parliamentary scrutiny is an important point of the process, too.

I certainly take your points about timeliness and cost. Very often, by the time we are finally given the answers, we can barely remember what the question was and the issue has either moved on or resolved itself.

There has been a lot of discussion about a national inquiry into grooming gangs. The Home Secretary has decided not to have the national inquiry, but to have an audit of some of the previous investigations. Could you outline your role in discussions with the Home Secretary and how she came to that decision? Nick Thomas-Symonds: The decision was a matter for the Home Office and for the Home Secretary. It is different when we are the sponsoring Department. For example, I am directly responsible for the inquiry on infected blood, for example, where the decision is very much part of my responsibilities. The decision on grooming gangs was one for the Home Secretary. On 16 January, the Home Secretary launched a national three-month audit to be led by Dame Louise Casey. The audit looks at further evidence, including ethnicity data, the demographics of gangs involved and their victims, including cultural and societal drivers for the offending. The Home Secretary made a statement to Parliament on that day. Dame Louise Casey is a highly respected public servant who I am sure will conduct this inquiry with the professionalism and thoroughness that she brings to these tasks. It is a three-month audit.

Forgive me, but you are the Minister responsible for public inquiries policy and the Public Inquiry Response Unit. Was there no discussion between the Home Office and your team about this announcement? Nick Thomas-Symonds: That decision was a matter for the Home Secretary.

That was not my question. Was there no discussion between you and the Home Office in terms of engagement?

The only requirement in the ministerial code makes it clear that individual Ministers must consult the Prime Minister before inquiries are set up and agreed. That happened in this case. There was discussion between the Home Office and No. 10. There is no lock, as it were, between the Cabinet Office and individual Secretaries of State, but the ministerial code is clear that there is with the Prime Minister.

It was not discussed—okay. Thank you.

It seems to me that there may be merit in the Cabinet Office holding the ring on that as a point of reference to ensure some uniformity in decision taking and remit setting and the like—without wishing to add to your work schedule. Nick Thomas-Symonds: In terms of what we are now looking at in this area and how we make it more effective, please do consider the response I published yesterday, because I think there are a number of things in there that I am sure you will find interesting and will want to comment on. In terms of different factors, such as the voice of victims and survivors in setting terms of reference being consistent across the piece, we will look at that going forward.

We have about 23 minutes left. We will try to do a quick canter through the historical organisation, namely the House of Peers.

The Government have made some manifesto commitments in respect of House of Lords reform, and some of my colleagues will pick up on the specifics of that. We are interested in your views about the strengths and weaknesses of the current House of Lords. Nick Thomas-Symonds: That is a very good opening question. I do approach this on the basis of strengths and weaknesses, because the upper House does bring some significant strengths to our democracy, both in terms of a more considered form of scrutiny and, indeed, a level of expertise—often very specific expertise. I am not suggesting for a moment that we Members of Parliament do not have a range of expertise to offer, but there is a particular specialist expertise that an appointed House can bring. As for the weaknesses point, I think it is democratically illegitimate to have people in the House of Lords who are there by virtue of the family into which they are born. That is why the manifesto commitment that we were elected on said that the next Labour Government will bring about immediate modernisation by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That is precisely the piece of legislation that has been brought forward. I think it will be considered presently in Committee in the upper House. The initial step does deal with that, in my view, illegitimate situation. There is then a series of other points in the manifesto around things such as participation requirements. I use the term “participation” specifically, because it is not just about a level of attendance. There are some Members of the Lords who might not speak in dozens and dozens of debates, but who, when they do speak with their particular expertise, add something to our democracy. Broadly speaking, the points in what I call the second stage of Lords reform, which is published in the manifesto—retirement age, strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed, looking at the appointments process and national-regional balance—are about trying to make the Lords more representative of the nations and regions. They are also trying to deal with the issue of the overall size of the House. I would hope that we can look at the second stage much more consensually. I am not somebody who wants to take away the things that I think are very good about the House of Lords—far from it. I want to try to build on the strengths of the House of Lords as we take the reform process forward.

Do you have any idea, and are you able to tell us, when you may intend to reach that second phase? Nick Thomas-Symonds: The first step is the hereditary peers Bill, which we want to get on to the statute book in this parliamentary Session. We will then turn to how we take the second stage forward. However, the manifesto was very clear that there would be an immediate modernisation in terms of that Bill.

Do you expect that the Government will be able to implement all the manifesto commitments in this area during their term? Nick Thomas-Symonds: That depends upon the progress we can make in the upper House. It is not entirely within my control.

Finally, what should the role of the Lords be? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think what the Lords brings to our democracy is that more considered form of scrutiny—the ability to ask the House of Commons to think again. The Parliament Act 1911 says a great deal about reform of this area that was originally thought to be temporary, and its essential framework is still temporary over a century later. There is a distinction between Finance Bills and ordinary Bills. The 1949 Act reduced the period of delay that the House of Lords has, but that ability of the House of Lords to ask Parliament to think again and to bring that specialist, more considered scrutiny is hugely important.

Why the timidity on this? You have the most enormous parliamentary majority. Reform of the Lords has been at the forefront of the minds of the Labour party since Keir Hardie was in small trousers. You have the manifesto commitment, so the Lords could not frustrate it. The removal of the remaining 92 is effectively just a mopping-up exercise from the Blair Act. These are not the bright, sunlit uplands of constitutional reform—which many thought a dynamic Labour Government would usher in—are they? This is your century-awaited opportunity, after 14 years of Opposition to work out how the Lords could look to fulfil those functions that you have rightly set out. It is all a bit underwhelming, isn’t it? And I say that as a Conservative. Nick Thomas-Symonds: The conversion to radical reform is much appreciated, Chair. The lesson I draw from this is that you have had previous Labour Governments with very large majorities that have sought what I would describe as a big-bang reform of the Lords but have ended up with nothing. A very good example of that is from the late 1960s. You had a Government that had been re-elected in March 1966 with a majority of just under 100. In those days, of course, there was a far larger number of hereditaries.

Yes, because the Life Peerages Act had only been passed— Nick Thomas-Symonds: In 1958, the Life Peerages Act, yes—so there was still a huge percentage of heredity. They tried a big-bang reform and got absolutely nothing from it. The conclusion, therefore, that I draw from that is that in order to actually deliver reform, it needs to be done step by step. History was telling me that where we had attempted this radical reform, it just had not worked and we ended up with nothing—hence the step-by-step approach in the manifesto. I would also suggest that I am somebody who sees significant value in the work of the upper House. Where there is that significant value, I want to see it thrive and have public support going forward.

Yes, I appreciate the step-by-step approach, but it is the speed of the steps. These are very ponderous steps. Nick Thomas-Symonds: If their lordships were to usher the hereditaries Bill through more quickly, we could all move more quickly.

The Lords, like the Lord, perform their things—their wonders to perform, and all the rest of it.

Given that, there must surely be some merit in commuting a hereditary peerage to a supernumerary list of life peers at the point when they are extinguished for those who have what Michelle has referenced—expertise, active contribution, and bringing something to the debates that other peers cannot—rather than, to use your phrase, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, outwith the normal party leaders’ nomination for peerages process. Nick Thomas-Symonds: There is no barrier on a hereditary peer becoming a life peer. In terms of the numbers, the Cross Benchers are in a slightly different position because they would not come under the party leaders’ lists. I know you are making the point about something additional, Chair, but I would observe that throughout the course of this Parliament, you will have the ordinary process of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Party leaders will, as always happens in Parliament, have their lists, and it is a matter for the party leaders who they wish to nominate, but there is no barrier to hereditary peers being nominated.

You will be aware that Opposition leaders, whether the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the leader of the Conservative Party or whoever, have a cap on the number of nominees that they have. The Prime Minister does not have a cap. Nick Thomas-Symonds: That is just a description of the arrangements that we have had for decades, isn’t it?

Yes. Nick Thomas-Symonds: There have been discussions in the usual channels in the past, when certain Leaders of the Opposition have nominated a certain number. That is just how this process has worked. My overall point is that there is no barrier to hereditary peers being considered alongside others in the normal way.

There is no barrier either in the Government recognising the expertise and specialism, which you have agreed with Ms Welsh about, and saying, as part of the legislation, that those who are deemed to be specialists, experts or unique contributors—call it what you will—would have their hereditary titles transferred to a life peerage under the Act. Nick Thomas-Symonds: You are asking me to stray into new territory there, but I would say first—

It is not new territory because I raised it in— Nick Thomas-Symonds: You have raised it with me in the Chamber, but it is new territory for the Committee today. All I would say on this is that, first, our priority is to get that Act on to the statute book. That is the priority for this Session. It is the first step. I would argue that it is within the Salisbury convention because it is in the manifesto, clearly, as a first step. To the wider point you are making, I simply return to my earlier point that there is no barrier to a hereditary peer being nominated and receiving a life peerage.

Not to labour this point but just to come in on it specifically, would you agree, Minister, that when we are looking at this as a whole, to add in a process to convert existing hereditary peers into life peers almost kicks the can down the road and extends the issue further than necessary? Is there also a point that to give hereditary peers almost an extra privilege—an extra opportunity for a life peerage, compared with anyone else—would still be giving a hereditary advantage? Nick Thomas-Symonds: That points to the importance of the principle of getting this Bill on to the statute book. This is not personal; I know a number of the hereditary peers, as I am sure you do, too, Chair. It is not a personal thing but is about the principle of places in our legislature being reserved for people by accident of birth. You are entirely right to say that that is the fundamental principle that the Bill seeks to address.

Talking about disgraced peers and the size of the Chamber brings us neatly on to the Bishops’ Bench. I spoke in the Chamber about the importance of examining the presence of the Bishops’ Bench in the House of Lords. You spoke about the sequential nature of reform, which we have revisited here and of which I think we are all very supportive. The second stage of reforms has been mentioned as well. Will reviewing the presence of bishops in the Lords be part of that second stage? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am not proposing the disestablishment of the Church or indeed—

That is a separate point. Nick Thomas-Symonds: Or about the position of the bishops. You are right; they are separate points. That said, what do I think about having a diversity of faiths and those of no faith represented in the upper House generally in appointments? I think that is a very important principle that, of course, we should look at in the nomination process for the upper House. The matters for stage two are in the manifesto and they are what we will seek to take forward. Today, it is fundamentally about getting the first Bill on to the statute book.

We have six more minutes, and two more questions. I am determined that we cover it off. Q189       Markus Campbell-Savours: Is setting out the reasons for appointments sufficient to ensure the quality of appointments? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I hope that it is helpful. I laid a written ministerial statement in recent months on having a roughly 150-word citation for each appointment. It always struck me as puzzling that in our honours system, if you have someone who is awarded, say, an OBE, CBE or an MBE, there is always a citation for why that has happened for services to whatever it might be. It always struck me as an anomaly that we were publishing lists of people without any explanation. I hope that that reform, which I introduced just before Christmas, will give some more transparency as to why people have been appointed, but also a sense of the qualities that they will bring to our upper Chamber. Q190       Markus Campbell-Savours: That perhaps deals with the perception of the public and their understanding of why people have been appointed, but does more work need to be done to ensure that an appointment is a quality appointment? Nick Thomas-Symonds: You are entirely right to identify that. The Prime Minister has been very clear that being appointed to the House of Lords should not be seen purely as an honour. It should be seen as going to do a job of work in our legislature. You are entirely right to highlight quality. It is hugely important, but so is the variety of experience being brought to the upper Chamber, giving voices to different aspects of our society and different experiences. Q191       Markus Campbell-Savours: Recognising that quality is so important in what is going to be a job for life, why is the House of Lords Appointment Committee not able to check the suitability and propriety of the candidates? Nick Thomas-Symonds: It does make an assessment. Do you want to just give the detail on that, Darren?

The Committee makes the assessment on probity and propriety for all candidates, including political nominations, and assesses suitability for their Cross-Bench nominations. It does not assess suitability for political nominations. Q192       Markus Campbell-Savours: Should they? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think it is the probity and integrity bit that is fundamental going forward. That is hugely important, because it is about giving confidence to the public. In taking it into the suitability territory, the problem is that what suitability actually means becomes a contested concept. I think that probity and integrity are fundamental. Q193       Markus Campbell-Savours: Something that has not really been used here is the “democracy” element, which is a key element in the conversation that the public has around this issue. On the suitability being in the hands of those making those political appointments, shouldn’t we be questioning whether it is right that the patronage should still sit with the Prime Minister on these issues? Nick Thomas-Symonds: No, the Prime Minister has not been a Member of the House of Lords for a while, going back to Lord Salisbury. The Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament who has a particular democratic mandate as the head of the Government. I think that that is where the legitimacy comes from. You can have a debate, and I have had many of these debates in the past, about how you wish to— Markus Campbell-Savours: I have had a few myself. Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am sure you have had many over the years. I think that what an appointments process gives you is the ability to have particular expertise in the Lords, which I think would be far harder to get in an elected House. So I do think there is merit in that.

Following on from the point about the nature of the House, one of the things that was brought up in the excellent report from the Commission on the UK’s Future was that the House of Lords currently does not reflect our nations and regions and that we could be making much more effort to ensure that it does. Isn’t it important to reflect on that report and its detailed recommendations? Isn’t highlighting that current deficit within our second Chamber a key element of that report? Nick Thomas-Symonds: I think a Chamber reflective of the nations and regions right across the United Kingdom is hugely important. Having that at the forefront of the minds in making appointments is important, because it is an upper House for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is important to reflect that.

Do you have time for the final question? Nick Thomas-Symonds: Why not?

You are generous. I call Charlotte Cane—and I will say quickly, quickly.

Your manifesto committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber and to consulting on proposals. What is your timetable for that consultation, and how will you ensure public input to it? Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the timetable, we will look to get the hereditary Bill on to the statute book in this Session of Parliament. And then, for the next stage of reform, we would like to try to move to a position of consensus, where we are moving forward. How precisely we would look to involve the public and on what timetable would be a matter for those discussions. How quickly we can get to the second stage depends on how quickly we can get this Bill on to the statute book. On that note, Chair, I hope that it will be done quickly.

Thank you very much indeed, and Ms Gough, our apologies for wasting your time this morning. You have been phenomenally patient, but you have a very well-briefed Minister, which is always an encouraging thing. Paymaster, thank you very much indeed. Nick Thomas-Symonds: A pleasure. Thank you all very much, and thank you, Chair.