Nick Thomas-Symonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Oct 2025 · Public Procurement: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want public bodies to examine carefully how best to deliver public services. That is why we are consulting on proposals to introduce a public interest test, allowing for the evaluation of services being more effectively delivered in-house before they are contracted out, covering value for money, service quality and wider social and economic benefit. We will consider the range of responses, including those from trades unions.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Public Procurement: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike the SNP Government, evidently, this Labour Government believe that where things are made and who makes them matters. That is why we are consulting on further procurement reforms to boost domestic supply chains and create more opportunities for businesses of all sizes, whether that be in Falkirk or across the United Kingdom.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Public Procurement: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I will answer on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), who, with your permission, Mr Speaker, is at an event with the Prime Minister in his constituency today. This Government’s new social value model includes fair working skills criteria, so that authorities can reward suppliers providing good-quality jobs, supporting people into work and providing their employees with additional development opportunities. We are consulting on further reforms to public procurement and will update the House in due course.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and that has been my objective throughout. IBCA took a test and learn approach, and this House quite rightly held me to account at the start of that process when the numbers were lower. Those numbers are rising exponentially at the moment—that is why there are offers totalling over £1.8 billion—but the hon. Lady should be reassured that I am 100% not complacent, and will continue to drive progress.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Some 2,476 people have now received offers totalling over £1.8 billion. Alongside the work I am doing to prepare further secondary legislation and a public consultation, I am pleased to announce that applications are opening today for further interim payments of £210,000 to the estates of infected people who have sadly passed away. In addition, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has now asked every living infected person registered with a support scheme to come forward and start their claim, and has also opened a service for people to register their intent to claim.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  Quite simply it is because, to secure further agreements, the United Kingdom has to show good faith with the agreements it has already signed. The Windsor framework had cross-party support. We voted for it in opposition, so we have to show good faith in implementing it. However, there will come a point when we can reduce the checks—and it is not a point in the distant future, as we will be implementing the SPS agreement by 2027. At that stage, I will be more than happy to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see the reduction of checks. The internal market guarantee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is hugely important to the Government. Alongside independent scrutiny, it is there to deal with precisely the concern about trade flows. He talks about “Safeguarding the Union”, which is on my desk as I am looking at this issue. An exercise has been carried out to see whether the guarantee was being met in the first scrutiny period during the first part of the year—from January to June 2025. As I have indicated, that will report shortly. If the report recommends further action that the Government need to take, we will look at that. More generally, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, I have a role not only to supervise the Windsor framework in the Cabinet Office, but to negotiate with the EU. In that endeavour, which I have led and will continue to lead in the months ahead, I have always had Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind. There have been a lot of references to businesses, as well as to a number of businesses benefiting from dual market access, such as PRM group, which is investing £15 million in new premises and jobs distributing chilled and frozen foods. The chief executive of Denroy, a manufacturer, said it really has “the best of both worlds.” Manufacturing supplier Crushing Screening Parts has described dual market access as giving it “a huge potential customer basis” and enabling it to “fulfil orders quicker than competitors.” Food supplier Deli-Lites Ireland has described Northern Ireland’s trading arrangement as “very positive” for its businesses, and as having enhanced its competitiveness.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this debate, and I thank the other Members for their interventions. He has also asked me questions in the main Chamber a number of times, and he always makes his case powerfully. He and I share a background in law—we were barristers before becoming Members of Parliament—so I recognise how he structures his argument effectively. I begin with the things on which we agree, and I will leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman to judge at the end of the debate whether my language is “dressing up”. We agree on the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market, and I repeat my commitment to that endeavour today. That is every bit as sincere as the commitment I made to stakeholders across Northern Ireland when I visited. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. When I came into this job, an early priority of mine was to visit Belfast to speak to politicians, visit the Assembly and speak to businesses and people across Northern Ireland. Yes, of course I speak today as a Minister in the Government, but it is also my great privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for Torfaen. Serving as a Welsh Member of Parliament only adds to my conviction that our nations of this United Kingdom stand to achieve far more economically, socially and culturally by working together than we would ever achieve alone. I say directly to the hon. and learned Member, and indeed to all those who have intervened today, that this Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is not a vague concept or an aspiration; it is real.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  I would certainly be interested in learning more about that specific case. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I will happily look into it.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  The four businesses I have just quoted evidently do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I both want to see an economically successful and prosperous Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that dual market access will provide that. I am conscious of the time, but I repeat not just this Government’s commitment, but my personal commitment to the UK internal market. As I negotiate with the European Union, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of my mind. Question put and agreed to .

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  I have only about seven minutes left. I will give way to both Members, but I will have to do so quickly.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  I will certainly be visiting Northern Ireland again. However, on the diversion of trade, that is precisely what the independent monitoring panel is currently looking at. The panel is looking at it for the earlier part of this year, and I expect it to report shortly. Of course, when the panel makes recommendations, where there are issues, the Government will consider them very carefully. The Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is in our manifesto. It is set out in law, in section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which, to respond to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, also explicitly provides that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. As I say, this issue is not just about the guarantee, important though that is; it is also important that the independent monitoring panel does its work. I also have to say that the position of Northern Ireland has always been at the forefront of my mind when I have negotiated with the European Union. The hon. and learned Member talks about checks on the Irish sea. Of course, it is the case that this Government will implement the Windsor framework in good faith. Indeed, I give credit to the previous Government for negotiating the Windsor framework. We supported it in opposition, and we have implemented it. Of course, the purpose of what I have been doing is, far from increasing checks on the Irish sea, to reduce them. That is what a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will do, once we are able to implement it. In a speech I made in recent weeks, I said that I want to see the SPS agreement in place by early 2027. That will have the effect of reducing precisely the kind of checks that the hon. and learned Member has been referring to.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way, then I need to make some progress.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I can help the hon. Gentleman out on one issue: I can reassure him that he is most definitely awake; this is most definitely reality. Where I am afraid I will fail is in explaining the priorities on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to that.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely not, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a Member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of this House. That is entirely different from the situation of having places in the House of Lords on the basis of an accident of birth. I should say, though, because I do not want to just criticise the Conservative party today, that I do appreciate that should the hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of “the most ancient and outdated relic” will then be awarded to the modern-day Conservative party, so I guess self-preservation is the Conservatives’ real motive. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) spoke about our majority—we will not allow the Conservative party to block this change.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me just repeat that point to the hon. Gentleman, because it is important. He claims to respect precedent and the rights of Parliament, but the position he takes in supporting Lords amendment 1 runs a coach and horses through that.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There will be the usual periods in this Parliament when there will be an opportunity, and I repeat that there is no barrier to someone who serves as a hereditary peer being appointed as a life peer.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Fine, let me put it this way: the hon. Gentleman is supporting the position that his peers are taking, which is in breach of that convention. I will give the hon. Gentleman another chance, because he is trying to put a defence up on that particular precedent. He supported the closing down of Parliament in 2019, and now he sits here lecturing me on precedent. I think it is best not to take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on that. There was an opportunity for the Opposition this afternoon. They did not have to join in with the filibustering tactics that have been used, with tens of hours of debate on this very narrow Bill. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could today have not joined in, but he will lead his troops through the Lobby to continue to try to block these reforms. That is what this is all about. It is not, as he pretended, about trying to improve the Bill. It is not that those on the Tory Front Bench are secretly in favour of radical reform, and this is not radical enough for them. They are trying to wreck this Bill, and that is exactly what he will do as he goes through the Lobby with his troops later.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will just come to the other points that we are raising. I have made clear that Lords amendment 1 guts the purpose of the Bill, which is why the Government oppose it. On the other amendments, first I am pleased with and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on amendment 4, on the introduction of the power of attorney. I think that the whole House accepts that there are people who wish to retire, and that is a dignity that we should give them. We all appreciate that. On the other two points, I do not regard the creation of a new, separate honour as necessary or worthwhile—I had this exchange earlier with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). We already have an honours system that recognises outstanding contributions to our society. I think that we should maintain that link between the title and doing work in our legislature. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has made a couple of times about ministerial pay and Ministers carrying out roles. The point that I would make to him, however, is that that requires an amendment. If he wants to make that argument and have a debate, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but the mechanism in the Bill will not have the impact that I think he is seeking to have in that respect. To conclude—I am concluding not just this afternoon’s debate, but tens of hours of debate in the other place—we are moving towards a House of Lords that is fair, open and truly representative of the nation it serves, a House where expertise is recognised and not inherited, where policy is shaped by merit and not by bloodlines. I commend the Government’s position to the House. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether we go back to 1924 or even further back—and I will during my speech—we find Conservatives in this House protecting their friends born into positions of power. This Bill will finally remove such an archaic right. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —he is overseas at the moment, I understand—wants to send people, certainly in Wales, back down the coalmines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past. Before I turn to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by the noble Lord Strathclyde. He said of this Bill that “inevitably, there will be repercussions. They”— the Government— “are storing up huge problems for themselves.” The Conservatives have not only complained that the Government are removing hereditary peers while offering “nothing in return”; more sinisterly, they have threatened to use delaying tactics on this Government’s agenda. We only have to look at their behaviour in debates in the upper House, to see that they have been trying to hold the Government hostage on the Football Governance Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill—all to protect the hereditary principle. We know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much, but where is their energy being directed at present? It is being directed at the self-preservation of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. That is unacceptable and, frankly, it deserves to be highlighted. As I say, the Bill has returned to the House amended by the other place. Most of the amendments serve to undermine the core purpose of the Bill, or go well beyond the Bill’s intended remit. Lords amendment 1 has to be read with its consequential amendment—Lords amendment 8. It seeks to end the system of hereditary peer by-elections while retaining the current cohort of hereditary peers. The Government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the Bill. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s bloodline getting to the House of Lords, I am sure it is only a matter of time before we see that. In terms of the antics of the Opposition, I do not know whether the Conservative parliamentary party in the Commons speaks to peers, but it should talk to them about their behaviour on the Bill and other Bills that they have blocked and blocked and blocked. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently spending time to come up with credible policies—no one will believe that the Conservative party is in favour of wholesale reform of the House of Lords. It has been more than 25 years since Parliament agreed to end the hereditary route, with a supposedly temporary arrangement to retain 92 hereditary peers. It is almost 200 years since the Great Reform Act 1832, which took away the hold of the great aristocratic families, opening up the franchise and taking their presence in electoral politics from monopoly to anomaly. Nonetheless, the hereditary principle remains in our Parliament: sometimes as symbol of tradition, sometimes as obstacle to real reform—as Conservative peers have recently demonstrated. There is a real opportunity today for the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has protested several times about newly found passion for wholesale Lords reform—

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to hear from one of the 2025 ditchers.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The manifesto was clear that the reform would be staged, and that this would be the immediate first step. The Government remain in favour of a House of Lords that is more representative of the nations and regions, and this is the first step. As the Leader of the House of Lords announced, a Select Committee will then look at retirement age, and indeed at participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made the point, which I repeated, that this is not a personal issue but an issue of principle. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), welcomes the Bill as a first step, and she also spoke about the appointment process. Indeed, over recent months the Government have ensured that when people are selected for a place in the House of Lords there is now an explanation or citation. We always had a citation when people were awarded honours, but we did not have one for those nominated for a place in the House of Lords. That has now been changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) set out powerfully that Lords amendment 1, which concerns the abolition of hereditary by-elections, has been put forward time and again by Lord Grocott, and on every single occasion it was blocked by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), a regular sparring partner of mine, accused me of being a bit unfair to the Conservatives in the 20th century. Life peerages were of course introduced in the late 1950s, but it is certainly the case that the Conservatives have blocked every opportunity to abolish the hereditary principle, and that is exactly what they are doing again. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a powerful speech about the central purpose of the Bill and the Government’s position on the amendments. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire made his characteristic contribution to the debate, and I would agree with the point he made about filibustering in the other place on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made well the point that even after this change, the Conservatives will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. I then come to the speech by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) who seemed, I think, to be simultaneously arguing for maintaining the hereditary peers and for radical reform. When he talked about a parliamentarian with the “attention span” of a TikTok video, I thought he meant the shadow Justice Secretary for a minute. We have heard the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) make a comparison with North Korea, but the hon. Member for Windsor made a comparison with Iran. This Bill is quintessentially British. It is about British democracy. It is about putting an argument to the electorate last July, and then putting that into practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made the powerful case that this is about principle, and about there not being a series of places in our legislature that are reserved for people by accident of birth. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who I am sure the whole House will wish well for the Great North Run, made a powerful case for the abolition of the hereditary principle and the position of the Bill. I also say a real “thank you” to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has made a powerful case for change throughout every stage of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. This has been a perfectly reasonable debate—

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Quite simply, the amendment is trying to create the title as an honour without the actual membership. That is the difference. I had an exchange earlier about there being no barriers to life peerage; that is not saying no barrier to the title. The life peerage, if granted, obviously confers both the title and the participation. That is the difference between the two. On the point about the amendment being unnecessary, as my noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent stated in the other place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Family connections exist on the Government Benches, as well. The UK already has an extensive and long-standing honours system, which recognises and promotes the outstanding contributions made by individuals the length and breadth of the country and from all sections of society. As has been said, being appointed as a peer is an honour, but it also brings the responsibility to contribute to the work of the second Chamber. The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement to ensure that all peers contribute to the work of the other place—an approach that has received widespread support from peers. I certainly do not think that creating another layer to that system to provide for the statutory creation of non-sitting peers is in keeping with the mood of either House. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 3. I turn finally to an issue on which I hope there will be cross-party consensus, which is resignation by power of attorney. Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 would allow the House of Lords to set out arrangements for resignation from the other place where a peer lacks capacity, including when someone is acting under a lasting power of attorney. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, it became clear that there was considerable support to address in legislation the long-standing concern that Members who lack capacity were unable to resign from the House of Lords, and the Government have listened and acted. Following discussions with peers across the House of Lords, the Leader of the House of Lords brought forward these amendments to address the matter. What they make clear is that a notice to resign from the other place may be given and signed by a person acting on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity, providing that it is done in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House. The amendments relating to resignation would come into force on Royal Assent to ensure that families who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of a parliamentary Session to do so. It seeks to provide certainty to peers who have raised this issue. It is a solution that has received unanimous cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will confirm the support for that amendment. This a short and focused Bill. It delivers on a manifesto commitment to immediately remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is not personal, and nor is it a comment on the contribution that hereditary peers have made. The Government are grateful for their service in the other place, and I stress again that there are no bars on them returning as life peers if their party leaders wish to nominate them. However, the time has now come to deliver this immediate reform, so that we can move on to further reform of the other place, as set out in our manifesto, and deliver on what was promised in July last year. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She speaks powerfully about her constituents, and I want my constituents in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran to be able to aspire to be Members of Parliament, including in the upper House, and that places are not reserved for people through accident of birth— [ Interruption. ] The shadow Minister chunters from a sedentary position. If he is in favour of the hereditary position, let him tell us, instead of hiding behind the smokescreen of pretending he is in favour of full reform. Let us hear him say from the Dispatch Box that he believes in the hereditary principle, if he does. We have said from the outset that we wanted this Bill on the statute book before turning to the next phase of reform. Delaying this legislation means delaying the establishment of the Select Committee and delaying further reforms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the reality is that since we last reformed the Lords, the outside world has changed. Our Parliament should always be a place where talents are recognised and merit counts. It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold veto power over the will of the people.