Category: Parliament

  • Julian Lewis – 2020 Comments on Expulsion from the Conservative Party

    Julian Lewis – 2020 Comments on Expulsion from the Conservative Party

    The text of the comments made by Julian Lewis on 16 July 2020, following his expulsion from the Conservative Party.

    Because the ISC (Intelligence and Security Committee) is a special committee, I feel constrained in what I can say. However, the following points are relevant.

    1 – The 2013 Justice and Security Act explicitly removed the right of the Prime Minister to choose the ISC chairman and gave it to the committee members. I remember this well, as I served on the committee from 2010 to 2015 and took part of the legislation through the Commons myself on behalf of the committee. There is no other Conservative MP in the House of Commons with any past experience of working on the ISC.

    2 – It was only yesterday afternoon that I received a text asking me to confirm that I would be voting for the Prime Minister’s preferred candidate for the ISC chair. I did not reply as I considered it an improper request. At no earlier stage did I give any undertaking to vote for any particular candidate.

    3 – In recent days, the official Number 10 spokesman explicitly denied that the Government was seeking to ‘parachute’ a preferred candidate in to the chair, stating that it was a matter for the senior parliamentarians on the committee to decide. It is therefore strange to have the whip removed for failing to vote for the Government’s preferred candidate.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2020 Comments on Expulsion of Julian Lewis from Conservative Party

    Alistair Carmichael – 2020 Comments on Expulsion of Julian Lewis from Conservative Party

    Text of comments made on Twitter by Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, on 15 July 2020.

    Having failed to install a loyalist, PM now running scared of scrutiny. This is an overreaction, likely by Dominic Cummings rather than the Chief Whip. PM must stop interfering and the committee must publish the #RussiaReport now. All MPs must stand firm against No10 power grab.

  • Stewart McDonald – 2020 Comments on Expulsion of Julian Lewis

    Stewart McDonald – 2020 Comments on Expulsion of Julian Lewis

    Text of the comments made on Twitter by Stewart McDonald, the SNP MP for Glasgow South, on 15 July 2020.

    The UK is the only Five Eyes member without a functioning Intelligence & Security Committee – zero parliamentary oversight. At this rate, the government will be kicked out Five Eyes. Julian Lewis was elected fairly and the government should accept that result.

  • Angela Rayner – 2020 Comments on Expulsion of Julian Lewis from Conservative Party

    Angela Rayner – 2020 Comments on Expulsion of Julian Lewis from Conservative Party

    Text of comments made on Twitter by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 15 July 2020.

    Julian Lewis MP has the Tory Whip removed after being elected as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Select Committee, after beating hapless Chris Grayling. I wonder who in No10 ordered that the long serving Tory MP had the whip removed? What a grubby shower they are!

  • Angela Rayner – 2020 Comments on Defeat of Chris Grayling

    Angela Rayner – 2020 Comments on Defeat of Chris Grayling

    The text of the comments made on Twitter by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Labour Leader, on 15 July 2020.

    Chris Grayling failed to get elected chair in a vote where his party had a majority&controlled the process&he was specifically hand picked by No10 to take the top job. On his long list of failures he must surely be at the summit now, or are there more?

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Defeat of Chris Grayling

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Defeat of Chris Grayling

    The text of the comments made on Twitter by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 15 July 2020.

    Very pleased to see that the good sense of the Intelligence and Security Committee members has prevailed and that they overruled the Prime Minister by appointing Julian Lewis as Chair, rather than the hapless Chris Grayling.

  • Cat Smith – 2020 Speech on Parliamentary Constituencies

    Cat Smith – 2020 Speech on Parliamentary Constituencies

    The text of the speech made by Cat Smith, the Labour MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2020.

    It is a pleasure to speak again on the Bill, as it gives me the opportunity to put on the record the Labour party’s support for the boundary review in time for the next general election. I would like to start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon.

    Our current constituencies were drawn up on electorate data that is now nearly two decades old; we cannot go into the next election with constituencies based on data that will, by then, be a quarter of a century out of date. Our country and our communities look very different, and the review will take into account new electors as well as significant demographic shifts. A review is urgently needed, and the Opposition do not stand in the way of that.

    Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have worked constructively to improve it for the good of our democracy, and there have been areas of distinct improvement along the way. The size of the House of Commons has varied massively over the centuries. The largest Commons, in 1918, came in at 707 MPs—they really would have struggled with the social distancing measures we are adhering to. However, certainly in the last two centuries, we have not dropped below 615 MPs. Reducing the number of MPs while maintaining the size of the Executive was always an affront to democracy, and I welcome the Minister’s U-turn on that matter. Given our departure from the European Union and this Government’s chaotic handling of the current pandemic, it is clear that there will be plenty of work for 650 MPs.

    We supported and welcomed the amendment in Committee to use the March 2020 register for the new boundary review. It is important that we use the most accurate snapshot of our country to draw up our electoral boundaries. The inclusion of Ynys Môn as a protected constituency is something that the Labour party has long campaigned for, although I was surprised to see the Minister support it in Committee, given her party’s previous firm opposition to it.

    But then I remembered that the Tories may have an alternative motivation for suddenly recognising the island’s unique status. I welcome that recognition all the same.

    I wish to raise two remaining crucial areas of concern in the legislation. New clause 1 and amendment 1 are crucial for the betterment of the Bill and I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to support them. Amendment 1, tabled in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition, addresses the central problem at the heart of the Bill: ending parliamentary oversight will fundamentally undermine the democratic integrity of the boundary process for years to come.

    To quote a written answer to a parliamentary question tabled in the other place:

    “Prerogative business made on the advice of the Privy Council by Order in Council is not subject to parliamentary procedure and relates almost exclusively to the affairs of Chartered bodies.”

    The process is therefore not a normal procedure, and the Opposition have concerns about its use in the Bill. The process is reserved for things such as when the University of Westminster changed its name, or when the Trading Standards Institute became the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and so on. Changes of that type required Orders in Council, which raises the important question of whether this is the right procedure to use for the adoption of new parliamentary constituencies. It seems to me that the answer is clearly no.

    The new reports will be approved automatically by Order in Council, without debate or approval by either House of Parliament. The Government argue that the change will allow for the reviews to be passed “without interference or delay”, but this is quite simply not the case. As Professor Sir John Curtice said in evidence to the Bill Committee, if the Administration at the time did not like the review, it would be

    “perfectly possible for a future House of Commons”

    to say,

    “‘Actually, we should delay it’, and all they need to do is to introduce a quick piece of primary legislation to overturn it.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 94, Q176.]

    The change is a dangerous step that would by definition grant any Government unequal and undue influence over the boundary review process. A Government have the power to shape and manipulate the rules that govern the boundary review process. Although the commissions are fundamentally independent, they work to the advice and instructions given by Government; the question of a 600-seat or 650-seat Parliament is an example of how the Executive can determine the outcome of the process.

    Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)

    I have been listening intently to what the hon. Lady has been saying, and at the very beginning of her speech she lamented the fact that it has been so long since we implemented the recommendations of a boundary review. The explanatory note to amendment 1, to which she is now speaking, says that the amendment

    “aims to maintain the status quo”.

    Does what she said not prove that the status quo has not been working, hence why we have brought forward this Bill?

    Cat Smith

    Quite the opposite: I am arguing that under the status quo the only blockage to the passing of a boundary review has been the Government, and they would, under this Bill, still have the power to put up the same block as they have the past two times that a boundary review has failed to go through this House. It is worth noting that if it was not for parliamentary oversight, we would have a 600-seat Parliament today. Perhaps that is an example of parliamentary scrutiny at its best.

    John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

    My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the issue. The reason why the Government failed to put the past two boundary commission reviews to the House of Commons was that their stubbornness in sticking to 600 seats meant that they would not be carried. The fault lay with the Prime Minister rather than with the House of Commons. That is the real problem.

    Cat Smith

    My right hon. Friend made some thoughtful and interesting contributions in Committee and continues to do so on Report. The points he raised are entirely correct. The Government would do away with Parliament’s role in the process—a role that Parliament has always had. In short, the Bill removes the power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. The Government’s justification for the change simply does not stack up. The Minister says that her Government are removing Parliament from the process to prevent delay and interference from MPs, but according to Professor Sir John Curtice—and who are we to challenge him?—delay and interference by the Executive will still be “perfectly possible”.

    Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)

    I apologise for interrupting the shadow Minister’s train of thought, but she keeps repeating this “fact”, which is not a fact at all. The Bill actually takes away power from the Executive; it does not give the Executive more power, because it removes the reserve powers of Government to amend the boundaries. The hon. Lady needs to set the record straight; otherwise, she risks misinterpreting the Bill for a wider audience.

    Cat Smith

    I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am afraid that I quite simply disagree. This Bill takes power away from the whole of Parliament and hands it to the Executive. After all, they are the ones who can table primary legislation and choose to bring forward or not to bring forward the report for a vote. The power has been in their hands, which is why we are in the mess that we are in today with boundaries that are 20 years out of date, and looking to be a quarter of a century out of date by the next election if we do not make progress with this Bill.

    In her speech on Second Reading, the Minister stated that the removal of parliamentary oversight and approval would quicken the process, thereby avoiding wasting public time and money. If she is so concerned about wasting public time and money, why did she allow the commissioners to carry on with their sixth periodic review and then not bring it to Parliament for a vote?

    New clause 1, which stands in my name and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is a pragmatic and constructive amendment. I very much hope that Members will consider supporting it. It seeks to alleviate the inevitable break-up of communities resulting from the too narrow 5% quota. While the commissioners should always aim to hit electoral quota, in some particularly challenging cases this new clause would allow them to have a greater flexibility of 7.5%. This 5% variance from electoral quota was first introduced at the sixth periodic review, and it was introduced alongside reducing the number of constituencies to 600. That is important because, at 600 constituencies, a 5%

    variance is approximately 4,000 electors either side of quota, but at 650 constituencies, which is what we have before us today, a 5% variance narrows and is approximately just 3,500 electors either side of quota, making it even more difficult to keep wards whole and communities together. The 5% variance needs to be adjusted in line with the number of constituencies. When we consider that the average urban ward in England is around 8,000 electors, we can appreciate the significance of needing at least 4,000 electors either side of quota to prevent the breaking up of wards and communities.

    Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)

    A further point about the need for this 7.5% is that it would particularly help seats in Wales, where the geography of seats, including my own, covers three or four valley communities. The extra flex would allow communities to stay together, especially where the physical geography means that people cannot travel from one valley to another without going up and down the other. These sorts of changes, therefore, really do make a difference in lots of rural and ex-industrial communities that have, shall we say, not-flat land masses.

    Cat Smith

    My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the particular geography in the Welsh valleys where the mountains prevent communities being drawn across those mountain ranges when there are issues with the transport links.

    Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)

    The hon. Lady talks about keeping communities together and about breaking up wards. Why does it matter if a ward is broken up? Surely communities are created through small building blocks. By discarding this almost obsession the Boundary Commission has had with entire wards, huge changes could be avoided and communities could stay together. Will she not support the idea that smaller building blocks are the way to create better constituencies that are community based, rather than artificial communities based on entire wards?

    Cat Smith

    I would argue that the wards, which are obviously drawn by the Local Government Boundary Commission, do actually reflect communities to a great extent. If we are to go down the path of splitting wards, we will end up with the ridiculous situation, like we did at the previous review, where constituencies such as Port Talbot had a shopping centre in one constituency and the high street in another constituency. My new clause seeks to minimise the chances of such ridiculous situations occurring again. Under the current Bill, the Commission will struggle to respect the factors laid out in rule five, which, of course, Members will know, are the existing constituencies, local government boundaries, local ties and geography.

    During the evidence sessions of this Bill, the secretariat for the Boundary Commission for England spoke about the difficulties caused by this small tolerance, which makes it

    “much harder to have regard to the other factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography.”

    He said:

    “Basically, the smaller you make the tolerance, the fewer options we have…The larger you make it, the more options we have and the more flexibility…to have regard to the other factors”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]

    So while the Government keep saying the boundary commissions will listen to the views of communities in the drawing of the boundaries, some communities will literally be wasting their time putting forward those arguments if the restrictive quota will mathematically prevent the commissioners from respecting their views and the community ties.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)

    The hon. Lady raises the case of Port Talbot in a previous review. Does she not accept that this was actually one of the reasons why it should be easier for the boundary commissions to split wards, because the whole point of the Port Talbot proposals was that they have to come to those combinations because they are working with entire wards?

    Cat Smith

    I think in the case of Port Talbot it was the 5% quota that meant that that decision had to be reached. When we are talking about quotas, we know that internationally a larger quota is used and promoted as best practice for securing fair representation. Indeed, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission’s code of good practice in electoral matters recommends allowing a standard permissible tolerance of an average of plus or minus 10%.

    As the Minister knows, there is a consensus amongst respected experts such as David Rosser and Professor Charles Pattie who agree that the 5% rule causes significant disruption to community boundaries.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

    We have heard from the other side a suggestion that we should use polling districts as the building blocks, not wards, but is there not a problem with deviating from wards? Wards are agreed by an independent commission, whereas polling districts are decided based on the location of the local church hall for use as the polling station. Surely we need independent commissions that create the building blocks of wards that then form the building blocks of constituencies. The only way to do that is with the 10% or 7.5% variance.

    Cat Smith

    My hon. Friend makes an important point about the legal standing of polling districts. Wards that are drawn up by the local government boundary commission have that independence in terms of the boundaries that they represent, whereas polling districts are for administration of elections done by local councils and, as he says, can be decided basically on their proximity to a church hall.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) mentioned Wales earlier, and this restrictive quota will disproportionately impact Wales. I know that many more Welsh colleagues will express their concern about the geographical challenges that the quota will throw up in Wales. With mountains and valleys dividing communities, the task of creating constituencies that make sense to those communities becomes extremely difficult.

    I shall conclude by highlighting the fatal flaw in the Government’s arguments on the 5% quota. Throughout the Bill’s progress, the Minister has argued that a robust boundary review with a 5% quota will magically ensure that every vote carries the same weight. But the Government’s central argument turns on the ludicrous suggestion that the 5% quota will achieve parity of representation for all electors across the United Kingdom.

    On what planet does every vote count equally in this country? Leaving aside the fact that there are so-called safe seats, which effectively disenfranchise huge swathes of the population at every election, it simply is not true that every vote would count equally as a result of the Bill. At any given election, in the region of 9 million eligible voters are incorrectly registered and lose out on their chance to vote, and millions more will join them with the Government’s voter ID plan set to lock more people out of democracy simply for not having the right form of ID.

    The new boundaries will not be based on the reality of the British electorate, with millions of eligible voters missing from the register, so can the Minister stop rolling out the line that somehow a 5% quota will revolutionise our electoral system and suddenly make every vote count equally? The truth is that she knows exactly what measures will make our electoral system more equal, because 11 months ago the Electoral Commission made clear recommendations, including encouraging the introduction of automatic voter registration. The Government still have not responded to those recommendations, meaning that the electoral register to be used as the basis for these boundaries is incomplete and patchy at best. When will the Government start to prioritise democratic engagement?

    It is clear that the Government’s central argument about making every vote count falls at the first hurdle and that their secondary argument about the removal of Parliament’s role preventing delays to the process just does not hold water. As Professor Sir John Curtice pointed out, the Government can easily delay the process. The Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s attempt to end parliamentary approval for new constituency boundaries, and we ask that Members think hard and long about the impact of removing Parliament from the process. In its current form, this Bill is an insult to the House.

  • Alex Chisholm – 2020 Speech on the Civil Service

    Alex Chisholm – 2020 Speech on the Civil Service

    The text of the speech made by Alex Chisholm, the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office, on 14 July 2020.

    Hello, I’m Alex and it’s great that so many of you are here.

    With over 39,000 registered, if we were together in person we would need one of the larger football stadiums in the country – and I would be hearing not the echo of my own voice against the muted silence of an online audience, but the buzz of a vast crowd.

    I like to think that so many of you have registered to take part today because you think this is a special moment for all of us who serve the public.

    Because, like me, you have seen during the pandemic how much our fellow citizens have needed in support from all of us in public service.

    I am so pleased there are so many of you here, because it means that, like Sir Mark, I can thank you all, from the bottom of my heart, for what you do every day; and invite you to explore with me, ways we can do even better.

    It also means that in front of all of you, I can say on the record to Mark, from all of us: Thank you for your service, you have been a brilliant and brave leader, we salute you!

    Our work has never mattered more. In the Civil Service we work every day to improve the lives of people in this country.

    That has always been true but never more clearly or more importantly than during this crisis, where our collective actions have been essential to saving lives and livelihoods.

    The media talk about ‘the government’, as if there is some impersonal institution or machine – or Leviathan – that has all this control and influence in our lives.

    But we who work in government know it as a collection of individuals and teams – friends, colleagues, characters.

    And it is teams of civil servants who have helped perform the brilliant feats of the last 4 months as we have struggled with the virus:

    shielding over 2 million vulnerable people
    protecting millions of jobs in the furlough scheme
    preserving businesses and communities across the country with vital grants
    distributing thousands of laptops to help schools deliver online education, and
    dispensing benefits to help the many who badly needed financial help.

    All of this has required extraordinary ingenuity and effort from an army of civil servants, from you – working your socks off.

    To give examples from just two departments:

    In that first, strange, period of lockdown, 35,000 DWP staff managed to process over 1.8 million Universal Credit claims – six times the previous number.

    And HMRC colleagues, in just four weeks, and largely from their spare rooms, designed, built, tested and launched the Job Retention Scheme; even while staging webinars for 40,000 worried taxpayers.

    And you have done all of this while living through the same pandemic as everybody else – threatened and in some cases infected by the virus, coping with lockdown, caring for loved ones.

    As I have talked with colleagues across the Service – people working in benefits offices, in the prison service, collecting tax, procuring equipment, advising ministers, running digital services – what I have heard, more than anything, is a mix of pride and wonder.

    Pride in what we have been able to do, to help manage the toughest public health crisis and the biggest economic shock we have faced in decades.

    But also wonder that we have been able to do this so quickly, and so inventively.

    We have built new hospitals in weeks, set up digital services for the vulnerable in days, established new grant schemes in hours, and learnt to process Universal Credit claims in minutes.

    This must give us all great hope – confidence even – that we can rise to the challenge that lies before us.

    And let’s face it: it is some challenge.

    I remember the moment – twenty long months ago – when Mark as Cabinet Secretary addressed all of us Permanent Secretaries at the height of the Brexit frenzy, and told us solemnly that we all needed to make No Deal planning our Main Effort.

    And I remember how in March this year, as the full horror of the Coronavirus pandemic hit us, Mark again had to bring us together, and tell us that responding to this unprecedented threat must now be, for every department, the Main Effort.

    It is sobering to reflect that, even with all the progress we have made, we are still contending with the challenge of EU Exit, and with the response to Covid–19; and we cannot have two Main Efforts.

    Sobering also to reflect that the Manifesto on which the Government was elected included over 400 commitments, some of which – such as Levelling Up – require a reversal of trends that have run for decades, and others – such as Net Zero – a profound change in our systems for power, heating, transport, housing and food.

    Much is needed from the Civil Service to deliver these mighty objectives.

    We shall have to blend all we’ve learned about teamwork from our can-do Covid response with what the Prime Minister calls the ‘psychic energy’ that has hummed through the nation over the last few months, and bottle it with the indefatigable zest of Captain Tom, who at the age of 100 has raised so many millions for charity by yomping round his garden.

    And to that formula add another refreshing ingredient for the Civil Service: a newly ‘have-a-go’ attitude to trying new stuff, without the fear of failure holding us back.

    Inventiveness and bold experimentation were championed by Michael Gove, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in his recent speech at the Ditchley Foundation which highlighted key themes in Civil Service reform. It is, he said, ‘common sense to take a method and try it’ – and if it fails, ‘admit it frankly and try another’.

    It’s an idea that has found its time in the era of coronavirus, when the complexity and urgency of the response, and the need for sophisticated modeling and real-time data, has made a powerful case for more experimentation and innovation, and increased awareness of the value of data and of science.

    And it adds renewed weight to our need to tackle the other, frustrating, side of the Civil Service – where we get bogged down in costly, inefficient processes, and teams on the ground see problems only too clearly, but their proposed solutions go nowhere.

    The speed at which we had to scramble a response has underlined the merits of breaking down any barriers that stop us working together, of embracing new technology and of making sure all our people have had the necessary training and support to do the best possible job – even when having to operate ‘at the edge of deliverability’, as one of my most hard-pressed PermSec colleagues put it last week.

    Michael Gove and I are going to be talking about this at CS Live! tomorrow at 11.30am, when you have the chance to put questions to the two of us. He has invited us to help renew and even reinvent a Civil Service that can meet the expectations of our fellow citizens for brilliant public services.

    I’d like us to accept that challenge, and want you to join with me and thousands of other civil servants who have already begun to engage with the next chapter in Civil Service reform – a chapter whose title you have yourselves already chosen in the registration process for this event, when you voted overwhelmingly for ‘Shaping Our Future’ .

    The change agenda – what does modernising the Civil Service mean?

    With Michael tomorrow, and in other sessions here, we’ll be challenging ourselves at every stage: about the best and most effective ways to strengthen our structure and culture and method, so that we are ready and able for the challenges we face today.

    I would draw out three key areas to ask you to focus on: innovation; data; and barriers to joint working. Recognising these in turn bring into play key issues of skills and training, IT systems, office locations – in sum, what our 21st century workplace should look and feel like.

    Do we have the people with the knowledge and skills to do their jobs well? Do we all value sufficiently the time and effort it takes to learn and practice new skills?

    Does the Civil Service truly reflect the people we serve? And make the most of all the talents available?

    How can we overcome the frustrations of antiquated IT systems, and do a better job of sharing data?

    Can we relearn how to set up major programmes, so that they reliably deliver on time and on budget and achieve

    Big issues, which flow into countless smaller ones: why can’t one Civil Service pass get you into any building? Why do we operate with incompatible video conferencing systems? Why is it sometimes easier to join as a new recruit from outside, than to transfer between two different departments?

    This Civil Service reform programme must make colleagues feel their efforts are valued, their successes rewarded, their ambitions fulfilled.

    We are focusing on People and Place, and whether you have what you need to do your jobs.

    Because in so many ways, what’s good for civil servants is also good for the country.

    Like our commitment to becoming less London-centric – so that you can make progress even if you’re not wanting to be based in the South-East. This means more jobs becoming available in the regions; and our people being more closely rooted in local needs – social, economic, health-related – when they make decisions.

    With better defined paths to promotion and recognition, colleagues will no longer feel they must switch roles to secure a promotion and higher pay, instead building the deep knowledge and expertise that helps drive continuous improvement.

    And with redoubled awareness of our need to provide a fully diverse and inclusive working environment – where everybody can give of their best – we can be sure every government policy and action reflects the full range and diversity of thought, from people of every social, educational, and ethnic background.

    As the Civil Service Diversity and Inclusion champion, I recognise that there is much good work happening to create the fully open, welcoming and supportive work environment we want – as expressed in our core HR policies and practices, in the inspiring work of our staff networks, in a thousand daily actions to support colleagues and lend a hand, or make a stand.

    But there is also evidence of continuing prejudice, unacknowledged biases, and unequal opportunities. So we have much work to do, and must go faster and further to create a Great Place to Work for everyone.

    And by place, I mean not just your physical location. I also mean your place in your organisation, and on the career ladder.

    And whether you’re in a good place mentally. Are you feeling stressed – or well supported? Overwhelmed – or suitably stretched? Unfocused – or purposeful? Daunted by the challenges we face – or excited?

    My wish is that you feel stretched and excited by your work, well supported by colleagues, pleased to be part of something bigger than any of us – our mission of public service.

    Conclusion

    Thank you for listening to me. In a moment there will be a chance for you to ask some questions of me. Before that I would like to ask something of all of you.

    Please take the chance to reflect. Here today at CS Live! And when you are back to daily work. Think about where you are now, and where you’d like to be. Think about where we are now, and where you’d like us to be. Think what you might do to help build an even better Civil Service.

    Perhaps start talking to your manager or your team about doing things differently. Ask colleagues from other teams and agencies what works well for them. Get the ideas flowing – and importantly, please share them with us. We would love to hear from you.

    Let me end on a personal note. Many years ago – ok, decades ago – when I was starting out in the world of work, I met an inspiring leader. He had great responsibilities but was modest with it. His job, he said simply, was to help other people be successful. I remember that dictum so well and so often it has become like a part of me.

    It is what I said to myself when I applied to do the job I do now. And now that I have that job, it is what I offer to you: my promise to work for you, to help you be successful, to help us deliver for the public, to help us be truly A Brilliant Civil Service.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Appointment of Chris Grayling to Intelligence Committee

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Appointment of Chris Grayling to Intelligence Committee

    Below is the text of the comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 10 July 2020.

    The decision by the Prime Minister to nominate Chris Grayling as Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee is truly astonishing. This is an appointment to a vital national security role at a critical time.

    It beggars belief that the apparently strongest Conservative candidate has overseen disasters such as the botched privatisation of probation services, a ferry agreement with a firm with no ferries, and the mishandling of the East Coast rail franchise.

    Yet again this is an example of the Prime Minister seeking to work in his own interest, rather than the national interest. The work of the ISC is vital and the country will accept no further delays in the publication the long-awaited Russia report.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Publishing Report into Priti Patel

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Comments on Publishing Report into Priti Patel

    Below is the text of the comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 11 July 2020.

    It has been over four months since the Government promised a report into whether the Home Secretary broke the Ministerial Code. There are now allegations of deeply inappropriate political interference in the publication of the report, both in terms of content and timing. The delay in producing it is totally unacceptable.

    Yet again the Government is acting in the interests of a Conservative Party elite, rather than the national interest. I’ve written to the Minister for the Cabinet Office calling for the report be published immediately, so that it can be properly considered before the recess.