Lord Mandelson

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hope the House takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech, let alone in the course of the debate. I think that scrutiny of the process is very important.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Let me make some progress, and I might come back to interventions.

The Government have tabled amendment (a), so that documents are published unless they prejudice national security or international relations—I know I was asked a specific question about international relations—because of course such documents might contain information about our relationship with our international allies and how we have approached them. It is obviously important for Governments to keep that information confidential, because it is in the national interest. I am also very conscious of another issue: I am definitely not seeking to hide behind the cloak of the Met police investigation, but of course we will also have to bear in mind the fact that documents might prejudice that investigation. That is something that we will continue to speak to the Met about.

We will of course do all we can to comply with the motion, as amended, and we will update the House accordingly. I also want to say to the House that, while the process of going through a significant number of documents might take a little time, it is important that the Government start the disclosure process—to the extent we can—today. That is what the Government will do in response to the debate and to the very reasonable questions that are being asked.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am someone who rewards effort, so as the right hon. Gentleman has put in such effort, I will give way.

[Dr Murrison]

May I return the compliment by telling the Minister how much I admire his ability and generosity in giving way? I think he is doing an exceptional job.

I understand where the Minister is coming from in relation to Government amendment (a). Perhaps I can describe an example of something that he may wish to see passed through the ISC that cannot be made publicly available—that is, which of our foreign allies had something to say about the appointment of Peter Mandelson to Washington. I appreciate that the Minister is never going to say precisely who that ally might be, but the nature of that correspondence is surely a matter of public interest, and therefore is of interest to this House, but it is not something that can be bruited abroad. The ISC provides the very obvious solution to discovering what representations were made, and what material was passed between our allies and the Cabinet Office, before this appointment was made. Can the Minister make that commitment?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done.

I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect.

Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, indeed. There are fees on businesses today—£200 per consignment on export health certificates, £1,400 if a business is selected for sampling, £61 for identity checks—all of which can be swept away when the SPS agreement is implemented. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), the objective is to implement that in the first half of 2027.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The intentions behind the Erasmus scheme are unobjectionable, but £570 million is an awful lot of money, so I am very pleased that there will be a review after 10 months. Will that review include an assessment of the scheme against what happened in the past, which was essentially to provide a benefit for predominantly middle-class humanities university students, and will he ensure that the opportunity costs to further education, which is tasked with upskilling our young people from a different demographic, are adequately taken into account?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First, to give the right hon. Member some reassurance on further education—by the way, I agree with the point that this has to be open to people from all backgrounds, and I think the Erasmus+ scheme of today is very different from how it was even 10 years ago—the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, which represents our FE sector, has today called this “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges. I hope that gives him the reassurance that this is not simply about universities, hugely important though our university sector is.

Secondly, on the right hon. Member’s point about the review, it will absolutely be data-led. We have had this debate before about participation versus contribution, and I have always said there has to be a fair balance—that is why I have negotiated the discount in the way I have—but the review will allow us to move forward on the basis of solid data about the numbers of participants. I am always in favour of data-led decision making.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Nick Thomas-Symonds

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As we look to the other reforms, from the retirement age to participation, the Government will look to build wide support on the way forward—support that, frankly, has not been found in previous attempts at reform. At its heart is the principle that people are placed in the House of Lords to serve the public, and I look forward to debating those wider reforms with Conservative Members, but not in this Bill.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister recognise that a recent survey of Church of England clergy showed the need to reform the participation of Church of England bishops in our legislature? Will he reflect on that, and on the fact that it looks like we are in danger of having bishops who, instead of focusing their efforts on the cure of souls, are more like mitred politicians? That cannot be good for any of us. Finally, we are talking about the Church of England in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is correct about expanding the clergy’s membership to include other denominations, or removing them entirely if that proves impossible, for reasons that are pretty clear.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Church has recognised the need for reform, particularly in terms of size, and today’s debate is further evidence of why it is sensible to reform in stages.