UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Nick Thomas-Symonds
Wednesday 17th December 2025

(2 days, 16 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.

Andrew Murrison Portrait Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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 Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.

Andrew Murrison Portrait Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
- Hansard - -

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 Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.