Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Nick Thomas-Symonds ExcerptsTuesday 17th March 2026
(5 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 View all Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to open the debate on this short Bill that has a straightforward, singular aim. It seeks to amend the statutory limits on the number of ministerial salaries available, currently capped at 109, to 120. That reflects the average size of Government since 2010 and largely ends the practice of unpaid Ministers. It will ensure that the Prime Minister of the day has the flexibility needed to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern government.
It may be helpful to explain the context of the Bill before us. Under the constitution, the monarch appoints the Prime Minister as the person most able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. All ministerial appointments thereafter are made by the monarch on the sole advice of the Prime Minister. There is a statutory limit on how many ministerial salaries are available, as set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The current limit of 109 salaries has not been changed since then. There is a separate statutory limit on the number of Ministers who can sit and vote in the House of Commons, whether paid or unpaid, under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This limit is 95, and the Bill before us does not change that. There is no equivalent limit on the number of peers able to serve as Ministers.
The Ministerial and other Salaries Act also sets out the salaries that should be paid to eight other officeholders: the Speakers of both Houses, the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the House of Commons. The Bill does not seek to amend the number of salaries allocated to those roles. Within that limit of 109, 83 salaries can be allocated at Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary ranks; a further four salaries are allocated to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Advocate General for Scotland; and 22 salaries are allocated to Government Whips.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given the economic situation, the public expect restraint at the moment. They also expect leadership—and that means ministerial leadership. Does the Paymaster General seriously believe that the public will welcome this? The explanatory notes tell us that it will involve a payroll hike of between 13% and 19% for that group of people, plus superannuation and severance payments, which is not an insignificant sum. Has he considered perhaps reducing, rather than increasing, the number of Ministers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am genuinely surprised by that intervention, because when I was taking the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill through the House, the fact that Ministers in the Lords are unpaid was raised not only by Conservative Front Benchers in this House, but by the Conservative leader in the Lords. The right hon. Gentleman is very much out of step with his own Front Benchers. On the substance of his point, I give the reassurance that the freeze on ministerial salaries absolutely remains. This is not about the level of salary for individuals; it is about the number of salaries available for the Prime Minister to allocate.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I may be at risk of making myself fantastically unpopular, but I think I can do so having no prospect whatsoever of reaching ministerial office again. Although I am perfectly willing to admit that the previous Government did not do this, does the Paymaster General agree that a Government will at some point have to reconsider the constant freezing of the ministerial salary? It has to increase, or we will get to the point of there being no meaningful reward for ministerial office, which I think could have a detrimental impact on the calibre of people we can attract over the long term. He is being very bold on this, so why not be bold with ministerial salaries?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind the House that what we are discussing—and what is in scope—is the number of ministerial appointments, not the salaries of Ministers.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If ever Ministers were looking for a trade union leader, we have found one in the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). Having already held very high office and been Deputy Prime Minister, he should perhaps worry less about future ambitions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The freeze remains in place.
The 1975 Act sets cumulative limits on the salaries allocated to Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. Within the overall limit of 83, the cumulative limits are 21 Secretary of State rank salaries; 50 Secretary of State and Minister of State rank salaries; and 83 Secretary of State, Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary rank salaries. The salary limits were set in 1975, which is over half a century ago. As a result of the demands of modern government, all Governments since 2010 have consistently featured larger ministerial teams than the existing Act’s provisions permit to be paid. Team numbers ranged from an average of 118 in the Cameron and May Governments to 123 in the Sunak Government. There are 122 personnel in the current Government.
That has led to an unsatisfactory position in which Governments of all parties have become dependent on Ministers being willing and able to work unpaid. To be fair, historically that has predominantly fallen on Ministers in the other place. I do not think that is right. Lords Ministers work incredibly hard, and they often manage some of the broadest and most demanding portfolios across Government. I am sure that the whole House can support the notion that Ministers should be paid for what they do. This is a Government of service. We have more state-educated Cabinet Ministers than ever before, and it is right for Ministers to be paid for the job they do, and to focus on that job rather than relying on external funding.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his typical courtesy. I am sure that there will be wide agreement with his proposition that someone who is doing a ministerial job ought to be paid for it, and such jobs should not be reserved for the people who can afford not to be paid. However, on the principle that a bigger Government is not necessarily a better Government, can he guarantee that if there is an increase in the number of paid ministerial posts, there will not be a commensurate increase in the number of unpaid ministerial posts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the number 120 is not an objective for the Government to become bigger; it is the average size of the Governments we have had since 2010 in any event. We are not trying to expand the number of unpaid Ministers—far from it. We are trying to ensure that all Ministers in the Government are paid rather than expanding the number, which he quite rightly draws attention to.
To summarise, the Bill increases the cap on ministerial salaries from 109 to 120. All additional salaries will be allocated at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The salaries operate cumulatively, which means that salaries not allocated at a senior rank can be used to pay a Minister at a more junior rank within the limits. The Bill will therefore make provision for: one additional salary at Secretary of State rank, increasing the limit to 22; four additional salaries at either Secretary of State or Minister of State rank, increasing the overall limit from 50 to 54; and 11 additional salaries at either Secretary of State, Minister of State or Parliamentary Secretary rank, increasing the overall limit from 83 to 94.
Given that cumulative structure, if the Prime Minister of the day chose to allocate the salaries to the most senior Minister possible, that would result in one extra salary for a Secretary of State, three for Ministers of State and seven for Parliamentary Secretaries. The limits on the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Advocate General for Scotland and Government Whips salaries will remain unchanged. The limits on the other office-holder salaries will also remain unchanged.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am sorry to come in again. One of the things that I have never quite understood, given that the workload is broadly the same, is why there is a differential in salary between the different levels of Minister—particularly in the Lords, where their jobs are effectively the same. Why are some Ministers of State or Under-Secretaries paid a different amount? After all, whatever our seniority, we are all paid exactly the same as Members of this House. Why would they not all be paid the same?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If we go back to the debates from 1975, we will see some of the reasons why that is the case. We have always differentiated not just in the ranks but in salaries. That is also how we have done it historically for Law Officers. It does not necessarily mean that there is a logic behind it, but it is the historical system we have inherited. The Bill is meant to correct just one of the anomalies. That is not to say that there are not others, as the right hon. Gentleman sets out.
The increase to 120 salaries reflects the average number of Ministers since 2010, as set out in clause 1. Set against the existing limit of 95 Ministers who can be Members of this place under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, 25 salaries will effectively be reserved for Lords Ministers. As I indicated when responding to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, the Bill does not increase the pay of individual Ministers—I take a different view from him on that. With the exception of Lords pay in 2019, the salaries of Ministers have not increased since 2008 and the Prime Minister maintained the salary freeze upon entering office. The Bill does not change that position.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The Minister has made frequent reference to the figure of 120 Ministers. Further to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), why not legislate to make that a fixed cap on the number of Ministers? In my experience of advising many Ministers and being involved in many reshuffles, there is always an enormous temptation just to squeeze one more in, and then another. So although there may be a cap of 120 Ministers, there could be some new brief and, before we know it, we will have 125 Ministers in total, with 120 salaried and five unpaid, and we will be back where we started. If the Minister wishes to gain the consent of the House of Commons for increasing the number of salaried posts—and he makes a convincing argument for doing so—why not guard against that risk by introducing an absolute cap on the number of Ministers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can reassure the former Deputy Prime Minister that that is absolutely not the objective of the Bill. He will have been involved in more reshuffles than me over the many years that he was either in No. 10 or subsequently as a Minister, but the objective is that we do not have the situation where there are unpaid Minister. That is the very clear objective of the Bill. The purpose of the legislation is that the Prime Minister has the flexibility to appoint enough paid Ministers to meet the demands of modern Government.
There is general acceptance, which I agree with, that anyone in the country should aspire to be a Minister, no matter their background, without having to rely on personal wealth in lieu of a salary. On that basis, I hope that this short piece of legislation will command the support of Members across the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(5 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, as I open the proceedings in the Committee of the whole House. I set out the core arguments for this Bill in my Second Reading speech, so I will not rehearse them again, although I have not matched the Teddy Taylor standard from 1975. However, for the benefit of the Committee, I will outline the two clauses and why they should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 amends paragraph 2 of part V of schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which determines the maximum number of salaries that may be paid to certain ministerial office holders. Sub-paragraph (a) replaces the previous provision for 21 salaries at Secretary of State rank with a new provision for 22 salaries, sub-paragraph (b) replaces the previous provision for 50 salaries at Secretary of State rank and Minister of State rank with a new provision for 54 salaries, and sub-paragraph (c) replaces the previous provision for 83 salaries at Secretary of State rank, Minister of State rank and Parliamentary Secretary rank with a new provision of 94 salaries. This increases the total number of ministerial salaries available by 11. As I have said, the new limits are cumulative, meaning that the Prime Minister has the discretion to allocate salaries to a large number of Ministers at more junior ranks within those limits, if so desired.
Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the Bill comes into force on Royal Assent. I very much look forward to the rest of the debate and seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will try to be brief on those two questions. It was the usual precise contribution, as ever, from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. First, why those totals? Because they reflect the average practice since 2010. Perhaps to reassure the hon. Gentleman, we are trying to look at the existing practice rather than looking at additional totals in the future. Secondly, on whether we are ending the practice of having unpaid Ministers, which has largely been ended, that is exactly the intention of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will keep my remarks brief. I just want to thank Members across the House for their contributions to the debate. I am sure there are issues of House of Lords reform that are far wider than this Bill, and that we will continue the debate on that in due course. If I may say a word to the officials and the team who put the Bill together, Members across the House are grateful for their work. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I should start by referring to my entries in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests about my books and to my background as a historian. I thank my hon. Friend for such an excellent opening question. He will be pleased to hear that the Government are to consider the resumption of the Official History Programme, which I know is of particular interest to him. Indeed, work is continuing on two previously commissioned studies: one on the history of the Joint Intelligence Committee and one on the history of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
Laurence Turner
I draw the House’s attention to my vice-chairship of the all-party parliamentary group for archives and history. I strongly welcome the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made to the House. For more than 100 years, the Official History Programme provided valuable insight on matters such as war, peace and social policy. The Pilling review concluded that it should continue, so it is a welcome update that new works will be commissioned. Will the House be further updated on progress on the commissioning of those new works?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, absolutely. Historical perspective improves the work of Government—100%. The programme began in 1908. It was concentrated then on naval and military matters. It was expanded by Harold Wilson in 1966 to look at peacetime matters as well. I certainly will update the House on the commissioning of new works.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When we go to get tickets on a Wednesday for PMQs, we see the story of the suffragette movement on the walls. What assessment has the Minister made of the importance of teaching the women’s suffrage movement as a compulsory component of the Official History Programme, particularly given its role in advancing democratic participation and strengthening pupils’ understanding of civic rights and responsibilities, such as voting?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of teaching the campaign for women’s suffrage. I should also update him, seeing as he has asked the question, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is overseeing a significant history project akin to the Official History Programme covering the period of the troubles.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Since leaving the European Union, it has never been more important to work alongside the EU in the global context that we face. It is in our country’s interest to have a stronger trading and security relationship. Our new strategic partnership with the EU is good for bills, good for jobs and good for borders. We continue our negotiations ahead of the next summit.
Dr Sandher
Reform Members promised us that torching our relationship with Europe would make us richer and stronger. They were wrong on both counts. Higher import barriers have driven up costs by £200, and a continent with wider divisions makes us weaker. How the Government will show the courage needed to build our relationship with Europe, make us stronger and make life here more affordable?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are building a stronger relationship every week to improve our economic operation and drive growth in this country. The EU is our biggest market, and the deals that we are negotiating on emissions, energy trading and food and agriculture trade will reduce costs for businesses and offer better prices and more choice to consumers.
Mr Charters
As my constituents head off to beaches in Benidorm, open-top buses in Barça and city breaks in Copenhagen over Easter, they will be sending holiday snaps and making calls home to their families. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on cutting roaming charges for UK travellers, which came back to bite Brits thanks to the Tories’ botched Brexit?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Those trips sound wonderful, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, which impacts many families travelling to Europe. The Government work to strengthen the UK’s relationship with the EU on a number of fronts, and I will ensure that that issue is considered as well.
Steve Race
I welcome the Government’s changed approach to our vital relationship with the EU. As a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I know how much it has been welcomed by our partners in Europe, as well as by my residents in Exeter. Ahead of the next session of the PPA later in March, will the Minister set out the agenda for deepening co-operation and trust beyond the agenda agreed at last May’s EU-UK summit?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
At this year’s summit, the EU and the UK agreed commitments over a wide range of areas, from trade and youth opportunities to security and defence co-operation. We are making good progress on all those areas, but as my hon. Friend says, there is now a forward programme. This Government will not be restricted by ideology. We take a ruthlessly pragmatic approach across different sectors to what is in our national economic interest.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
After at least 15 major U-turns, it is helpful to check which promises the Government still intend to keep. On 22 July 2024, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he could promise that he would not accept the automatic application of EU rules unless they had been specifically approved by this Parliament, he answered simply, “Yes.” Can the Minister say that it is still the Government’s position that we will not be required to adopt new European Union legislation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Of course there will still be a role for Parliament in the mechanism, as set out in last May’s common understanding. The Conservatives have to own the choice they are making here. Through our food and drink agreement, we will take away costs from businesses, take away red tape and have a downward pressure on food prices. The Conservatives will want at the next election to put that red tape back and put those costs up. That is their choice, and I welcome the debate with them.
Mike Wood
The Minister knows very well that the choice was that of the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. His party promised to respect the result of that referendum but is instead seeking to row back on it. Members of the House and the wider public will have heard that the Minister clearly did not rule out the UK having to adopt new European Union legislation. The Minister will know from his time as shadow International Trade Secretary that we would never accept a trade agreement where the arbiter is an institution on one side, so can he at least rule out having the European Court of Justice as a body adjudicating in any disputes that follow from his reset?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The shadow Minister has not read the common understanding and the mechanism that is set out. There is an independent arbitration panel, with the role of the European Court of Justice restricted to the interpretation of EU law but not binding on the overall decision of the panel. He ought to read the detail in the agreement. We were talking about history earlier. My best piece of advice to him is to do his research before he asks his questions.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Cabinet Office provided support to the Department for Work and Pensions on this matter, including by sharing the lessons learned from the recent transition of the civil service pension scheme, which hon. Members were discussing a moment or two ago.
Lorraine Beavers
Last week, I heard that the Government have made Capita the preferred bidder for a £700 million contract for shared services across Departments. Are they having a laugh? Given Capita’s appalling performance in administrating the civil service pension scheme, which has affected hundreds of my constituents, will the Minister urgently review the procurement process for this contract? Will he commit to bringing this work back in-house to ensure that Capita does not mess this contract up as well?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has sought and received specific assurances from Capita regarding the Synergy contract. Members across the House should be in no doubt about this Government’s desire to hold Capita robustly to account for its responsibilities under its contracts.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On the recovery plan, the Government have ensured that hardship loans are in place. The Government are monitoring Capita and holding it to account on the recovery plan. The priority is to stabilise the service; there will then be a commercial discussion on cost.
Susan Murray
On 23 February, the Cabinet Office confirmed that hardship loans would not be available to dependants or surviving spouses of civil service pension scheme members. That left one of my constituents alone, with two children and just one income after sadly losing their partner. Can the Minister explain how much it would have cost to provide support to dependants? Can he tell me how many people have been left without support as a result of this decision?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would be grateful if the hon. Member wrote to me about that worrying case; I am more than happy to look in to it. The objective is, first, to try to ensure that people are not left without support, but I should also tell the House that the Cabinet Office has already withheld moneys from Capita for not meeting milestones, and our contractual rights are reserved in respect of Capita and the previous provider, MyCSP.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Both contracts that the hon. Gentleman refers to were negotiated by the previous Government; he might want to reflect on that. In both those contracts, we are reserving our contractual rights. The Cabinet Office has already withheld payments from Capita for not meeting particular milestones, so the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will use every lever in these contracts to enforce them.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have agreed an ambitious security and defence partnership with the EU. We are negotiating a deal on carbon emissions trading. We are in exploratory talks about an electricity agreement. All those things assist with our economic and energy security, and the Conservative party is opposed to them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There is a robust recovery plan in place. On the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises, if he could please ask his staff to escalate it up to me, I will look at it.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Given the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, will the Paymaster General update the House? Over £140 million has been spent by the inquiry. Has he had any conversations with Sir Brian Langstaff on when will be the right time to close down that inquiry, and whether he has wider lessons about the way that public inquiries function?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I again pay tribute to him for his work, over some time, on this matter. He is right to highlight the significant progress that has been made on the speed of payments. He also highlights a really important point about how we will learn lessons. It is really important to learn lessons about public inquiries, their length, and providing value for money going forward.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
We are looking forward to welcoming the Paymaster General at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood in the near future. He knows my constituent Mary Grindley, who has been a prominent campaigner. She lost her husband, and since then has campaigned for over half her life for compensation. She has recently been in touch with me to say that those making claims for the loss of loved ones are concerned about the lack of speed with which payments are being made. Will he update the House in future, if not now, on progress in paying those who were affected, rather than infected?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The milestones that were set out for paying infected people were met by the end of 2025. The first payment to an affected person was also on time, and was made before the end of last year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are now moving into a new phase of paying affected people, which will clearly be a larger number. I will, of course, happily write to him with the precise figures on that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
In the light of the arrest of three individuals yesterday for Chinese espionage, can the Minister confirm that security vetting for all special advisers is up to date?
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Earlier this week, those of us on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee took evidence from the Cabinet Office on the significant issues with the administration of the civil service pension scheme—issues that are plaguing many of our constituents. It was quite clear that poor contract management played a role, particularly in building up a significant backlog of cases ahead of the problematic transfer to Capita. What steps are being taken in the Cabinet Office to improve the management of contracts with private suppliers, so that this does not happen again?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to PACAC for the work they are doing on this. As I indicated, our first priority is to deal with the immediate situation through hardship loans, and then through a robust recovery plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that management of these contracts and robust enforcement of contractual terms will be vital going forward.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
A few moments ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated to me that the appointment of the head of the propriety and ethics team was done by an external recruitment process. Will he tell me how many other people were interviewed?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
There are still serious questions to answer on the administration of the civil service pension scheme. When my constituent Campell tragically died in April last year, his wife, Gaynor, waited months to receive the death in service payment; in December, they found out that MyCSP had paid it into the wrong bank account. I have written to the Minister about this case. Will he intervene to ensure that Capita pay Gaynor without further delay?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am happy to look into the individual case, but I repeat that the Government reserve their right under both of these contracts, whether it is the existing Capita contract or MyCSP’s previous responsibilities, to take these matters up.
Alex Burghart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?
Lord Mandelson
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move amendment (a), at the end to add
“except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations.”
Members will be aware that the Government came to the House on Monday for an update following the release of 3 million pages of documents by the United States Department of Justice regarding Jeffrey Epstein. As the Government said on Monday, and as I reiterate now, Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted paedophile and a despicable individual who revelled in abusing the vulnerable and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will complete my introductory remarks, and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
What Jeffrey Epstein did was unforgivable, and every time his crimes are in the public eye, victims must relive their trauma. His victims are at the forefront of my mind, as I am sure they are for all right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. The Prime Minister has said that anyone with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims get the justice that they have been denied for so long. As for Peter Mandelson, his decision to maintain a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, is not just wrong, it is abhorrent.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am curious. Earlier we heard the Prime Minister state that he knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Did the Minister also know, and if so, did he express any concerns to the Prime Minister at that time about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the second point, I played no personal role in the appointment process, but as the Prime Minister said, the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship was not known at the time of his appointment. As soon as that came to light, the Prime Minister acted decisively and sacked Peter Mandelson.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Given the public disgust, the sickening behaviour of Peter Mandelson, and the importance of transparency, in 2022 I proposed a Humble Address, seeking information about personal protective equipment, which the Conservative party resisted—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) mentioned that earlier. Should the ISC not have the same role now, keeping public confidence in the process?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me pick up this point, which I know a number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised. In the first instance, the process will be conducted and led by the Cabinet Secretary, with unimpeachable integrity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) shouts “cover-up” about the Cabinet Secretary, and he really should consider that remark, I think. Secondly, this will be conducted by Cabinet Office lawyers.
The House is asking, fairly, a broader question about scrutiny, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and there is a role, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said, for Select Committees in how they scrutinise this, as well as existing powers for the ISC in terms of scrutinising this—[Interruption.] I am hearing what the House is saying, and I will take that point away.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will take one more intervention, and then I have to make some progress.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
It is disappointing that neither the Opposition nor the Government have referenced the important role that the ISC could have here. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee—I have spoken to its Chair, the Lord Beamish, and we heard earlier from its deputy Chair—we feel that the Committee should be involved to help this process on behalf of Parliament, and I urge my right hon. Friend to speak to No.10 to ensure we get that, and that it happens quickly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I think I have already said, I will take the point away. My hon. Friend knows from our personal details on a different matter my respect for the Intelligence and Security Committee and its work.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the former Deputy Prime Minister, then I have to make some progress.
Sir Oliver Dowden
The point here is not about impugning the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary; the point is about confidence in this House. The temperature in the House seems to be that most people feel that involving the ISC will give both this House and, more importantly, the public confidence in the process. It sounds as if the Minister is sympathetic to that point, so will he confirm that he is sympathetic to it, and that he will be making the case to Downing Street for that tweak?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I was not accusing the hon. Member for South Suffolk of impugning the Cabinet Secretary; my point was that the process is official-led and decided on by Cabinet Office lawyers. On the broader point that the House is making, I can do no more than say I hear what Members are saying, and I will take that point away.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way once more to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but I must make some progress.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the Minister—he knows that the House knows that he is an honourable gentleman in every sense of that term. The mood of the House is clear, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has set out, as have others, the role of the ISC, and the expectation that it discharges these serious and sensitive matters on behalf of the House, and that the Government have confidence. During the course of the debate may I invite him to go back to No.10, take advice, and not press his amendment this afternoon? I think that would reflect the will of the House and allow people to start moving these issues forward. To press the amendment today would, I suggest, be a retrograde step for the Government and their reputation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As I said to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), I will take the first point away. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the importance of the amendment, which I will come back to in moment. There are really important public policy issues that I want to deal with in that respect.
Let me return to the thrust of my speech.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way in a moment.
Let us be clear: no Government Minister of any political party should have behaved in the way that Peter Mandelson did, and it was absolutely disgraceful. The alleged leaking of crucial documents to help millionaires to profit in the middle of the global crash and lying to contemporaries, the Prime Minister and the public are both shameful and shameless.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me finish this point; I will take some more interventions in a moment.
Peter Mandelson will now account for his actions and conduct. That is why the Cabinet Office has referred this matter to the police. The Metropolitan police has released a statement confirming that it has
“received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office including a referral from the UK Government.”
The statement also confirmed that the Metropolitan police has started a criminal investigation in relation to potential misconduct in public office offences and that it will
“continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won’t be commenting any further at this time.”
The House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on that particular development.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are getting very carried away with the way in which the work of the Metropolitan police is being thrown around. I am meant to have been contacted, but neither I nor the House has been contacted. The House will understand that I am not responsible for the ministerial answers—let me put that on the record and see if we can tidy this up a little.
For the avoidance of doubt, I understand that there is an ongoing police investigation into this case. However, no charges have been brought. The House sub judice resolution does not apply. In that context, it is up to the Ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. Please do not hide behind the possibility that something is not factual—let us get this on the record. I have still not had a phone call on this matter.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hear precisely what you say, Mr Speaker, and I entirely accept that interpretation of the sub judice rule. I am certainly not hiding behind that; indeed, I will come on to some remarks about this issue in a moment.
Mr Speaker
Order. Maybe I can help a little. I think the answer was, “We can’t do this, because there is a police investigation.” We have to recognise that that is not a reason, so do not let us play off each other. I have made my point from the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will take one intervention from a Member on the Government Benches, then I will take one from a Member on the Opposition Benches.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I made this point on Monday, but it is really important to make it again. The vast majority of Members in this House come here to represent our constituencies, and people across this House will recognise that I do my best to represent Harlow as much as I possibly can. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Does the Minister agree that the reason why the case of Peter Mandelson is so damning and upsets so many people across this House is because when that individual was in the other place—potentially when he was in this place—he was not representing the people he was supposed to represent? Instead, he was representing a vile paedophile. Does the Minister also agree that the reason for the strength of feeling across the House is that Peter Mandelson is letting down all of us?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes. The public rightly demand the highest standards from those in office and from Ministers. We should be held to the highest standards, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Peter Mandelson fell far, far short of those standards, and his behaviour has been revealed to be appalling. As the Prime Minister has said—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has been giving way and will give way, but you cannot all stay on your feet shouting, “Will he give way?” Let us give the Minister some time; he will take your interventions when he feels he is in the mood to take them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
At the point immediately prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the UK had a respected ambassador to the United States already in Dame Karen Pierce. Given that fact, the known abhorrence of Jeffrey Epstein and the appalling previous judgment of Peter Mandelson, why did the Government still decide that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking to appoint paedophile-adjacent Peter Mandelson to the post of ambassador?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
May I pay tribute to Dame Karen Pierce? She represents the finest of our foreign service.
Governments do make political appointments to these posts; that has happened, and it is a long-standing practice for a small number of posts. The Prime Minister has already said that if he knew then what he knows now, Peter Mandelson would not have been anywhere near the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Dame Meg Hillier
I am no longer the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
It seems that we are in something of a muddle here. Had the Opposition named the ISC in the Humble Address, as has happened in the past, there would have been no debate in this House. Putting all the information openly in the public domain could have risks, but there are well-worn filters through Parliament, such as through Committee corridor—various Committees could have locus in this space—to properly and sensitively handle information that, in my time, has never leaked from a Committee. Does the Minister agree? That would ensure that we on Committee corridor are holding the Government to account on behalf of Parliament. There is consensus that everybody wants as much information as possible in the public domain so that we can get to the bottom of what has happened in this egregious situation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the existing mechanisms of scrutiny, and I give her great credit for her work. As I have said in response to Opposition Members, I will take that point away.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On the point about Peter Mandelson letting people down, let me say that the people let down the most are the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Does the Minister agree that we would not be discussing this disgraceful situation if it had not been that people listened not to the women—the victims—who came forward in the first place, but to men in power, men with deep pockets and men advising those in power? Do we not need to put the victims at the heart of this, not just ourselves?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the victims—the women and girls who were victims of the trafficking and the appalling, abhorrent behaviour of Jeffrey Epstein—who should be at the forefront of our minds.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make a bit of progress, then I will give way a few more times.
Not only has the Cabinet Office referred the evidence about Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister to the police, but we are taking action going forward, in the Hillsborough law before this House, to introduce a duty of candour for all public servants that will make it an offence to lie to the public. We will make it a criminal offence to do anything but act with openness and integrity when things go wrong. That is the action that this Government are taking to prevent future cover-ups and injustices. It is a statement of intention that we want to enshrine that capacity to speak truth to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North said, the voices of victims should be at the forefront, not, as in this case, a group of powerful men. We are putting an end to the situation in which powerful people are able to avoid justice.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in one moment.
The Government should rightly be tested and questioned by this House, but the action that is taken by this Government is crucial now. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contacts with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Minister and to report back as a matter of urgency. After an initial review of some documents, the Cabinet Secretary made the decision to refer the matter to the police, with the Prime Minister’s support. I should say that the Government stand ready to provide any support that the police require as part of their investigation.
On that note, I will give way to the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh
We are all agreed on the character of Lord Mandelson, but I am not sure that we will make much progress if we are just repeating ourselves on that, because we all agree. The reputation of the House is at stake, and what the Opposition have to do is hold the Prime Minister to account. I have listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister. He and the Prime Minister have been asked on repeated occasions whether, when this appointment was made, the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had continued his relationship with Epstein after the first conviction. That is a very direct question. The reputation of the House is at stake, so will the Minister now answer that question?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Prime Minister answered that question at Prime Minister’s questions. He was lied to about the depth and extent of the relationship.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I stand here acutely aware that I am the Member of Parliament for Hartlepool, and I think today I speak for Hartlepudlians when I look at the evidence before us and say: undoubtedly, Peter Mandelson is a traitor. On that basis, it is important that the public have confidence in this process. Does the Minister agree?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend expresses the anger felt by many across the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make some more progress, before giving way a few more times.
Members will recall that back in September—in the light of the additional information contained in emails written by Peter Mandelson that were released at the time—the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador with immediate effect. The emails released showed that the nature and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that which was known at the time of his appointment.
The issue over which Peter Mandelson was withdrawn from Washington was information not available at the time that the due diligence was done. A due diligence process was conducted by the Cabinet Office, and a security vetting process—they are different—was also carried out. Since entering government, we have already taken action to strengthen the process for making direct appointments for ambassadors specifically, and for direct ministerial appointments more generally.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
There is clearly concern about Government amendment (a)—that it does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. Across the House, there is a growing consensus that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents. Could a manuscript amendment be tabled to that effect—something we can all join together and vote for, so that we can take this serious matter forward?
Mr Speaker
A manuscript amendment would be a matter for the Chair. As the Chair, I would be sympathetic to what the House needs to ensure that we get the best.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, I hope that the House always takes me at my word when I say that I will take these matters away with me.
The Cabinet Secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he takes through this process, and he intends for that advice to take two forms. First, he will have the advice of an independent KC throughout the process, and secondly, there will be scrutiny of his approach by the ISC. I hope that gives the House the necessary reassurance.
I have some past experience of drafting Humble Addresses on different matters in this House myself. The Opposition motion is clearly extensive—I think the House recognises that—but it is imperative that the Government protect sensitive information that could damage national security or relations with our international partners.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I remember the Humble Addresses that were tabled in this place during the Brexit years. The Minister will know that, in opposition, we never felt the need to put national security or international relations on the face of a motion itself, because that was an implied protection.
Can I ask the Minister two things? First, he helpfully said that the ISC will be involved in scrutiny of the process. Does he mean the process by which the Cabinet Secretary looks at documents, or will the ISC itself be able to see documents? Secondly, I think we all understand what the Minister means by “national security”, but could he tell us what he means by “international relations”? It is quite a broad term, so I would welcome some clarity.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think my hon. Friend and I have similar memories of that particular Parliament. To give an example, in the motion relating to Lebedev, we included the words,
“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.”
When I was involved in drafting Humble Addresses, I was very precise about that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate that the difficulty for the House is that it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today; Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. Although there is some reassurance in the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be involved in the Cabinet Secretary’s process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion.
The principle here is surely this: the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to national security material and, I am bound to say, rather more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) with regard to potentially sensitive material on international relations. Following the comments made by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is not the answer today that those on the Opposition Front would accept their motion including the concept that, if material is sensitive, it would be supplied only to the ISC, not to the whole House, but that everything should be disclosed to the House either via that route or via a route to the whole House?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Beyond the deadline to amend the motion—a familiar situation that the right hon. and learned Member and I have found ourselves in before—I want to say something very clearly. I hope the House takes my previous answer on this as having been given in good faith—
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is able to select a manuscript amendment, for which there is a high bar. There is a lot to clear up and I am sure that things can move forward, but in a nutshell, the answer is yes.
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.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No.
The scope of the motion could also include thousands of documents. It is obviously in the national interest to protect national security, and to be transparent and act with urgency—I completely accept that—but it is important that we now take time and care to balance those elements.
Several hon. Members rose—
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.
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.
Membership of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Lord Stirrup KG GCB AFC has been appointed as a full representative and vice-chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of Lord Ricketts GCMG GCVO.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam).
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) has been appointed as a full representative of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in place of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja).
[HCWS1299]
Windsor Framework Decision: Northern Ireland Act 1998, Schedule 6B
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
On 2 February, I will be meeting with the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič, for this Government’s second meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. As part of this important meeting, the UK and the EU will take decisions to support our commitment to the Windsor framework.
At that meeting, the Government will agree to add one new act to the Windsor framework. The Government are committed to tackling barriers to trade for businesses across the UK. Northern Ireland obviously has a special trading relationship with the EU under the Windsor framework and it is therefore only right that the Government review all elements of Northern Ireland’s regulatory arrangements to ensure it can make the most of its unique dual market access, with data from 2024 showing that NI exports to the EU of goods in scope of the regulation totalled £247 million.
In accordance with paragraph 18(3) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am setting out in this statement why I am of the opinion that the conditions are met for this particular measure to be agreed on the basis that it would not create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The condition in paragraph 18(2)(b) of that schedule is therefore met.
Type-approval framework for non-road mobile machinery used on roads—Regulation (EU) 2025/14
Regulation (EU) 2025/14 establishes a harmonised framework for road safety type-approval of mobile machinery that is occasionally used on public roads, complementing the current individual national rules. This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. This is based on the fact that most affected products in Northern Ireland are likely to be traded on a pan-European basis and manufacturers have indicated that they intend to continue to do so. The regulation is designed to ease access to the EU single market for this equipment and has been supported by industry. As such, manufacturers and traders are unlikely to face additional barriers to placing products on the Northern Ireland market or an incentive to cease doing so. This conclusion is based on a detailed assessment of existing vehicle registration data and detailed engagement with industry.
In order to provide additional confidence that manufacturers and traders will not face new regulatory barriers to placing goods on the Northern Ireland market, the Government commit to taking any necessary steps to protect the UK’s internal market, including considering equivalent measures in Great Britain where necessary.
In line with the Government presumption of alignment with EU vehicle regulations, the Government recognise the value to industry of maintaining equivalent standards in the UK and the EU, and will follow this principle in respect of non-road mobile machinery. This will have the added effect of avoiding barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and delivering on the Government manifesto commitment to protect the internal market. We will continue to engage with industry throughout the remainder of the year, before consulting on how best to achieve these objectives once further technical details are published.
Next steps
The Government will shortly publish an explanatory memorandum on gov.uk pertaining to the decision referred to here. It will set out in further detail the Government view on any impacts that the above mentioned regulation would have on Northern Ireland, as well as additional evidence I considered when reaching my conclusion that it would not lead to a new regulatory border.
[HCWS1280]
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU in May last year, delivering for UK jobs, easing the burden on bill payers and strengthening our borders. Whereas we are making significant progress, it seems the Conservative party and Reform would rip it up. Given that Reform has just recruited that well-known remainer, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who knows what its latest position is.
Yuan Yang
The inflation figures out yesterday show that despite the Government’s good progress on energy prices, food inflation remains stubbornly high. Even the price of a Tesco meal deal is stuck at £4.25. The Government need to make food and life more affordable, so will the Minister update us on his negotiations over agrifood trade with the EU?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement removes export health certificates and routine border checks, slashing costs and red tape for agrifood trade. For example, businesses will save up to £200 per shipment, making trade cheaper and easier. The Conservative party wants to put those costs back.
Callum Anderson
My right hon. Friend will know that the UK and EU financial systems are closely linked by cross-border capital flows that support jobs on both sides of the channel. Regulatory co-operation is beneficial for financial stability, but our ability to diverge from some of those regulations can also support our competitiveness. Will the Minister set out a bit more about how he is working with the Treasury to ensure that the UK’s engagement with the EU on financial issues balances our strategic sovereignty and autonomy with our economic prosperity?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is precisely why the Government take a pragmatic approach. We choose to align in areas where it makes sense to do so. Where it makes sense to diverge, we will also continue to do so. We are always driven by our national interest.
Victoria Collins
Given the strength of power shown by the EU to the US, not only is the relationship with Europe more strategically important than ever, but it matters because of the £90 billion black hole in our economy and to people such as Hazel from Tring, whose medical devices family business has been cut by costs and bureaucracy since Brexit. When will the Government finally start taking seriously negotiations on a new EU-UK customs deal?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the hon. Lady’s first point, we agreed the new strategic security and defence partnership with the European Union in May last year, which is absolutely crucial. On the point about the food and drink agreement, we agreed just before Christmas that that will be completed by the time of the next summit.
Alison Bennett
A close and strong relationship with our European partners is vital to our interests. Mid Sussex is home to high-tech life sciences companies such as CSL Behring and Roche Diagnostics. The regulatory and trade barriers put up after Brexit have made business harder for them. With a mercurial Administration in the White House, as evidenced this week, surely it is time for the Minister to get behind Liberal Democrat calls for a bespoke customs union with the EU.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Our democratic mandate from the general election is clear: we will not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement. However, what we do, and what I do every single week, is negotiate that closer UK-EU relationship, which is in our national interest. The hon. Lady and her colleagues should support that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
This week the Prime Minister hit the phones again to protect our interests; meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition risked undermining those efforts, acting almost like a Trump Trojan horse in this Chamber. Diplomacy is paying off: tariff threats are receding and Greenland solutions may be emerging. Does the Minister agree that we must always put country before party and work with the US and our European allies, and that our efforts should command cross-party support?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition should have risen to the occasion yesterday in a profound moment for the nation. She chose not to do so.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for travelling to Belfast later today for the East-West Council. As he knows, the council was created to strengthen ties within the United Kingdom, and one of the impediments to those economic ties is the Windsor framework. Knowing that punitive measures are still to be implemented, including customs required on parcels moving from one part of our country to another for ordinary consumers, does the Minister recognise that in building a better relationship with the European Union more pragmatism is required when it comes to Northern Ireland?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I look forward to visiting Belfast later today. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the East-West Council is an important part of our “Safeguarding the Union” arrangements. I certainly take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to the Windsor framework, which is one of the reasons I am so keen to get the food and drink agreement with the EU implemented as soon as possible, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, will mean we can reduce the levels of checks in the Irish sea.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Since the Paymaster General was last in the Commons, the Health Secretary has said that Britain should rejoin the customs union, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested rejoining the customs union, 13 Labour MPs have gone against the Whip and voted with the Liberal Democrats in favour of a customs union, 80% of Labour voters at the last election have said they want to rejoin the customs union, and the Business and Trade Secretary has said that it would be “crazy” not to join the customs union. It would seem that the only people in Labour opposed to the customs union are the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that in this one regard, I do not think he is crazy at all—I think he is doing the right thing. Will he tell the House why he thinks all the other members of the Labour party are so wrong?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There is a real issue of democracy here, in the sense that we won a general election with a mandate to negotiate a closer UK-EU relationship. It is in our national interest to do so, and we have set out the red lines within which those negotiations are taking place. Listening to what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is saying, it seems he has suddenly pivoted to supporting my approach—how welcome that would be.
Alex Burghart
I certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in telling the rest of the Labour party that they are wrong, although, given the success of the Labour Back Benchers in forcing U-turns on the Prime Minister recently, I wonder how long that position will hold.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he wants “closer alignment” with the single market—a serious policy development on which we have had no statement in the Commons. I hope that will be addressed very soon. Closer alignment will, of course, mean dynamic alignment, which will mean Britain following rules over which we have had no say. The Opposition will respectfully oppose such a move. In November, Downing Street sources told journalists that it was accepted that the UK would have to pay billions of pounds for closer alignment and market access. Will the Paymaster General confirm to the House that that is his understanding?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To clarify, there are no access fees in regard to either the emissions trading system linkage or the food and drink agreement that is being negotiated. That is absolutely clear. In terms of moving forward, we take pragmatic decisions in the national interest in various sectors, which is why we opened negotiations on electricity trading before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman has crystalised the choice at the next general election: this Government are negotiating a deal that will bear down on food and energy bills, give law enforcement more tools to keep our country safe and create jobs; the Conservatives, for ideological reasons, are setting their face against those things. I would welcome that debate with them.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We expect an EU reset Bill in the coming months to update the arrangements around our relationship with our European neighbours. Following the terrible Brexit deal delivered by the Conservatives and cheered on by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), which trashed our economy and our international standing, a reset is essential, and we welcome it. Does the Minister agree that Parliament should have the ability to fully scrutinise the legislation to ensure that the Government deliver the change that we need and that we can hold Ministers’ feet to the fire as they set up new structures or committees as needed? To that end, will he assure the House that the Bill will contain enough detail to allow meaningful democratic accountability and that the specifics will not be kicked into secondary legislation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, on the basis of my exchange with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I thoroughly look forward to bringing the Bill to the Commons and debating it fully. I can assure the hon. Lady that what we will be debating is why the Government’s approach is good for jobs and how it will bear down on bills for consumers. Members should not just believe what I say, but look at what the supermarkets said about the deal that was struck last year. I will also welcome a debate about how we will reduce trade barriers and costs for businesses. It is the Conservatives who want to put red tape and costs back on businesses. Good luck to them with that argument.
Lisa Smart
Yesterday, the Trade Secretary was the latest senior Government figure to break ranks by saying that it would be “crazy” not to look at a customs union with the EU. That position is already supported by the Prime Minister’s economic adviser, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health Secretary. Since leaving the EU, many businesses including those in my constituency have found it harder to trade with our neighbours, which is having an obvious impact on the economy. The Government have changed their mind on many things since the last election, having said that they definitely were not going to. Does the Minister accept that it would save us all a lot of time, be the single biggest lever that the Government could pull to generate growth, and give those on his own Benches something that they are crying out for if he just agreed to crack on and start negotiations for a bespoke customs union with the EU?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, and the situation is not as the hon. Lady has described. The work that the Government are doing in building a closer EU-UK relationship is crucial, and we can do it alongside a trade deal with India and an economic deal with the United States that is saving jobs at Jaguar Land Rover. The Government’s position is in the national interest, and we will continue to pursue it.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Prime Minister has given the independent ethics adviser the independence to initiate his own investigations, which is just one of the measures the Government have taken to improve transparency and standards. The high standards the Prime Minister expects of all of us who have the privilege of serving in high office are set out in the ministerial code.
Ian Lavery
With public trust in politics at an all-time low, I am grateful that the Government are implementing the Hillsborough law, and clearly the duty of candour should be extended to all public servants. Speaking truth to power is central to our democracy and to global democracy. Does the Minister agree that when the so-called leader of the free world stands up in public and lies with impunity about our great country and our allies at every opportunity he gets, there is no law or legislation that will ever restore public trust?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the first point, I met the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombings and the Hillsborough families only last week. It is critical that we get the balance right between allowing our intelligence services the secrecy that is essential to their work and having proper oversight. That is exactly the work the Government will engage in. On the wider point, the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear yesterday that he would not yield on the question of Greenland’s sovereignty. While I was proud to see our Prime Minister take that position, what a shame it was that the Leader of the Opposition could not rise to the moment, too.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
In the interests of improving Government transparency, will the Cabinet Office now publish the details of how the Government reached the decision that allowed Lord Mandelson, the man who described the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein as his “best pal” and who then urged him to fight for his early release following his conviction, not just to retain his place in the House of Lords but to keep the Labour Whip and his Labour party membership card?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Prime Minister made his position clear with regard to Lord Mandelson’s position when that additional information came to light. With regard to the House of Lords, Lord Mandelson is currently on a leave of absence. The revocation of a title requires a bespoke piece of primary legislation and is separate from the rules related to suspension and expulsion. Frankly, there is no alternative formal mechanism for a title to be revoked.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The consultation on the compensation scheme closes today. I am grateful to all who have shared their views. The Government will consider the consultation carefully and respond within 12 weeks. I am pleased to tell the House that, as promised, the first payments to affected people were made by the end of 2025, and that as of 13 January, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has made over £2.4 billion in compensation offers.
Jeff Smith
I have a number of constituents affected by the infected blood scandal. Justice for them and for the other victims is long overdue, so I am pleased that the Government are making progress on this issue. May I ask how many interim £100,000 payments have been made to date to the estates of people who have sadly passed away?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend with an up-to-date, precise figure for interim payments. I should also mention that, as was raised with me in the House on a number of occasions in the autumn, inheritance tax bit on secondary beneficiaries, and I was pleased that this Government dealt with that issue at the Budget.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
That is a matter for Parliament, not for Government. There is certainly a European Union relations secretariat in the Cabinet Office, with some absolutely excellent civil servants, and I am very proud to work with them on leading the negotiations.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are not returning to the common fisheries policy, and the hon. Lady is completely wrong in what she just said. The medium-term stability that we have delivered for our fishing industry will mean a £360 million investment in upgrading our fleet and in our coastal communities. If she opposes that money going into our fishing communities, she should say so. Secondly—[Interruption.]
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on the delay to the pension payment of civil servants who left employment under the voluntary exit scheme? A number of constituents have complained to me that they have been left without any income, due to the delay by the pension administrator Capita. Will the Minister take personal control of the situation, and will he update the House at some point on contingencies and a new escalation process for people who are affected?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. If he writes to me on those specific points, I will be happy to look at them. I have seen the chief executive of Capita and have made clear the standards that I expect. Capita should be in no doubt about the contractual tools available to me, which I will employ to drive performance.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
As chair of the Labour rural research group, I continually hear about the challenges facing rural communities, including access to education and transport infrastructure. Will the Minister set out the specific steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that rural voices and rural communities are meaningfully represented throughout Government decision making?
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Paymaster General has told the House this morning, on more than one occasion, just how wonderful his new EU deal will be for British food and drink manufacturers, so why is he refusing to appear in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the matter in more detail?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To be frank, when we have the final negotiation and the legal text I will of course be willing to appear before the Select Committee at the appropriate moment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at how many Select Committees I have appeared before, in this place and in the Lords, he will find that it is a very high number.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The 10-year bus pipeline is yet to be published, and a media report about the investigation by the National Cyber Security Centre and the Department for Transport into kill switches suggests that 700-plus Chinese buses on British roads have remote disabling technology. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are delaying the publication of the 10-year bus pipeline until the report on Chinese kill switches is concluded?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take a neutral position in relation to that Bill. It is also important, both recently and going forward, that we work sensitively with all the devolved Administrations.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Chief Secretary set out plans to “promote the doers” across the civil service by establishing the new national School for Government and Public Services. Will he tell the House what steps he plans to take to ensure that Whitehall is focused on delivering services that actually work really well for my residents in Exeter?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
North West Leicestershire is home to East Midlands airport, which carries the highest volume of small parcel air freight in the UK. In the light of the new trading agreements with the EU, can the Minister update me on how we will ensure that small businesses can make the most of these additional trading benefits, for current and future agreements?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The deal that we struck at the UK-EU summit will cut costs and red tape for businesses that import and export to the EU. This Government are committed to removing barriers to trade; it is a shame that the Conservative party is not.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for meeting me to discuss the £20 million Pride in Place money awarded to Portsmouth. To boost and expand those funds in my city and make investment lasting, will the Chief Secretary tell me and my constituents more about his work with the new Office for the Impact Economy, collaborating with social investors and philanthropists so that we can boost funding and create much-needed change in local communities?
Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The UK covid-19 inquiry is examining the UK’s response to and impact of the pandemic. The Government are fully committed to supporting the work of the covid-19 inquiry and to learning lessons from the covid-19 pandemic to ensure the UK is better prepared for a future pandemic. Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Cumulative total for 2025-26 Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (including contingent labour costs) £5,004,000 £4,310,000 £9,314,000 Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (full time equivalents) 248 207 N/A Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Cumulative total for 2025-26 Total legal costs £5,194,000 £6,186,000 £11,380,000
The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile.
The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work, and she has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry. Figures provided are based upon those from a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and are not precise figures for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Government Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. These costs, including costs associated with staff taking time to provide written or oral evidence, are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of staff and costs
The Government response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. The associated staff costs for Q2 2025-26 are below.
Q2 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—207 full time equivalents.
Q2 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£4,310,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£9,314,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Total inquiry response unit legal costs
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. The associated legal costs (excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs) for Q2 2025-26 are below.
Q2 legal costs—£6,186,000
Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2), total legal costs—£11,380,000
[HCWS1207]
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s strategic partnership with the EU.
The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners; to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade and cut costs and red tape for British producers and retailers; to increase national security through strong borders and greater co-operation with our closest allies; and to support jobs here in the UK and opportunities abroad.
In May this year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the Prime Minister announced at the historic UK-EU summit—the first of its kind. It is a landmark deal that is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took that decision, exercising our sovereignty, to strike a deal in the national interest. We had to fix a bad deal passed on to us by the previous Government—the first trade deal in history that made it harder to trade. Just as we have done with the US and India, this Labour Government are striking deals to bring down bills for British people and open new opportunities for British businesses.
Since that summit, I have led negotiations with the European Commission to implement the commitments we made. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, earlier today, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027. This will open up world-class opportunities for students, teachers, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, sport and youth sectors—both for the professionals who work in those sectors and, crucially, for our young people.
For students, this means more chances to study, train, work or volunteer abroad, gaining language skills and experience that will make them attractive to employers; for our teachers, youth workers and those who work in the sports sector, it means greater opportunities for professional development; and for our schools, colleges, universities and providers, it means access to networks and partnerships that will drive quality, encourage research links, and enhance the reputation of the UK’s world-leading education system. This morning, I met students at New City College in Hackney to see the range of benefits there are going to be, including playing basketball.
As part of Erasmus+, participants can travel to any European Union member state, as well as to several countries outside the European Union. It will go further than schemes that have come before, offering a broader scope of activity and a specific focus on unlocking opportunities for all. It is an investment in opportunity for young people from all backgrounds, for our workforce, and for our future. It will open doors for tens of thousands more young people across the UK, renewing our ties with Europe and beyond. This Labour Government have always been clear that we want young people to have access to the best opportunities in life, no matter what their background or where in this country they live. That is what we have consistently delivered, and it is what we are delivering through today’s announcement.
We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms that represent a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the benefits the programme offers. The 30% discount in 2027, compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement, has paved the way for UK participation in the programme.
We also agreed that there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association, so that we can look at the actual data concerning the demand for funding in the UK. Going forward, any continued participation in Erasmus+ under the next multi-annual financial framework will be informed by that data and our experience of association in 2027. We have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are in the national interest, and in this case I am happy to say that the agreement passed that test.
The Government will now work to maximise take-up across all sectors so that the benefits of Erasmus+ association can be fully realised. We will work closely with institutions and our young people to support this, particularly among disadvantaged groups. A UK national agency will be appointed to administer the programme in due course.
In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. The details of this will be set out in an exchange of letters between me and Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, to be published next week. Closer co-operation on electricity will bring real benefits to businesses and consumers across Europe. It will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. It will also drive up investment in the North sea and strengthen energy security. The UK and the EU will now proceed swiftly with negotiations on a UK-EU electricity agreement.
But that is not all. I welcome the clarification from the European Commission today that, in practice, there should be no carbon border adjustment mechanism costs levied on UK electricity exports—a welcome development that reflects our extensive use of renewables. Negotiations to link our carbon markets are also under way, which will cut costs, make it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and, once agreed, save £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports from EU CBAM charges.
Negotiations on the food and drink agreement are also under way, which will enable food and agriculture businesses to trade more cheaply and easily by slashing the red tape and costly paperwork introduced by the last Government, which result in businesses facing £200 for export health certificates on every single shipment, or small businesses choosing not to trade with the EU altogether. Our new agreement will put this right, boosting our exports, cutting costs for importers, and bringing down prices on supermarket shelves.
The UK and the EU are committed to implementing the commitments of the May 2025 summit in a timely manner. We are working swiftly to conclude negotiations on the food and drink deal and on linking our carbon markets by the time of the next UK-EU summit in 2026. Across all these areas, the UK is clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. We will agree deals that are in our national interest. The Government are exercising our sovereignty to deliver for the British people.
We are committed to building this new strategic partnership with the European Union. Indeed, last week I spoke with my counterpart in the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, and we underlined our shared commitment to implementing the common understanding that the Prime Minister and the Commission President agreed at the UK- EU summit in May. Whether it is through boosting opportunities for young people and educators across the country, cutting energy bills or agreeing a food and drink deal that slashes red tape and cuts costs, I will always negotiate in the interests of this country and our people.
I will continue to lead negotiations with the Commission. I look forward to the next annual UK-EU summit, where the Government will continue to build that new strategic partnership. That is what a grown-up, pragmatic relationship looks like. We work together under shared aims for mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems. That is the approach the Government are taking and that is the approach that is delivering results. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital—[Interruption.] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to.
That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+?
The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year?
The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away?
The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people? That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility.
Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would
“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.
Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement. Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through?
The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If I have got this right, I chose not to sign up to participate in the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund because it did not represent value for money, and the Opposition are criticising me for that, but they are also criticising me for signing up to something that is value for money. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about fish. A big advantage to our fishing sector, which exports 70% of its catch to the EU, is the food and drink agreement that I am going to secure by the time of the next UK-EU summit. That is what will benefit our fishers.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Turing scheme, it is important that I say from the Dispatch Box that any person on the Turing scheme in this academic year will continue to be funded. I have to tell him, however, that his numbers are absolutely all over the place. First, the Erasmus+ scheme has changed significantly since the version that his Government walked away from. Furthermore, do we seriously think that that lot could have secured a 30% discount? Absolutely not.
The one figure that the hon. Gentleman did get right was 43,200, which is the number of people involved in the last year of the Turing scheme. Erasmus is a far bigger scheme. We will expect tens of thousands of young people—100,000-plus—and others to have opportunities from Erasmus. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: Erasmus is a great deal broader than the Turing scheme in terms of opportunities. The Turing scheme is about colleges, schools and universities. Erasmus+ presents wider opportunities, including youth work, sports and the ability of staff to have professional exchanges. Let me just say, before Conservative Members start talking about the fact that Turing is all around the world, that the grant-making bodies for Erasmus+ in the UK can still allocate 20% of the funding if they want to, if people want to go to other parts of the world as well. What this is doing is vastly increasing the opportunities not just for young people, but for adult learners. If the Conservative position is now to oppose a massive expansion in opportunities for young people, I will welcome that debate at the next election.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Young people have lost so much. The pandemic kept them in their homes when they should have been in the classroom, years of austerity under the Tories saw cuts in the services on which they rely, and a bad Brexit deal stopped the invaluable chance to study abroad in Europe. Rejoining Erasmus opens up real opportunities for young people to study, train and gain experience abroad. Will the Minister say more about how this experience can help young people to grow in confidence and get them work-ready?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right about the wonderful opportunities that this presents, and not just for self-confidence; the young people I spoke to only this morning at a further education college told me that going overseas had helped them to grow as people. However, the House should not just take my word for it: the Association of Colleges says that this is “brilliant news” for further education colleges. Universities UK says that it is
“fantastic news for the UK”.
The Russell Group of universities is “delighted” about this reassociation. But who is opposed to it? The Conservative party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster.
Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays.
Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are aiming to conclude negotiations on the youth experience scheme by the next summit—which I see in the context of the 13 youth mobility schemes that already exist, many of them signed by the previous Government, although the Conservatives seem to have a collective amnesia about it nowadays—together with the linking of our emissions trading systems and the food and drink agreement. The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question about the implementation of that agreement. I want to see it implemented by the first half of 2027, which will mean bringing a piece of legislation to Parliament in 2026 and then getting it through Parliament. I hope that, whatever our views may be, we will have support in doing that as quickly as possible in 2027.
Let me, for a moment, speak more broadly about Erasmus+—and, indeed, this applies to the youth experience scheme as well. I want both schemes to be open to people from all backgrounds across the United Kingdom. People often refer to Erasmus+ as a university exchange programme, and of course that is a vital part of it, but it is not just a university exchange programme; it is accessible across the country. I have been looking at, for example, the Welsh Government’s Taith programme, which has done an extremely good job with regard to accessibility. Where there is there are lessons to be learned from that, we will absolutely learn them.
Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is, of course, on the issue of the customs union, because the Government has only in recent days signed an additional free trade agreement with South Korea, and we also have the economic deal with the United States and the free trade deal with India. All those would have to be torn up if we went down the path that he has suggested.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the announcement that the UK will rejoin Erasmus+. I had the opportunity to live and work in Europe as a young person aged 18, and it was an experience that has continued to benefit me throughout my life. I particularly welcome the extension of the scheme beyond study, and the Government’s desire to extend that opportunity to young people from all backgrounds. It is one of the very many detriments of Brexit that young people were denied the opportunity to live and work and study through the Erasmus scheme.
Having announced this welcome development, can the Minister confirm that he will now be turning his attention to some of the other detriments that continue to be experienced, particularly by small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, as a consequence of the inability to trade in Europe because of barriers resulting from Brexit? Can he confirm that work is ongoing in that regard, and that all options that are in the national interest will remain on the table?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right. Tens of thousands more people, many of them young people, will benefit from the accession to Erasmus+, although I seriously think, on the basis of what the shadow Minister said, that the Conservatives will go into the next election opposing those additional opportunities for people. As for my hon. Friend’s second point about reducing trade barriers, since Brexit 16,000 businesses have stopped trading with the EU altogether, and as for the food and drink agreement, she can be assured that work is ongoing to seek to complete those negotiations by the time of the next summit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In his white shirt and red tie, the Minister is doing a very good impression of Santa making an early visit. The announcements that he has made this afternoon are—I think—to be warmly welcomed, and he is to be personally congratulated on the good faith and patience that he has shown in his conversations with Maroš Šefčovič and others. That is clearly paying dividends.
Does the Minister agree that those of us on the Opposition Benches who last week voted against the idiotic proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a customs union have been proved right and then wrong, because the evolution of the relationship within the guardrails of the existing arrangement are the way to go, preserving those new free trade deals and seeing them extended while encouraging businesses to trade with Europe?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. As always, the hon. Gentleman has made a sensible, well-informed contribution, and I am grateful for his kind words and his personal congratulation, which is deeply appreciated. He is entirely right: there is a set of guardrails that constitute this Government’s democratic mandate not to rejoin the single market or the customs union, or to go back to freedom of movement. We are exercising that independent trade policy, as has been seen in recent days in respect of the deal with South Korea. Within that framework, today’s announcement shows that the negotiations are progressing and delivering tangible results for the British people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his announcement on Erasmus+, which is hugely welcome news for students and for my youngest constituents in Stratford and Bow. Before I came to this place I worked with the Mayor of London in calling for an Erasmus scheme, and the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, of which I am a member, has called for it constantly, alongside our European partners. We want students to have the same chances of opportunity that we had, so that they do not suffer the consequences of a Brexit that they had no say in. Can the Minister outline the next steps in the UK’s participation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does in the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and I am grateful for the work that is done by that group more broadly. Clearly, there now needs to be the appointment of a national agency. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is a commercially sensitive matter, but I certainly hope to be doing that very soon in order to make sure that we have all that we need in place to support those who would like to participate from 2027. There will be great opportunities available, and I look forward to doing all I can as a Minister to support people into them.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister’s statement did not seem to say what the contribution to the EU will be, but media reports suggest £570 million. By opening our borders, we will have youth workers and others coming to the UK at a time of rising unemployment. Could he confirm the amount that will be paid? Will it be more than what will be raised through the family farm tax, which the Budget said will only raise up to £500 million a year, even at the end of this Parliament?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We would expect the price to be £810 million. With the discount, it is £570 million. However, the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the situation, because a substantial amount of that money will come back in the form of grants to our own people who are applying to be on the scheme. On his point about value for money, I have made sure that the argument about having a fair balance is embedded. That is the basis on which we will continue, but after 10 months there will be a review that looks at the balance between contribution and participation. If he wants to do something useful to address that balance, he could encourage his own constituents to participate.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am a proud Erasmus graduate and the first in my family to go to university. As I was a carer for my late mother, I did not study abroad. I stayed at home and commuted to university, so Erasmus was the first time I was able to experience that. Many years on, I still have connections and friendships that were formed through the scheme, and it is good to know that young people in my constituency will be able to benefit from it. It is so, so vital. Can the Minister outline the timeframe a bit more, so that we can make sure that this is rolled out not just to young people in university but to apprentices, young workers and those studying, to make sure that they get life skills and experiences that are so rich and that will stay with them for life?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the transformative experience that she had. My aim today is to have, in years to come, others who can speak similarly of the transformative experience that they have had. With regard to moving forward, it will first be about the appointment of a national agency. It will then be about doing really important work next year to get the application process up and running, and about making sure that people have the necessary information and are supported to be able to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that will be coming in 2027.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Hallelujah! It feels like some common sense is finally re-entering this debate, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. So do my constituents in Oxford West and Abingdon who wrote to me at the time. Many were literally in tears because they were worried that they would not be able to participate—in fact, they could not do so. But I do hear what others are saying. They are trying to pooh-pooh how much this agreement is worth. It is not just about the money, but there is money to be recouped here and there will have been an impact assessment. How much is this worth to the UK economy now and going forward?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, I cannot better the first word of the hon. Lady’s contribution. As we move forward, we will make the kinds of assessments that she talks about, and she is absolutely right to say that the agreement will make a significant contribution to our workforce and, indeed, to our economy. Despite the chuntering from Conservative Members, this is not only about money; it is also about the fact that young people’s lives, and indeed adult learners’ lives, are going to be enriched in so many ways. This is something we should celebrate across the House.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Minister on doing what many of us have felt has been needed in the relationship between the European Union and the UK: what therapists call “active listening”. He is actually listening to our neighbours, finding out what they are interested in and where we can do a deal, and recognising that those in a relationship who keep making random demands—whether they are about a customs union, rejoining the EU or fish—fail to recognise the importance of communication to negotiation. I note that the original wreckers of this relationship have not turned up today to explain to Britain’s young people, who have borne the consequences of their bad behaviour, why they felt that it was necessary.
The Minister will know that many more people in our constituencies are now looking at the work he is doing to repair the UK-EU relationship, and seeking some Christmas cheer. For all the businesses still facing piles of paperwork and mountains of red tape, can he play Santa a little bit more and tell us what 2026 might bring in resetting the relationship and getting Britain back on track with its neighbours?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning work that she does on this issue. At the next UK-EU summit in 2026, we will seek to complete the negotiations on a food and drink agreement, which would mean less red tape and less cost for businesses; on the linkage of our emissions trading system, so that we do not have our businesses levied with carbon taxes; and on the youth experience scheme, so that we have even more opportunities for our young people. That will be a positive 2026.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for the work he did in another capacity on behalf of the victims, and the relatives of the victims, of the infected blood scandal? He did a very good job, and he reached out to us in a much-appreciated, non-partisan way.
This statement is entitled “UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations”. Is it his understanding, as the Minister for EU relations, that the people with whom he is having dealings are still bent on the creation of a federal United States of Europe? [Interruption.] Do I detect some chuntering on the Government Benches to suggest that some people in this House might want to be a part of that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is best directed to the European Commission. In relation to the first part of his question, he knows that I have always worked cross-party on infected blood, and it is important that I continue to do so.
On working with our European friends and neighbours—whether it is the work that the Prime Minister is doing in leading the coalition of the willing, or the painstaking work that we have been doing in recent days on Russian assets—the close relationship and strategic partnership between the UK and the EU is crucial for our nation’s security.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome the return of Erasmus and the opportunity for young people in Hastings and Rye to study and train in Europe again. As a coastal town, we also want to see the return of our closest link with our European neighbours through bringing back international trains to Ashford International, which this Labour Government support. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I hear many south-east colleagues echoing that call. Could the Minister, in his discussions with European colleagues, encourage discussions with Eurostar and urge Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains, which will soon be running trains on the line, to stop at Ashford International?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think my hon. Friend has managed to create some cross-party consensus, which is pleasing to see. She makes a very powerful case. Whether it is the particular issue of Ashford International or many other transport-related issues, my door is always open for discussions. I would very much welcome her making formal representations to me as well.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I am afraid to say that it is almost 30 years since I made the transformative journey from Dundee to Antwerp for my Erasmus experience. I thank the Minister, because there is some progress in this area. May I ask him a couple of practical questions? First, obviously there is a different higher education system in Scotland, and Scottish universities are very involved in this. How will the financial mechanisms work? Has he worked that out with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations? Secondly, I want to see all young people have the opportunities that he and I enjoyed. When will we see a return to freedom of movement for our young people entirely?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his last point, because we will not be going back to freedom of movement. However, on his first question, I was talking to the Scottish Government only first thing this morning, and the same issue was raised. Obviously, this does not affect the home fees position, which, by the way, is distinct in England, Scotland and indeed Wales. In the university context that he is talking about, someone would have their home fees position, but, for example, they could take a gap year to take advantage of the Erasmus+ opportunity. I am pleased to hear that Erasmus+ was transformative for him in Antwerp, and I hope we will soon have many more people who can say the same.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his diligent and detailed work on this. It really is proper grown-up politics, as he said. The return of Erasmus will be widely welcomed in Cambridge, where it has helped many young people in the past and will help an even wider group in the future. Could I just press him on the SPS agreement? I think he confirmed that we will see the back of the wretched export health certificates in 2027. If so, it is a fantastic change. Is that correct?
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.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
First, as Chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I welcome the statement. I also commend my right hon. Friend for the stellar job he is doing in showing that this Labour Government are making very good progress on rebuilding our relationships with the EU. Rejoining Erasmus+ is a big win for young people in Battersea and across the country, creating opportunities to study, train, develop new skills, achieve success and, more importantly, thrive. Can he outline a bit more about how young people will be able to access the Erasmus+ scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work she does co-chairing the PPA. In 2026, it is critical that we have both the national agency and the simplest possible process for people to access a very wide range of benefits. I hope that was short enough, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is great to see the Paymaster General at the Dispatch Box, as always, but it would be even better if we could see him at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is taking a close interest in the food and drink agreement. May I remind him that Boris Johnson got it badly wrong with the trade and co-operation agreement, because he allowed the political imperative of getting a deal to trump the detail of that deal, and that was because he did not listen to the fishermen, farmers and other food producers? Will he keep them close as he negotiates, and will he come to talk to the Select Committee? We really will not bite him, I promise.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will hold the right hon. Member to that promise. On working with those sectors, he is absolutely right. As we move forward, first, to complete the negotiations for a detailed legal text on the SPS agreement, but also as we move into the implementation phase, everyone understands that we are reducing barriers, cutting red tape and making trade easier. However, we absolutely have to work with our fishers, farmers and all those in the agrifood sector to make that as smooth as possible.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The UK’s return to involvement in Erasmus is hugely welcome not only for my constituents who are at university, but for those learning in schools and FE colleges and working in the sports and youth sectors. Could my right hon. Friend please outline what steps the Government will be taking particularly in relation to those based in sectors not previously involved, so that they can expect to and can plan for their involvement in Erasmus from 2027?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. For example, the first place I wanted to visit this morning was a further education college—the New City college in Hackney—because I am really keen that the FE sector gets the full benefit. She is absolutely right that proactively reaching out to the youth sector, adult learners or staff in professional training will be really important, because people can understand those opportunities if they want to take advantage of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
For one year, the figure is £570 million, which is a 30% discount—better than the Conservative party ever achieved—and 10 months in, we will have a full review of both participation and contribution. I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she is going to go into the next election saying that young people in her constituency who benefit from Erasmus+ should no longer do so, I would welcome that debate.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
As a Member of the UK-EU PPA, I absolutely welcome the statement, particularly that we will be rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme to the benefit of young people in Exeter. We should never have left, and this is the next step in rebuilding relations with our closest neighbours after such a catastrophic period under the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that it is only through co-operation with our closest European neighbours and partners, not isolation, that we will get the cultural, social and economic growth this country really needs?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are mutual benefits and mutual objectives—I am afraid to say that, in modern-day Europe, the UK and the EU also face mutual threats—and closer co-operation to deliver results is absolutely crucial.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
This deal will not give back the futures that were stolen from so many young people by Boris Johnson’s Government, but it does offer such futures to people going forward. It is good work. That said, small, medium-sized and large businesses in Tewkesbury and the economy at large need the Government to stop fumbling around the edges. It is time for the Minister to speak to the Government and get us a customs union with the European Union, is it not?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is time to deliver concrete results, and that is exactly what I am doing.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I saw a good joke earlier—a one-liner—that says, “Lib Dem campaigning works!” I do not think so: it is this Labour Government who have delivered the change today.
University of Nottingham staff in my constituency face considerable pressure due to ongoing restructuring. What would the Minister say to those staff, who are under intense pressure, about what this offers at an organisational level for our universities?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I think this is clearly good news and a good deal for our university sector, which is why both Universities UK and the Russell Group have come out in its support in such glowing terms today.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being full of Christmas cheer. Although people are welcoming this announcement, businesses in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged—rising costs, significant trade barriers because of the Windsor framework, delivery not being available a regular problem for online shoppers in Northern Ireland, and the immediate cliff edge for veterinary medicines and import control system 2, as well as type approval for cars. When will this Government stand up for Northern Ireland’s place within the Union and sort out the trade barriers of this internal market?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I spoke to both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland only this morning to discuss the arrangements around Erasmus+ and the other announcements I have made on electricity. I can assure the hon. Lady, as I am also responsible for the Windsor framework, that it is a top priority for me. It is a top priority as well for the Prime Minister, who has a personal interest in Northern Ireland having been the human rights adviser to the Policing Board. With regard to barriers to trade that the hon. Lady was referring to on the Irish sea, it is precisely pushing forward and getting the SPS deal implemented quickly that will allow us to lower those barriers, which is what I am determined to do.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I also welcome progress on Erasmus, but may I ask about progress on another commitment from the May summit: advance co-operation on foreign information, manipulation and interference, and working together to fight violent extremism including in its online dimension? The UK and the EU do indeed face threats, including threats to our digital sovereignty from the same powerful people, so we need urgently to work together.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, whether in terms of information or, indeed, hybrid warfare. In opposition, I visited Estonia, and other parts of eastern Europe, and I see what is happening on this every day. She is absolutely right about the importance of partnership between the UK and the EU; it is in our national interest.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The news about the reinstatement of the Erasmus scheme is brilliant for our young people. I have heard from language schools in Torbay, particularly International House Torquay, who have taken advantage of the group travel scheme for German students to be able to use just their ID cards to study languages in England. What opportunities does the right hon. Gentleman see of rolling out a similar scheme for Swiss, Italian and Spanish students?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can update the hon. Gentleman and will write to him on the three specific countries he has mentioned, but I also say that the announcement I have made today on Erasmus+ clearly opens up even more opportunities for schools, which I am sure will be widely welcomed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call “Christmas jumper” Phil Brickell.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As a former Erasmus student, I congratulate the Paymaster General on the steely resolve, the pragmatism and the significant progress he has been able to achieve. Only a few weeks ago, two fellow Erasmus students from the UK who I studied with in Germany were in this place. I was with them for the first time in 13 years, and they have messaged me today to congratulate the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to deliver on the concrete commitments agreed with our EU partners at the May summit, as opposed to heeding Lib Dem Members’ siren calls about a supposedly bespoke customs union?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his kind words and indeed his two friends and former Erasmus colleagues. I will also, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate him on the Christmas jumper.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome the Erasmus+ agreement as closer ties with Europe are good news for the futures of thousands upon thousands of young people. Since 2022, the Taith programme in Wales has offered life-changing opportunities for people to study abroad after Brexit slammed so many doors shut. Given its implications for Taith, how will Wales’s priorities be reflected in the administration of Erasmus+?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
A Welsh MP negotiated the new agreement, so I hope that is a good start. The right hon. Lady is none the less absolutely right to praise the Welsh Labour Government’s work on the Taith programme; it is great to see her praising the work of the Welsh Labour Government. In November, I spoke to civic society groups and those involved in that Taith outreach and discovered their exemplary work involving students and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I am looking at that work in terms of access to Erasmus+.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s focus on jobs, bills and borders as part of a pragmatic and balanced reset of our relationship with the European Union. I have already heard from constituents like Robert in Boscombe, who welcomes the fact that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus. When a Government invest in our children, our country starts to care about our future again. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards a youth mobility scheme, and on what role he sees English language schools playing in our future economy as we bring European students to Bournemouth?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is always good to hear from my hon. Friend, and indeed from Robert. As I indicated, we will look to have agreed the youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit and my hon. Friend can be assured that it will be a priority for the Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Mandatory method of production labelling on animal-derived products could improve animal welfare and increase UK farm profits by over £46 million annually, but we must make sure that the UK-EU SPS agreement is aligned on standards and quality so that British farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton and across the country are not undercut by lower welfare imports. Can the Minister outline what progress has been made on negotiating a comprehensive SPS agreement?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
SPS negotiations are under way and we want to complete them by the time of the next summit. If the hon. Lady writes to me on the specific issue she raised, I will address it in detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. A tip for other questioners: the question does not require a preamble.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I may have been putting it a bit high when I said that I was playing basketball, but I did contribute in my own way.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, obviously the Erasmus+ programme has changed so that a wider range of activities is available, from youth work and adult education to sports, but there is also additional support in Erasmus for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. My hon. Friend is right about monitoring it, but my priority for the next few months will be driving that participation in the first place.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Minister for what is a clear Lib Dem win. I repeat the question from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), on the need for a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a customs deal. In three years, we will all be seeking a new mandate, and if we can really understand the potential economic benefits at that point, our residents and citizens will be able to make an informed decision. Can I please encourage the Minister to give a second thought to that study?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have a bit of bad news for the hon. Gentleman: it is a Labour win, I am afraid. On his second point, if he wants to discuss the customs union, a good starting point might be the workers at Jaguar Land Rover.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As he will be aware, my constituency of Harlow has a lower than average number of young people going to university, which is something that I would like to see addressed. However, can he talk me through the benefits of the Erasmus+ scheme for young people in Harlow who do not go on to university education?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I spoke this morning, I had in my mind someone who wants to do some basketball coaching, or perhaps an engineer on an apprenticeship who has chosen not to go to university but who might well, none the less, want to go on a placement abroad. Those are just some examples of the wide range of benefits that I hope his constituents in Harlow will be able to benefit from.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Erasmus agreement that the Minister has announced, which is a Christmas present for young people. Turning to the SPS agreement that he is negotiating, I hope that those negotiations will be just as successful because that is undoubtedly in the best interests of this country. Can he confirm for me and some very invested constituents of mine that bivalve molluscs, or mussels, will be included in the SPS agreement that he is currently negotiating?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, the SPS agreement is a great priority. I am fully aware of the issue with bivalve molluscs, or indeed—from memory—shellfish from class B waters. I am willing to speak directly to the hon. Lady about bivalve molluscs—perhaps she will write to me about that—but I can tell her that the SPS agreement will mean that for products we currently cannot export to the EU, such as British bangers, we will be able to do so again.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend expect the new agency with responsibility for Erasmus+ to work with the excellent Erasmus Student Network UK to promote these brilliant new opportunities for our young people, including in higher and further education institutions in Scotland?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would certainly expect to see that collaborative approach.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituents will be delighted that the Government are returning the UK to Erasmus+. One of my constituents wrote to me this morning:
“It is a win for those of us who think that international learning should be open to all, not just the children of the rich who can afford international fees.”
But, she said:
“It is too late for me. I was 11 when Brexit happened and I am now 21, and in my last year of university.”
Will the Government undo the wrongs done to such kids by the last Conservative Government, and go further and faster by committing to a youth mobility scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Government are already committed to a youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit. Whether it is through Erasmus+ today or the youth experience scheme, this Government are delivering concrete benefits and opportunities for young people.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Whatever one’s view of Brexit, leaving the Erasmus scheme was unambiguously an act of self-harm, denying the opportunity for thousands of young people across the country to study and learn abroad. I congratulate the Minister on re-securing those benefits, but they cannot just be the preserve of a narrow few. How can we ensure that a far wider group of young people in my constituency are able to benefit from the new scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about spreading these opportunities to people of all backgrounds. I will drive forward work as the Minister, but I say to colleagues from across the House that speaking in favour of this scheme to our constituents is something that we collectively, as Members of Parliament, can do.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I welcome today’s announcement, which will be of huge benefit to students from my constituency. Does the Minister agree that all young people from all backgrounds deserve to be able to work and study in Europe, and that the Conservative party should apologise for snatching opportunities away from an entire generation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with the hon. Member on the spreading of opportunities. Frankly, I am absolutely baffled by the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
As the son of a Deutschlehrer, may I say danke, because Christmas has come early for the young people and teachers in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that greater co-operation and friendship across Europe and beyond is the best way forward for our world and for our country, and that perhaps that is why those with EU derangement syndrome are so opposed to his policy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Our co-operative, grown-up approach is delivering results and benefits for people here in the United Kingdom. I am proud of that approach, and it is what delivers.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This scheme will help countless young people from Wokingham to gain invaluable life experiences and it is to be welcomed. The Minister says that the Conservative Brexit deal was a bad deal. Will he therefore look to correct it and begin negotiations on a bespoke UK-EU customs union, which would cut the endless red tape and free up many Wokingham businesses to do business with their European customers? A bespoke deal could raise £25 billion—far better than increasing national insurance contributions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is very welcome to continue debating. While he is doing that, I will correct the iniquities in the previous deal every working day.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It was Christmas eve five years ago when Boris Johnson signed his fateful deal, which took away opportunities for young people and kicked us out of Erasmus. I thank the Minister for exorcising that ghost of Christmas past. Does he agree that the message we have heard in the Chamber today is that the Conservative party wants to keep opportunities locked away from young people, that Reform cares so little it has not even shown up, and that those who want to extend opportunities for our young people need to back a Labour Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
One hundred per cent. It is this Labour Government who are delivering for our young people.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister as heartily as everyone else has on bringing the UK back into Erasmus and ensuring that people from all backgrounds, including university students, can once again enjoy the opportunities that the Tory Brexit took away. Part of my Chelsea and Fulham constituency ranks among the 12th most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. I am looking forward, I should tell the Minister, to helping the young people there to seize the new opportunities. May I encourage the Minister to also be ambitious in concluding a youth experience scheme, which would further restore the opportunities that our young people deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. Indeed, by the time of the next UK-EU summit, we hope to have concluded negotiations on the linking of our emissions trading systems, on the food and drink agreement, and on the youth experience scheme.
Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time in your new elevated capacity as Chair, Dr Murrison.
Since the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s detailed report in May 2024, the Government have worked to establish a compensation scheme and to set up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, known as IBCA, to deliver it. I can tell the Committee that since the compensation scheme opened last year, IBCA has contacted all infected people registered with a support scheme to start their claim and made offers of more than £2 billion. It has now opened the service to the first claims from living infected people who have never been compensated. I am pleased with this progress, which is a significant step in the right direction towards delivering justice to those impacted, with IBCA now moving towards opening the service for those affected and for the estates of deceased infected people.
Colleagues may be aware that I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), among others, spoke at the World AIDS Day event hosted by the Terrence Higgins Trust in Speaker’s House on Monday. It was important that the Government marked that important day. I am proud to say that IBCA has made offers to over 90% of those infected with HIV who are registered with a support scheme, and it hopes to have made offers to the remaining eligible living HIV claimants by the end of this year.
In July, the infected blood inquiry published its additional report, which made 15 recommendations to the Government on the design of the scheme. I immediately accepted seven of those recommendations, and the regulations we are considering today will implement the five that require legislation to achieve. The remaining eight recommendations are subject to an ongoing public consultation, as per Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation, and the Government expect to bring in further legislation next year to implement the changes we will need following that consultation.
Listening to the voices of the community is essential. That is why, in the Budget last week, the Chancellor announced changes that will ensure that infected blood compensation payments are relieved from inheritance tax in cases where the original infected or affected person eligible for compensation has died before the compensation is paid. I am pleased that we have been able to make that change; it is something that was raised with me by Members across the House when I last made a statement, and it is really important that justice is not only delivered, but reflected in the way the compensation is treated.
Turning to the regulations at hand, I will set out the changes we are proposing to the scheme in direct response to the inquiry’s recommendations. Regulation 3 responds to the inquiry’s recommendation 3(a) by removing the 1982 start date for eligible HIV infections, meaning that anyone who was infected with HIV via infected blood or infected blood products before 1 November 1985 will be eligible for the scheme.
Regulation 4 makes changes in line with the inquiry’s recommendation 8(b) on affected estates. Its additional report sets out that the time being taken to deliver compensation is disadvantageous to affected people who are older or are in ill health. The inquiry recommended that where an affected person has sadly passed away during a specified date range, their compensation should become part of their estate. The Government have not only accepted this recommendation but gone beyond it, extending the recommended date range by two additional years, to be between 21 May 2024 and 31 March 2031.
Regulation 6 actions the inquiry’s recommendation 4(e), which recommends that the Government remove the need for applicants with hepatitis C or B to evidence their date of diagnosis. The date of diagnosis does not have a bearing on the calculation of an individual’s compensation. Therefore, making this change removes an unnecessary burden and will allow swifter processing of claims by IBCA.
Regulation 7 implements the inquiry’s recommend-ation 4(d), which relates to how the scheme deems the level of severity of someone’s hepatitis infection. Where somebody shows a level 4 diagnosis of hepatitis, but no level 3 diagnosis, we are amending the scheme so that they are deemed to have spent six years at level 3 prior to the level 4 diagnosis. That will uplift the overall compensation package; it is also a recognition that the burden of evidence shall not fall on the claimant, which is of crucial importance, particularly in light of Sir Brian Langstaff’s original finding about lost medical records.
We have heard from the community and the inquiry that the use of effective treatment dates under the scheme does not reflect the lived experience of many victims as not all infected people were able to resume work after treatment for various reasons, including continued illness or stigma, and that some people received effective treatment much later than it was introduced. In line with the inquiry’s recommendation 4(c), regulation 9 rectifies that by removing the earnings floor on the exceptional loss award for financial loss supplementary route. There is therefore a route available for infected people to present evidence on their actual earning loss.
The Government also recognise that concerns have been raised about bereaved partners’ access to support scheme payments following the tragic loss of their spouse. In response to that and to the inquiry’s recommendation 9(a), the Government reopened bereaved partner applications to the infected blood support scheme on 22 October. I should place on record my thanks to colleagues in the devolved Administrations for working with us to ensure that we could achieve this quickly.
One of the key themes of the inquiry’s additional report was the need for IBCA to increase the speed at which it delivers compensation. In order to achieve that, regulation 10 delays by one calendar year the transfer of responsibility to make support scheme payments from IBSS to IBCA. That has been done to allow IBCA to focus its resources on continuing to build an effective compensation scheme. Again, I am very grateful to the devolved Administrations for their collaborative work on making that happen.
Outside the inquiry’s report, regulation 14 makes a number of technical changes to ensure that the compensation scheme functions correctly and that its administration is improved. They are minor corrections that do not impact overall policy.
This compensation scheme is for people who have had their lives changed by unimaginable pain and suffering. These regulations are a direct response to those people’s calls for change that meets their expectations of this Government and carry forward a sense of justice. As Members of the House of Commons, we all share the sentiment that the victims of this scandal should be at the heart of this work. I believe that the regulations are a significant step in ensuring that the compensation scheme delivers for those impacted and I commend them to the Committee.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank both the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their tone and their constructive approach. They quite rightly hold me to account on the compensation scheme, but, just as it was when I was shadow to the Paymaster General, it is important that we maintain cross-party consensus on this issue; I know it is very important to the victims that this does not descend into being some sort of political football. It never has done so, to be fair, and that is extremely helpful.
On the shadow Minister’s specific questions, I expect the first payment to be made to an affected person by the end of the calendar year, which is what I have consistently said over the past 18 months. On the issue of the start date, when giving evidence before Sir Brian back in May, I promised to go back and look at it again. The Government of the day was from 1979 a Conservative one, though that does not really matter; there was an argument as to the date after which liability should fall, but I decided that such a debate was not becoming, and that we should just remove the start date altogether, which is precisely what I have done.
I also entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about record keeping. It is not just that these events happened a long time ago, which they did; Sir Brian found evidence of deliberate document destruction. In those circumstances, while Members will realise that IBCA is operationally independent, I have always insisted that there should be a sympathetic and facilitating approach to evidence when dealing with claimants. Rather than simply saying that particular evidence is not available, it should be constructively looking for alternative ways to find that evidence. When I visited IBCA to see the training and work of its caseworkers, both the chair and the chief executive of the organisation very much shared that approach.
The heinous medical experimentation that happened, including at times on children, is also part of the consultation, and we are currently in the 12-week consultation period. Finally, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister that there must be regular communication from both the Government, through the consultation, and IBCA. There must also be plain English in official documents—that is one my passions and I repeatedly asking for it.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson raised the special category mechanism, the changes to which are in the public consultation at the moment. After the 12-week consultation period, the Government will have 12 weeks to respond. My plan is then to introduce what will be the full set of regulations, so another Committee will be reconvening as soon as possible to make the necessary changes to the scheme on the basis of that consultation.
Tessa Munt
Is it possible to have some vague timeframe? The Minister is saying that there is a 12-week consultation, which I absolutely understand, but so many of these people are desperately ill. Can he give me any idea of when that might come into action?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It has already started; we are in the first 12-week period. After that, the Government then have another 12 weeks to respond, at which point I will bring forward a set of regulations. I have already committed to Sir Brian Langstaff, and on the Floor of the House, to changing the special category mechanism. I am fully aware of the issue the hon. Lady has highlighted, and we will certainly move as quickly as we can to introduce the regulations. There is the 12-week consultation period that we are in, there will be 12 weeks for the Government to respond, and then there will be the time that it takes to draft and introduce regulations, but I want to do that as quickly as possible.
Finally, while we are here debating Sir Brian Langstaff’s important recommendations on compensation, he also made a range of other recommendations on trying to prevent something as awful as this from happening again. While this work is hugely important, the work on implementing the other recommendations continues.
Question put and agreed to.