Ministerial Code

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Member for his series of questions—connected, I think, by virtue of being in relation to the ministerial code. Things happen in politics. Things go wrong and people misbehave. But the difference between us and the Conservatives is that whenever something has come up, we have always followed processes and then acted. That is why the Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code and put public service at its heart, and strengthened the role of the independent adviser.

I notice that the hon. Member is not joined on the Front Bench by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who when faced with bullying claims and having broken the ministerial code was not sacked by the Prime Minister at the time, to whom the hon. Member was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Instead, the Prime Minister at the time made his independent adviser on standards quit. I notice that the hon. Member is also not joined by the shadow Housing Secretary—the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—who called a north-east town not that far from me a word that I will not repeat. We will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who were roundly rejected by the public for having corroded trust in politics.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for saying clearly, and quite rightly, that we should not be taking lessons from the Conservative party. What more can he say about the reforms that will follow the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that former Ministers cannot trade on their knowledge through the revolving door and—with the scrapping of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which had been derided as a toothless regulator—that there are far stronger safeguards on former Ministers taking up jobs in the private sector.

[Josh Simons]

I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work to look into and promote some of these important reforms. We made a manifesto promise to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission—now a manifesto promise kept—and abolished ACOBA, which means that there will be financial penalties for ex-Ministers who break any rules on jobs. That is something that the former Prime Minister, to whom the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, will surely be furious about.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill and commend Ministers for the work that has been done on it. In particular, I pay tribute to Merseyside colleagues, who have done so much to get us to where we are today.

This Bill is about restoring people’s trust in the people who serve them, whether that is in Westminster, Liverpool or Bolton—trust that the truth will be told when things go wrong; trust that when things do go wrong, those responsible will be held to account; and trust that Government at every level will work for them, not against them. When I speak to people in Bolton West, the impression is often the same: they are tired of people in public office covering up their failures instead of being held accountable for them.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central reasons for public disillusionment and outrage is that there are no successful prosecutions, or very few, in cases of egregious state failure? Does he agree that unless wrongdoers pay a price and are seen to pay a price, this impunity may persist, and that the duty of candour and the two new statutory offences will help overcome this malaise?

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend speaks to the two new offences—clauses 5 and 11. It is vital not only that the Bill is passed, but that the authorities have the powers they need to ensure that the contents of the Bill are enforced.

When I speak to people, they want honesty and fairness, and for those in power to live by the same rules as everyone else. That is why this Bill matters. Behind it lie some of the darkest chapters in our recent history, which we have already heard about in the Chamber today: Grenfell, Hillsborough, the Horizon scandal, infected blood—the list is far too long. Each one of those cases represents lives ruined by not just a single mistake, but a culture of denial by institutions that closed ranks instead of coming clean.

Given the time constraints, let me turn to the contents of the Bill. It will create a landmark duty of candour on public officials, alongside a new and important offence of statutory misconduct in public office. Both will be vital measures in ensuring that the scandals of years past can never be repeated. Fundamental to the Bill is the new requirement for public authorities to have a code of ethics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned before me, which will start to rebuild the moral foundation of public service that too many people believe has been lost.

I put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has generously engaged with me on a number of points related to the Bill. I hope the Government will consider three small, novel but important changes I wish to propose as the Bill goes to Committee. First, the Bill uses two different definitions of what counts as a public authority. There may be a good reason for that, which the Minister can speak to in her wind-up, but for the duty of candour and misconduct in public office offences, elected representatives, such as local councillors, mayors and Ministers, are included as per part 2 of schedule 2, but when it comes to the requirement to have a code of ethics, it excludes them as per part 3 of schedule 2. That feels inconsistent, and I worry that it risks diluting the message that we are trying to send, which is that everyone, no matter their position, is held to the same standards. My constituents expect everyone in public life, from the Cabinet table to the council chamber, to live by the same principles of honesty and decency.

Secondly, may I gently suggest that we look again at putting the ministerial code and the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards on a statutory footing? This simple measure was recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2021 report, “Upholding Standards in Public Life”.

That is a simple way of ensuring that the rules that govern Ministers today cannot be swept away by less scrupulous Governments tomorrow.

Thirdly, on the offence of misconduct in public office, will the Minister clarify why the Government have elected to set the bar so high? Part 3 is worded to allude to

“the nature and degree of any benefit obtained by the person (whether for themselves or another person) as a result of the act “.

Seeking to be corrupt is not better than successfully being corrupt, so I hope that the Minister will look afresh at the relevant clause. Indeed, the Law Commission has called for a definition along the lines of the intention to benefit. As I recall from more than a decade tackling corruption, section 6 of the Bribery Act 2010 uses the phrasing

“intend to obtain or retain…business, or…an advantage in the conduct of business.”

Aligning those definitions would make it easier for prosecutors to hold bad actors to account.

None the less, the Bill is a huge step forward in the Government’s mission to return politics to service. I am proud to support it this evening, and I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House to make it as strong, fair and future-proof as it can be.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Well, here we are again. The House of Commons and the House of Lords love debating reform of the Lords—we have been doing it for over 120 years. But we have made a bit of progress: at least, after all this time, we seem finally to have killed off the idea that the House of Lords should be elected. That is a great step forward, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in realising that that would just replicate the sort of system that they have in Washington and make it virtually impossible to have coherent government. I say well done; I think that we should give credit where it is due. The poor old Liberals have been dreaming about reform with elections for 100 years, but I am afraid that it is not going to happen.

I will, though, take issue with the Minister for being a bit cruel about the Conservative party when he accused us of having been relentlessly negative for all these years. He seems to have forgotten that in the 1920s—we have heard about 1924—the Conservative party led the debate on making the House of Lords a genuine Parliament of the Commonwealth, and very innovative ideas were coming out of the Conservative party. He blames the Conservatives for endlessly blocking reform, but it was actually the unholy alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell during the Wilson years that blocked the last real attempt at House of Lords reform.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Father of the House mentions Conservative party policy in the 1920s and 1960s. Maybe he can recall better than me, but I do not believe there was any mention of House of Lords reform in the Conservative party general election manifesto last year. Will he illuminate the House on Conservative policy on reforming the other place?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Our policy is very sensible: gradual evolution and reform. That is what the Conservative party is all about.

This is an historic day, and it is a rather sad one. After the Crown, the House of Lords is the most ancient part of Parliament, and the hereditary peers are the most ancient part of the House of Lords Chamber. One can laugh at history and say, “This is all old hat,” but history is important. This all evolved from the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council, of England. The coming together of England into a single realm was through the witans assembled by the King, comprising nobles and prelates. Bishops, abbots, ealdormen and thegns came from across the land. It was not just their privilege but their feudal duty—it was all about duty—to give the King counsel and consent.

It slowly evolved so that some peers sat in Parliament by their office, such as the Bishop of Lincoln, or by their hereditary title, such as the Earl of Arundel. I repeat this point: I cannot understand the contempt and hatred for people just because they have their office by virtue of heredity. The hereditary peers are the only people in the House of Lords who are actually elected by anybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.

The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I will start by setting out some context for why the Bill, though small, is so important and why I am delighted to be speaking in its support. I will then address Lords amendments 1, 3 and 8 directly. As has been mentioned in the debate, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the Government are delivering, and not a moment too soon. The principle at stake here is simple, and it is about the principle, not the process. No one should make laws for the British people, claim a daily allowance or influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in the history books, not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour party’s values and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025.

Of course, the Conservative party will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today, with talk about the Blair Government’s reforms in 1999, when we all know that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future ones. We have heard about next steps and whether a statutory Committee or a Select Committee is the right thing to do. Having asked the Opposition about their official policy, I am still unaware what it is. Indeed, we heard from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about his concerns that this is all a numbers game. I remind him that UCL’s constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the Conservative peers would still be the largest group of all the parties in the other place—larger even than the Cross Benchers. The Conservatives would see a minor reduction in composition from 34% to 32%.

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned that he is not supportive of an elected upper Chamber. I am still at a loss about exactly what a gradual change in the composition of the upper House means.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions gradual change, which was apparently the policy of the Conservative party. Does he agree that a six-month temporary arrangement that takes a quarter of a century to overturn is the epitome of gradual?

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly the concern that I and many Members on the Government Benches have. Long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the principle of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come to the amendments very shortly.

Mention was made of constitutional monarchies. A number of European countries have constitutional monarchies that have a hereditary principle, but none of them has hereditary Members in their Parliaments. Mention was also made of the hereditary principle for parliamentarians being somewhat unique, and of the principle of mandatory retirement at a certain age—indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned it. Of course, that principle also exists in the judiciary, and I do not see any objection there from a human rights perspective.

UCL’s constitution unit found that a clear majority of the public—60%—want hereditary peers gone for good. Who can blame them? The record speaks for itself: not a single female hereditary peer has been elected in 66 years, over a third of hereditary peers are concentrated in London and the south-east, and by-elections are so farcical that they verge on satire. By-elections are in scope of Lords amendment 1, which I will come to shortly.

My electorate in Bolton West is about 76,000 electors. In July last year, 17,363 people voted to elect me as their MP in order to give them a voice in this Chamber. But in 2018 one hereditary peer was elected with a dozen votes—fewer than it takes to become a parish councillor.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend was giving his eloquent and excellent speech, I was reminded of a comedy series called “Blackadder”, in which such bizarre electoral practices happened on our television screens. It is a shame that they seem to be happening even today.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; indeed, he talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. It speaks to the need for drastic reform of the other place, which is long overdue.

In a Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow Members should vote for him because he

“races on the Solent and gardens enthusiastically”.

The electorate for that vote were a grand total of 43. These are not truly democratic contests. They do not seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country. Such by-elections lack the fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this mother of Parliaments: transparency, accountability and scrutiny.

Since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates—a process that is, frankly, long overdue reform. They have all produced lawmakers by accident of birth, and that is the principle to which I and many Members on the Labour Benches object. That is why I will be voting against the Lords amendments today.

[Sir John Hayes]

Just to refresh my memory, which Government instituted the arrangement whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and the kind of election that the hon. Gentleman describes was introduced? Was it a Tory Government, or was it a Labour Government?

[Phil Brickell]

The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year.

That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.

Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle.

Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021:

“Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”

That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with.

In summary—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Phil Brickell]

I will give way on that final point.

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, there are of course some appalling practices with the Conservatives rewarding their donors with peerages, but does the hon. Member not remember cash for honours? There was a police investigation, and Tony Blair was actually questioned by the police. This goes on in all parties, and each of them is a disgrace.

[Phil Brickell]

In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that this Bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second Chamber: to improving its national and regional balance; to introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it.

[Jack Rankin]

I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8, and therefore against the motion, in two minds. I say in two minds because I find the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of Lords amendment 1 would mean, both regrettable and exciting. I would like to take each of these two polarising mindsets in turn.

My first emotion is regret. Britain has something of a Schrödinger’s cat constitution. We are simultaneously a modern, plural and open democracy, and a kind of autocratic theocracy. Our national motto, “Dieu and mon droit”—God and my right—points to the hereditary monarch being appointed by and accountable only to God. We have a state religion in England and Scotland, and in England the divinely appointed monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church. The bishops, whom the King appoints, sit in our legislature, as do hereditary peers, who are the focus of the amendment. The King appoints the judiciary and is the commander of the armed forces. On paper, as Labour Members have pointed out, the country with which we have most in common is the demonic Islamic Republic, but unlike Iran we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in a free press, and freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order.

The point is that we would never design our tapestry of a constitution. In many ways it is absurd, but it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history. In two years’ time, we will celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born in. We should be respectful of that evolution, because that evolving constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice that matters, not how it looks on the ideological grand planner’s piece of paper.

UK-EU Summit

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The deal we have struck makes it easier for fishermen to sell into the EU market. Some 72% of their fish is sold into the EU market. Until we came along with the SPS agreement, which is permanent, they had to put up with the red tape, bureaucracy and added cost that the Tory party negotiated with disastrous consequences. This makes it easier for them to sell their fish into the market, which is hugely important to them. On shellfish exports, which were banned by the Tory party, the door is open again and they can sell into the market—hugely important.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for this landmark first step in the Government’s reset with the European Union. As the Government remove barriers to trade, what further information can the Prime Minister share with the House about how the deal will bring down the cost of living, including for my Bolton West constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

I point my hon. Friend to the endorsements from the very many supermarkets yesterday who made precisely that point. It will allow them now to lower the price of goods and food on their shelves. That is good for them and their businesses, it is good for working people, and it massively helps with the cost of living.

UK-EU Summit

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member talks about the official Opposition’s motion being precise, but that is factually incorrect, in that the motion conflates freedom of movement with youth mobility. If youth mobility is good enough for Australia, Canada and Uruguay, it does not run against the red lines regarding freedom of movement. Does the hon. Member not understand that?

[Alex Burghart]

It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important.

The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [Interruption.] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in.

This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met.

Trade Negotiations

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I hope I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The SPS arrangements were, as I said, an absolute red line for the United Kingdom. We were keen, both in public and in private, to reinforce the Government’s continuing focus on upholding animal welfare standards here in the United Kingdom. In relation to his broader points about the deal, I am grateful that he has brought his experience and expertise to bear in the House in his judgment that, going by even this initial setting out of the deal, it is clearly in the national interest that we are in a position to have a quota allowing a reduced rate for the export of UK cars, for example. We would otherwise have been looking at very serious consequences for major British manufacturers. I am grateful to him for his generous words. I will ensure that Lord Mandelson, as I am now obliged to call him, is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman’s generous tributes—he is never averse to receiving compliments.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for his statement, and I wish to put on record my thanks to him, the Prime Minister and our excellent trade negotiators. The Minister has spoken a lot about tariffs so far, but might he talk about the non-tariff and non-quota trade barriers to further economic development between the United Kingdom and the United States, and about where we will go in the ongoing negotiations?

[Mr Alexander]

It has been a feature of the last few months, since the President was elected, that people have thought that trade policy and tariffs are synonymous. My hon. Friend is exactly right to recognise that a growing proportion of trade is conducted electronically. The UK is an almost 81% services-based economy. We therefore have a huge interest in non-tariffs barriers—not just barriers at the border but barriers behind the border. That is an area of focus in the agreement, and one that will require further work, as is appropriate and right. We were working under huge time pressure to address the tariff issue, for the reasons I have set out, but he is entirely right to recognise that we will take forward an ambitious agenda on non-tariff barriers.

EU Trading Relationship

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Before I begin, I declare an interest as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany. It is our country’s relationship with Germany—seen through the prism of the UK-EU relationship—that I will refer to today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing a debate that is both important and timely, and hope that colleagues will join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Bolton being twinned with Paderborn in Germany, which occurred last week. That twinning is a symbol of the deep civic relationship between my constituency and our European neighbours. It is a partnership that transcends political developments and is testament to our inescapable geography as a nation in Europe and as a large trading partner with the continent.

Our best course of action must be to protect ourselves from the erratic and unpredictable global headwinds of Donald Trump’s America and Xi Jinping’s China. That must mean strengthening our trading relationship with our nearest and largest economic partner, the European Union, and the 27 countries that make up that bloc of 450 million people. Analysis from Frontier Economics has suggested that deeper alignment between the UK and the EU on goods and services could offset the impact of tariffs on the UK, and even help our economy grow by 1.5%. In 2023 the EU still accounted for 42% of the UK’s total exports and 52% of our imports. Let me repeat that: over half of our imports, seven years after the referendum result. Europe remains the bedrock of British trade. Yet, can we really say that we are currently taking full advantage of having such a huge market for British goods on our doorstep? Many British regions can have productive relationships with European partners. Look at Siemens, a major German engineering firm which has invested heavily in Greater Manchester’s advanced manufacturing sector.

Instead of resigning from the challenge ahead and relitigating debates from a decade ago, we should be breaking down barriers that are causing friction and stunting growth. But we must go further than focusing purely on the economics. I benefited immensely from my own lived experience as an Erasmus exchange student at the University of Hannover in Germany. That is why I firmly believe in a bright future for Britain as a nation that must grasp the opportunity on youth mobility with Europe. It is time to back British businesses, back British workers and back Britain’s rightful place as a key European nation.

European Union: UK Membership

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Creasy]

I just want to say a little more on that, because I am supremely conscious of time. The previous Administration chose to walk us out of any foreign affairs co-operation. That includes not just hard power, but soft power. For us in the Labour movement for Europe, it is an utter priority to secure a defence and security co-operation agreement, and to include aid in that conversation. Europe is the third largest donor around the world. Whatever one thinks of the cuts to the aid budget, duplication is a problem, but so too is separation, when looking at how we can stand up to threats we face around the world.

We absolutely must join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, as my colleagues have pointed out. These times call for moving on from talk of red lines to talk of mutual benefit. With the uncertainty and inconsistency of whoever is in the White House, our constituents need us to remember a simple truth about Brexit: we can fight many things in life, but we cannot fight geography. Trade with our neighbours is always going to be critical to the future economy, so we must do what we can to reduce the trade barriers.

Some of us were into the youth mobility scheme before it was fashionable; and some of us, over a year ago, were arguing for it. We consider that it is absolutely in the interests of the British public to get one. We do not believe what came back last summer was the right deal for this country, but we should absolutely be looking at what is possible. In that conversation, we must prioritise our apprenticeships. I am old enough to remember when this country used to celebrate, as part of our national cultural life, young men from the north-east going to Germany to upskill and train. That programme was called “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”, and I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was a regular viewer. That was absolutely youth mobility at the time.

Our young people in this country did not vote for this situation, and they should not bear the brunt of it. They need us to fight for every opportunity that can come for them. A youth mobility deal—not freedom of movement, because we can control how people come here—which we already have with other countries, is in their interest if it is not just about students. Let us talk about every young person.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am a former Erasmus exchange student and have personal lived experience of the immense opportunities that youth mobility provides. Does my hon. Friend recognise not only that it would create significant opportunities for British students abroad, as well as for European students potentially coming to the UK, but that it would not fundamentally rub up against the red lines in the Labour manifesto last year? Youth mobility does not provide a pathway to citizenship, it is not freedom of movement and it does not provide for financial dependency on the state.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

There was a deal by WhatsApp that was never followed up by the Treasury or Ministers. There were no meetings between AstraZeneca and the Conservative Government. Their Government let Britain down every time, which is why the country turned to Labour, and Labour is delivering.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T2. The payment systems regulator found that more than half of bank transfer scams recorded in 2023 originated on Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp. What progress has the Secretary of State made to ensure that tech companies are held to account for fraud originating from their platforms?

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We need to look at that specifically at the Committee stage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. Perhaps he will sit on the Bill Committee.

UK-EU Relations

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland is always at the forefront of my mind. Since I came into office, I have visited Belfast twice; I chair the inter-ministerial group, which obviously includes the Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland; and the Windsor framework taskforce sits within the Cabinet Office, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of the people of Northern Ireland are fundamental to this Government. I would also suggest to him that successful negotiation of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement would be of significant benefit to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Paymaster General’s statement today. I notice that he said that there are currently no plans for a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. As a former Erasmus student myself, may I urge him to look at the schemes that are already in place with countries ranging from South Korea to Uruguay, Australia and New Zealand, and the immense cultural, economic and societal benefits that come from those schemes, which do not rub up against the Government’s red lines on single market access, customs union membership or freedom of movement?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and if we look back over recent decades, there have been many people in this House who have had the benefit of studying abroad. As my hon. Friend has also pointed to, though, the red lines upon which this Government were elected are fundamental.