Points of Order
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issues raised in the Cabinet note that has, I understand, been leaked to journalists are important and the Government take them seriously. The Sewel convention is an important framework for the role in which the UK Government respect the devolved responsibilities of devolved Governments, one for which I am the responsible Minister, which is why I have repeated engagement with the First and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments about our relationship working together. I just remind the House that devolved Governments are important but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are two Governments—the UK Government and the devolved Government—and that is why we retain the right to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as in England.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I apologise that I have not been able to give you notice of this, but it is in reference to the earlier response and to the documents. I tabled a written parliamentary question about when Peter Mandelson left his employment on 4 February. The emails on 4 February show that officials knew the answer to that question on 16 October. Not only was it late coming back, and I had to table a second question, but no answer was forthcoming. We have a role and a job to hold this Government to account. They knew the answer to the question and they did not answer that question, and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will take that extraordinarily seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Although I did not get prior notice of the hon. Member’s question, I can appreciate how anxious he would be. It is incredibly important that Members, who are sent here by their constituents, have their questions answered quickly—
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I am not familiar with the details of the case the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he wishes to write to me with those details, I can commit to him that we will look at them.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister has said that he wants to be open with us. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about when Peter Mandelson ceased employment at the Foreign Office and I never got a response. They were first tabled on 4 February. There was a flurry of emails on 4 February without any context to them at all. Will he provide the context? Is it a coincidence? Why could the Minister not answer my question previously? And if he does want to be open, then let us try another one. He said that Peter Mandelson was fired because he told lies, but he has been given a £75,000 pay-off: £35,000 of that was a special severance payment; £30,000 was tax-free. Why on earth was it tax-free?
Darren Jones
In relation to the tax-free treatment for payments following dismissal without recourse to the employment tribunal, those are the tax rules that exist in all circumstances in this country. The Government did not have the legal powers to override them. On the parliamentary questions, I think the documents the hon. Gentleman is hoping to see are being published today and they of course speak for themselves.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating incident for Glasgow. My thoughts, and I am sure everybody’s thoughts, are with those who have seen their businesses and their livelihoods destroyed. I thank the emergency services, which responded so quickly to the situation. The people of Glasgow have seen far too many historic buildings suffer terrible fires over the last few years. We are investing to protect heritage buildings in England, but we will keep a careful eye on the situation that he raises.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I will not make any apologies for spending more money in Scotland or in Wales to improve people’s lives. There has been record investment under this Government into Scotland. The question is: where’s the money gone, John?
Middle East
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear: the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, and in the end the question of nuclear weapons will have to be negotiated. We will always ultimately have to get to that point.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister will understand why the ghosts of Iraq hang heavy over the Chamber at times like this. On that basis, does he agree that the best rebuke to the murderers in Tehran and the Iranian regime is the maintenance of the international rules-based system? More than that, we owe it to the people across the region to learn from the instability in the aftermath of Iraq, so what is the long-term viable plan?
The Prime Minister
We do need to learn the lessons of history. That is why the rules-based system is important. It is also what allows us to make arrangements to get our citizens home and to deal with other matters in conjunction with other countries. On the basis of the decision that I took last night, the plan is to take the necessary measures to protect British nationals. We are clear that, in the end, there has to be de-escalation and a return to negotiation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We inherited the highest industrial energy costs in Europe because of the failed policy of the Conservative party. Our British industry supercharger is cutting bills for major industries, but my hon. Friend is right to champion SMEs as well. I can confirm that we will appoint Ofgem to regulate and stamp out exploitation by third-party intermediaries, helping to reduce bills, and I will make sure that she gets a meeting with Ministers to discuss the issues that she has raised with me.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Even the embarrassingly loyal Scottish Labour party seems to have lost confidence in the Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister, “Please don’t let that put you off coming and campaigning in Scotland on your Government’s record,” but can he tell us why it is that those who were so close to him have abandoned him, given the Government’s record?
The Prime Minister
I remember when SNP Members used to sit down here on the Front Bench, did they not, before the election, and now they sit up there, because we won the general election in 2024 with a landslide majority.
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.
It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank colleagues for turning out for today’s debate.
We are now on the 10th anniversary of the vote to leave the European Union: a lost decade for the economy, a lost decade for business, and a lost decade for future generations and in particular our young people, which has left us poorer, more isolated and less secure in a changing world. I note—again, I am grateful to colleagues for turning up today—that those of us who seek to discuss the issue are overwhelmingly those of us who want a closer relationship with the European Union, because, bluntly, we know it has been a disaster. Nobody is arguing that leaving the EU was a good idea, or that it has left us any wealthier or made us better off. In fact, no other state has sought to leave the European Union since the Brexit debacle unfolded. Such isolationism and exceptionalism is something we must reflect upon very seriously indeed. I know the Government are, but we have a number of specific questions for them.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment.
I want to reflect for a moment that, although the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I made him aware that I would be referencing him today, in this one instance—told us that the UK would not be the last member to leave, no one left and more members are seeking to join. That has been the legacy of this period. Are any colleagues from Reform here today? No. There are some from the Conservatives—I can never quite tell who is in and who is out and which way round they are—but there are no Reform Members in this debate on its showcase policy platform. This is an isolationist, nationalist project, and it has failed profoundly. On that point, I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he is always very courteous in the Chamber.
Jim Shannon
That is very kind. The legacy for us in Northern Ireland is that we are half in and half out, and our businesses, our exports and imports, and our people suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have very different opinions on Brexit, but does he not agree that Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit that everybody else got, which we wanted?
Stephen Gethins
It certainly did not get the Brexit it voted for, because the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to reject it—and no wonder; it was a Brexit that undermined the peace process. But do not worry. Mr Gove, who is not in this place so I do not need to notify him, told Northern Ireland that it was going to get the best of both worlds. Well, if only we had all had the best of both worlds.
Stephen Gethins
I am not going to take too many interventions, but as I took one from the hon. Member for Strangford, I think I should take a viewpoint from the majority point of view in Northern Ireland as well.
Sorcha Eastwood
Yes, indeed—I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I remind colleagues that Northern Ireland voted to remain. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt in all of this. I do not spend my time relitigating Brexit, because it tore my country apart, but for our community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, the legacy is that we have never had the European social funds replaced like for like by any Government since we left the EU, and that is a disgraceful legacy.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Member for her powerful point, and the respectful way in which she makes her case regularly. I was in this place at the time; Northern Ireland was consecutively overlooked, and its views disregarded.
I hope Members will forgive me, because I am going to try to make some progress, but I think it is incredibly important that the first two interventions, although from different sides, were from Members from Northern Ireland, which is overlooked far too often in this place, because the peace process was a price that others thought was worth paying—to a far greater degree than it should have been.
Let me talk about the economy. The National Bureau of Economic Research states that £90 billion has been lost in tax revenues, or £250 million every day. That means that the amount wasted, and not taken in tax, every 48 hours is the entire annual budget of the council of the city of Dundee, part of which I represent. Investment is lower than it would have been, too. Despite that, the UK paid out billions for the privilege of putting itself in this ludicrous situation. More seriously, small and medium-sized enterprises, which grow our economy and employ so many people, have found it harder to grow; for households, the cost of living has increased at a time when they can ill afford it—the Government know this, and they know how serious it is for households—and trade deals that we knew would do nothing to compensate for the loss continue to do nothing.
There is a human element, too, in the form of opportunities for young people. As politicians, we should all leave more opportunities for the generations who come after us than we enjoyed ourselves, but this place leaves fewer opportunities. My life was transformed by doing Erasmus at the University of Dundee. I am glad that the Government have belatedly come round and reintroduced it, but there is a lost generation of those who never had it, and who no longer have freedom of movement, which allowed our young people to live and work in the EU. Why on earth do Members think—I wonder if the Minister can tell me—there was such an explosion in those with Polish, French or, in my case, Irish ancestry seeking second passports?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Alison Bennett
The hon. Gentleman is very generous. Does he agree that it is totally unfair that one person in my constituency missed out on their gap year and the opportunity to travel abroad because they have a British passport while their friend got to travel and have that experience because they could access an Irish passport?
Stephen Gethins
I absolutely agree. That is the benefit of Ireland being a member of the European Union and why I cannot fathom why Labour and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats—I can understand the Conservatives and Reform—do not endorse rejoining the European Union. It is staring them in the face.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I tire sometimes of the hon. Member’s party in Scotland making this fuss about us not wanting to rejoin. If he looks back, he will see that the Liberal Democrats were the ones who desperately wanted not to leave. We campaigned for a second referendum. We want to create a new customs union. We desperately want to be closer to Europe, so, please, will the hon. Member kindly give the correct picture of the Liberal Democrat position?
Stephen Gethins
The correct picture is this—let us talk about the present. Do the Liberal Democrats want to rejoin the EU right now? My party does; does the hon. Lady’s? I will give way again—yes or no?
Christine Jardine
If the hon. Member can explain the contradiction between wanting to join one union and give up sovereignty and wanting to leave another.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member has fallen into the nationalist exceptionalism trap that I would expect more from the Conservatives or Reform. Why is it that the 27 member states of the European Union consider themselves independent and sovereign? The European Union is a club for independent states; the UK is not. That is the fundamental difference.
I will talk briefly about migration, because it is important—and I want to make progress, as a lot of Members want to speak. The UK left the Dublin regulation, which led to an explosion in the number of small boats—the Brexit boats, the Reform boats, the Tory boats. In the EU, irregular border crossings have gone down, but in the UK they have gone up. I know that the Government are looking at returns, but that is a desperate situation.
On the impact on devolution, Scotland voted to leave, but even within the deal we have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I hope the Minister will revisit that Act—one that Labour cried out about previously, and the Scottish Parliament refused consent for. We have talked about Northern Ireland. Because we do not have the purest of pure Brexits, now the European convention on human rights is under threat. It is a bit like the purest of pure communism has apparently never been tried; the purest of pure Brexits, for the ultimate Brexiteers, has never been tried either. The threat to devolution continues under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and I hope the Minister will address that.
Finally, we are less secure. Today is four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I know we are all in the same place on that. It turned the whole of Europe upside down. The EU is integral to our security, so will the Minister tell me why Canada can join the defence procurement scheme but the UK cannot? What progress is being made on that? It is a fundamentally important issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins
Let me just make one more point, and then I will take an intervention from the Labour Benches.
We know the importance of food and energy security, and Ukraine, Moldova and others see their future in Europe, so why on earth does the UK not? Eighty per cent of our 16 to 24-year olds want not a customs union, but to rejoin the EU. Seventy-five per cent of Scots want to rejoin, because Brexit has been a failure.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Nobody can doubt the hon. Member’s Europhile credentials, but I do doubt his party’s commitment to unions of any kind. Why else would the SNP spend more fighting a by-election in Shetland than it did fighting the Brexit referendum? When he has finished answering that, perhaps he can tell us why his party spent more fighting the Glenrothes by-election than it did fighting Brexit.
Stephen Gethins
I am glad the hon. Member raised that. In Scotland we campaigned and overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU—a vote that was ignored by his party and by this place as an anti-democratic protest. On the point of how much campaigning was done, the Brexit referendum took place six weeks after the Scottish, Welsh and London elections. In order to make the campaigning period longer, I tabled an amendment to the European Union Referendum Bill so that we could campaign more, spend more and make the case more, but his party rejected it. Its Members walked into the Lobby with the Conservative party, as they often do, to reject that amendment. I tabled an amendment so that 16-year-olds could vote, as they do in Scotland; his party rejected it. The only amendment it endorsed, and I am glad it did, was one that allowed European nationals to have the vote—that one was accepted. Throughout the process, we sought to amend the damage that his party had done under the Labour leader at the time, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Stephen Gethins
“Who’s he?” he says. He was your leader over two general elections.
Brexit has failed. Many of those who spoke of democracy have since taken their seats in the House of Lords and will never have to face the electorate again. We even have limitations on discussing and debating the Head of State, as has been happening today on, in fairness, a Liberal Democrat motion. To those who bewail the chaos and failure that has enveloped the UK over the past decade, which has seen us run through six—soon to be seven, apparently, if the Scottish Labour leader has their way—British prime ministers since the Brexit referendum, I say: please, reflect on where we are. We need to rejoin. I will endorse anything that brings us closer to the EU, but we know that anything would be simply less bad.
Ten years on, enough is enough. I am about to listen to all these Members make the case for Europe. I say to Liberal Members, to Tory Members, and to Labour Members in particular: have the courage of your convictions and get us closer to Europe, get us rejoining Europe, and stop damaging the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins
Huge thanks to colleagues, genuinely, and in particular to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who came along to represent one particular perspective. I also thank the Minister, but I remind him, of course, that the Prime Minister voted for a referendum on the EU in 2019. I do hope that the Brexit omerta is over, and I gently remind the House that our democracy is no longer a democracy when we no longer have the ability to change our minds. Brexit has been a disaster.
Standards in Public Life
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
As I said in my statement, the vast majority of Members of this House, and also civil servants and other political appointments in the other place, come into politics to serve the public, not to serve themselves, but the Peter Mandelson issue has shown that, for all the rules we have in place that work for the majority of people doing the right thing, there have still been loopholes for people who want to do the wrong thing. We are now going to close those loopholes.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement—it was clearly preferable being here than at the reception that the Prime Minister is hosting for Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs later on. I have lost count of the number of times I have spent here dealing, in one way or another, with Westminster chaos. It often relates to Members of the House of Lords, who are there for life—be they Labour, Liberal or Conservative. This statement is tinkering. When will the Government commit to doing what they have promised to do for 115 years and deal with the obscenity that is the House of Lords?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the Government are committed to working with peers in the other place to modernise the House of Lords and that we agree that that needs to happen. That is why we are in the process of removing hereditary peers and are working with the authorities in the other place to ensure that we deal with the issues we are talking about today.
Lord Mandelson
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I want to start by saying that I remain extremely supportive of the Government. I am proud of what we have achieved together in a short space of time. We have delivered massive investment into the NHS and schools. Those are all positive steps, and we are taking meaningful steps to reduce inequality, lift people out of poverty, and support families through the cost of living crisis in an increasingly uncertain world. We have also committed ourselves to tackling violence against women and girls with a seriousness and ambition that are long overdue.
Just yesterday, Members from across the House came together to vote to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including Members from Reform, the Lib Dems and other parties. I was proud to walk through the Aye Lobby, and I was proud of this House overall, yet that tangible progress has been almost entirely overshadowed by the growing scandal surrounding Mandelson. That should concern every one of us in this House, because we stood on a promise to do politics differently this time. We said that we would turn the page on the scandals, the secrecy and the sense that there was one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else. We said that we would restore trust in public life. Once lost, trust is extraordinarily hard to rebuild.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member will be aware that, earlier on today, the Prime Minister made the concession from the Dispatch Box that he knew. Is this not a question of trust in the Prime Minister, given what he knew when he made his decisions? That is what makes it so serious for this Government.
Matt Bishop
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we are talking about trust across the House, so that includes every Member of this House, and across both Houses.
The Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is one of the proudest achievements of this Parliament. It is the product of years of tireless campaigning by survivors, advocates and frontline organisations who have fought to have their voices heard, but that work and that trust is fragile, and it risks being profoundly undermined when we appear unwilling to apply the same standards of transparency and accountability to those closest to power as we demand elsewhere. How can we stand in this Chamber and say to victims that we believe them and that we will stand with them, while refusing to release full documents relating to serious concerns about one of our own? How can we ask victims to trust the system if the system appears unwilling to scrutinise itself?
The files released last weekend further highlighted what many already fear: there exists a despicable elite network operating with proximity to power, entangled in international criminality, and shielded for far too long by status and influence.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Let me first take a moment for us to remember those women and girls who were silenced, marginalised, degraded, objectified and discarded—collateral damage in the pursuit of pleasure for a network of men who thought that the rules did not apply to them. The correspondence between these men from across the political spectrum, from Steve Bannon to Noam Chomsky, is soaked in misogyny, and it is the misogyny that we women do not actually hear on a day-to-day basis. I am talking about the casual, relentless women hatred shared between men.
We know well the misogyny directed directly at us. There are many of us here in this House who work hard to expose that misogyny as we are witness to it, but the misogyny hidden from us needs exposing. That is why the transparency to which the Government say they are committed is so important. If we say we believe in tackling power imbalances and in ensuring that the law works for everyone, we cannot stay silent, and the hatred and the offences must be seen so that they can be tackled.
One man in particular is apparently guilty by association rather than actually involved in those particular acts, and he is the one who is the focus of the debate today, but it is also true that what has been revealed from these documents is that there appears to have been, over a number of years, horrendous breaches of trust and potential criminal activity amounting to misconduct in public office. I would like this Government, this House and our political class to take this moment to acknowledge that, while this is an extreme and egregious example of an individual believing that the rules do not apply to them, such behaviour cannot continue without the consent—active or passive—of others, and that this is the moment that we will agree that passive or active consent to allow such behaviour in public life will end.
Stephen Gethins
I have raised the point about the Prime Minister, but there is a broader point here. Lord Mandelson was appointed to the Lords. For 115 years, Labour has been promising to get rid of the Lords. The Conservatives and other parties have appointed people to the Lords who we should be getting rid of. Please—is now not the time to take the opportunity to scrap the Lords?
Ms Billington
I accept that there are wider constitutional implications for what we are talking about right now, and I will turn to some of those later. We also know, however, that there is a long track record across politics, not just across the political spectrum but across decades, where people’s talent—predominantly men’s talent—has been seen as a justification for appointment, regardless of their behaviour or their character, and we do need to consider behaviour and character.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I wish the Secretary of State the best for 2026. I am glad he caught “The Traitors”, because I am so sorry to have heard the language used about Scottish Labour MPs by Labour MPs in the press recently. If what he is saying is the best way to improve our lives and our economy, why is Scotland the only part of the UK where child poverty is going down?
Mr Alexander
In part, child poverty will be falling because of the 95,000 kids we will help by abolishing the two-child benefit cap. It is not a coincidence that, in a single afternoon, our Chancellor of the Exchequer took the mantle from Gordon Brown as the politician who lifted the most kids out of poverty across the UK in a single Parliament. Gordon Brown had taken that mantle previously from Denis Healey. It is not a coincidence that Labour Chancellors lift kids out of poverty. That is what we do, and we are proud of it.
Stephen Gethins
I would take the Secretary of State a little bit more seriously if so many Labour MPs had not lost the Whip for backing our vote on tackling the two-child cap. The Scottish child payment, which has been described as “game changing”, has been extended to provide additional funding for babies, meaning that those from deprived communities in Scotland get the best start in life anywhere in the UK in Scotland, so why on earth is Labour abstaining on the Budget? [Interruption.] Just as the Prime Minister turns up, maybe Labour can explain why it abstains and why it does not stand for anything.
Mr Alexander
We are not spending our time indulging in the games of opposition; we are getting on with the serious job of government. That includes delivering a record package of employment rights to help raise pay, because the critical point the hon. Member failed to mention is that three quarters of the kids in poverty in our country today are in working households. That is why the Employment Rights Bill matters, and that is why the 220,000 people being lifted out of poverty as a consequence of increases in the minimum wage matter. We have a comprehensive approach, which is why we have a comprehensive strategy.
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Stephen Gethins Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.