This afternoon the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding an evidence session for the UK-EU reset inquiry. For the session, we are very pleased to be joined by Ministers and officials from both the Cabinet Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Would you mind introducing yourselves for the record?

I am Nick Thomas-Symonds, Minister for European Union relations in the Cabinet Office. I have obviously been responsible for leading the negotiations and continue to be.

I am Stephen Doughty, Minister of State for Europe at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I also cover the relationship with Gibraltar and a number of other related topics.

I am Hermione Gough, director of the EU directorate in the Cabinet Office.

My name is Nick Heath. I am head of department for the EU in the Foreign Office.

We are slightly depleted in number because of the tube strike, but hopefully it will be all right. Perhaps I can start with a fairly general question. We had the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee, and I asked him about the reset and what had happened so far. He said that it was “done”, but I think he also said that there was more work to be done. At the moment, if I were talking to a constituent on the doorstep, what would be the doorstep pitch as to what is happening and what has been achieved?

It is a pleasure to appear before you all today. I am sorry that you are not at full complement, but I completely understand why. It is great to come, and I am very pleased, Chair, that you are taking the interest that you are with the inquiry that you are undertaking. I very much look forward to seeing in due course your recommendations, which I am sure will be helpful for the phase that we are in at the moment on implementation. I will reflect more generally in a moment, but the doorstep pitch is about jobs, bills and borders. It is about a deal that we struck on 19 May and are now in the implementation phase of. It is going to be good for jobs—renewable jobs in the North sea are a good example—and for downward pressure on bills, in terms of both energy and the cost of food as a consequence of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. It will also be good for making our borders more secure, in terms of working together to tackle irregular migration, but also the additional tools that we have for tackling crime—for example, better criminal record sharing for third-party nationals or facial recognition biometric data—to send a message that there is nowhere on the continent for people to hide. To take the point about the Prime Minister before the Liaison Committee, we have often talked about the reset, and I would certainly argue that the relationship is reset. Stephen can speak in a moment to the bilateral relationships and that aspect of it, but there is no doubt that there is that collaborative, strong relationship. What I am about now is the vision of really building that new strategic partnership with the EU. That will be about a new strategic partnership with mutual benefit—in terms of jobs and investment on either side of the channel, but also the other aspects, particularly law enforcement. So I believe the relationship has been reset. I believe the tone is different. I believe that we have that real constructive partnership working, which is so important and in our national interest. It is now about building that new strategic partnership that is rooted in a realistic, hard-headed assessment of international politics and our national interest in the mid-2020s—not going back to the battles of the past, but looking forward to what is in our shared interest.

I hope I am not speaking out of turn, but I will attempt to speak on behalf of the Committee. Certainly our experience, having met many people from across Europe, is that the relationship does seem to be very warm. It is still challenging, but it seems to be on a much better, more even keel than it has been in the recent past.

Perhaps I might add to that, Chair. Thank you and members of the Committee for holding this inquiry, which is hugely important. It is always a pleasure to be here alongside Nick. I can genuinely say that the way in which we work together between the two Departments and collectively on those shared endeavours is testament to the strength of the working between the two Departments, the shared vision across the Government on this, and why it matters to the three issues that Nick mentioned, as well as, crucially, to our security and defence. I have been particularly involved in the work around our security and defence partnership with the EU, as well as in the wider reset. While a lot of the focus has rightly been on the UK-EU relationship and what we achieved on 19 May, the improvement of the bilateral relations with many of our key partners is also important: the new treaty with Germany, the upgrade of our treaties with France, the work we are doing on a new treaty with Poland, and the significant improvement in our relationship with Ireland and the wonderful summit we had. Just last week, the Spanish Prime Minister visited for the first time since, I think, 2017. Those are very visual and tangible outcomes from this reset. It is also about our relationships in the European Political Community, which we led off with in the second week of this new Government. There is also the leadership that we have shown on things like the coalition of the willing on Ukraine with other European partners, as well as our work in the Arctic, in the OSCE and in the Council of Europe. This is a multi-pronged reset. I always describe it as different strands in a muscle: these things are all overlaying on one another. The UK-EU relationship, the relationship with the individual countries and the bilateral work we are doing, and the other bodies—on defence and security, groups like the JEF—are all interlocking strands of a muscle. When Britain strengthens those and uses them all together, our muscle is stronger, whether economically, in terms of security and defence, or in terms of what we are doing to try to bring down bills. This is a collective endeavour. At the core of it, it is about the reset with the EU, but it is much, much bigger than that, and I have been engaged in much of that work. Lastly, reflecting on the spirit of this, I just came from the Gymnich meeting—the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers, at which we, Norway and Iceland were also present. We discussed the very present threats to European security, and the work that we need to do together to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and ramp up economic pressure on Russia. We are now there as a guest, but as a crucial partner. We also bring the crucial perspective of the transatlantic alliance into our European relations, because of course NATO remains the bedrock of our security and defence. I am seeing that in a tangible way in how the relationships are playing out. That is delivering real, tangible benefits for British people not only in all those areas that Nick mentioned, but crucially in keeping this country safe.

I think we are going to be asking you more about a lot of the things that you have just raised, Minister. Can I take you back to what the Prime Minister said at the Liaison Committee? I asked him, “What next? It is good to see what we are doing now, but what else are we going to do?” He told me that he “would like to do more and more on medicines. There are other areas where I think we could…go further; I think many creative people who are crossing borders for their artistry, their music or whatever it may be, on a temporary basis—they are not going to another country for any significant period of time—are still finding it too difficult to get in and out of countries. I hope we can make some progress there.” Medicines and artists seem to be at the top of the Prime Minister’s list. Do you have other things on your list that you would like to be doing next?

Let me pick up on a number of aspects of that. First, it is important that we have annual summits, because those will enable these issues and the particular milestones that will drive progress to be raised. That is hugely important. What the Prime Minister was talking about are particular issues where we certainly want to make more progress. To take the touring artists example, we do have an issue whereby there is a restriction on our touring artists. We tend to think of this in terms of famous pop stars touring, but I am thinking also of orchestras, choirs and musicians we will all know in our local communities, who might want to go and perform across the EU and in other parts of the world. Clearly, we want to make that as easy as possible. The restriction is what is known as the 90-in-180-days rule at the moment. When you have a particular musical tour—we have a former Secretary of State for DCMS here who will know this very well—it is not just about the artist going somewhere; they have a whole apparatus around them that also needs to be there to do the preparation. That is certainly something we want to find a solution on. Alongside that, we want to implement what has been agreed. The security and defence partnership was signed on 19 May, and Stephen can talk to the operation of that.

We will have questions about that.

I am sure you will. I have talked about getting the SPS agreement—the food and drink agreement—into effect by 2027. I have talked about implementing it in the early part of 2027 so that we can actually see the benefit of it. It will be hugely important. To give an example, an export health certificate costs £200 per consignment. When the agreement is implemented, if a lorry is carrying meat, or whatever it might be, we can take away those significant costs on businesses. That is a real priority. So it is about implementation, but there are other issues that we can feed in. We also have our strategic dialogues. We will want to talk about things such as mutual recognition of professional qualifications and business mobility, which is something that businesses frequently raise when I speak to them.

Really, what I am doing is trying to keep our eye on the horizon. This is not going to be it; there is more to be done and there is more ambition. Sir Martin Donnelly completed the economic diplomacy review for the FCDO last year. What recommendations did he make to improve the UK’s terms of trade with the EU, and have the Government accepted them?

The Government were very clear when we came in—you will be aware of this, Chair—that we were not going to rejoin the EU, the customs union or the single market, but that we were able to take the steps that Nick, the Prime Minister and colleagues have been able to. I think those will deliver tangible benefits in the areas that he set out.

But he has set out things like alignment of EU rules on not only medicines, but chemicals. Have the Government accepted that we should be working on medicines and chemicals?

Our priority on this now is what we have agreed with the EU. What we have agreed is across food and drink. There will have to be legislation on that. The focus at the moment is implementing what we have agreed. We are taking a decision as a sovereign nation that we are a high-standards jurisdiction. We are aligning with common high standards because we believe that it is in our national economic interests. I should also point out that the way that is set up in the Common Understanding is making sure that there is, first, a rule-shaping role for us—that is discussions when regulations and directives are being formulated—but there will inevitably be disputes. Of course, you do not go into any trade arrangement with the objective of having a dispute, but if you have a trading relationship of over £800 billion a year, that is an inevitable consequence of it, so there will be an arbitration panel. It is true that questions that are exclusively about the interpretation of EU law go to the European Court of Justice, but they are referred back to the arbitration panel, and it is not binding on the panel’s overall decision in the dispute. I would suggest that we are choosing to go into a very pragmatic arrangement.

Chair, to go back to the first part—

Before we move on to anything else, since you have mentioned dynamic alignment and we have questions on that, I will bring in Sir John so that he can ask about that and then we can move on.

I was going to come to borders, so let’s talk about that, since you have already mentioned some aspects of it. The experience of many of our fellow citizens in the last few months when travelling to Europe on holiday—a huge number visit European countries—has been that they now have to join a different queue from EU nationals and have their passports stamped. One of the consequences of the agreement, as we understand it, is that the EU has said that there is no requirement under EU law for them not to use gates. Can you say how many countries have now allowed UK nationals to use e-gates?

I am quite happy to write to the Committee on the number of countries, but 50 passenger ports across Europe have opened their e-gates to British travellers. Since the agreement of 19 May and since the clarification from the EU, I have been able to go and open e-gates to British nationals in particular parts of Europe; I have been to Prague and to Sofia, to give just two examples. That clearly is a direct result of the agreement that we struck. The issue is that, while that clarification is a real step forward and has already had tangible benefits, it is still within the competence of member states to decide when to open them. For example, Germany has now opened them for regular travellers. There are ongoing discussions—Stephen can speak to some of the work that he has been doing from an FCDO point of view—and that work will continue, for precisely the reason that you suggested, Sir John: we want the best possible experience for travellers. It works both ways, by the way. We want really good experiences for British people going overseas, but also when our British travellers return or when we welcome visitors here for tourism and many other matters.

Since that clarificatory statement was made, we have been following up with every country we can; it has certainly been a core part of all my conversations with bilateral partners. Just recently I have been discussing it with the Netherlands, Poland and Greece. When the UK-Germany treaty was signed on 17 July, Germany agreed to grant e-gate access to registered British travellers via a registration scheme. As Nick has mentioned, he has been in a number of locations. Prague airport is trialling e-gate access for British passport holders. Portugal has recently expanded its e-gate access to Faro, Funchal and Porto—Lisbon already offered it. Estonia will offer it once new infrastructure is in place. I could go through the full list, but this is now a core part of the conversations we are having with each place. It is up to each individual member state to decide how to do this and get the right technical procedures in place. You rapidly get into some very technical conversations, and we put officials together to share the experiences of locations that have moved forward faster and already do it. This is ongoing work, and it touches on the wider question that you asked, Chair: yes, the reset has happened, but this is now about delivery and implementation. That is crucial across a range of things. It is not just e-gates, but the Gibraltar agreement, getting the Poland treaty done, what we are doing on migration—we will be hosting the Berlin process on the western Balkans, working alongside EU partners. There are all these things over the next few months that will help implement the key changes we have made.

Sofia and Estonia are great, but for most British holidaymakers, Spain, Italy, Greece and France will be the priorities. We also have the EU’s new entry-exit system coming into effect. Can you say that by the summer holiday period next year, you would hope that the vast majority of British tourists will be able to enter EU countries without having to go through a separate channel and without having to have their passport stamped?

Obviously, it is within the competence of the member states as to the decisions they take, and I could not guarantee something that is outside my control. What I can say is that, whether at the FCDO or in the work I do at the Cabinet Office, we will continue to press at as many ports as we can for the easiest possible passage for British nationals going overseas. On Sofia, I do not disagree with your point about where people visit, but—

It is a nice place to go.

Indeed it is. I think I was given a figure when I was there of 400,000 British visitors a year, so it will certainly help them on their visits to Sofia.

On the interaction with the entry-exit system, that is something that Nick and I have been working on very closely with colleagues from the Home Office and others over many months to ensure that we understand what is happening in terms of readiness and implementation across ports of entry, particularly the high-pressure ones you mentioned, Sir John. There are extensive conversations going on around that. We have also looked at other places, like northern Finland, where many people go for visits to Santa around Christmas. We fully understand where the pressure points are likely to be. The good news is that in France, Italy and Spain, at many points they already offer e-gate access. I have been particularly interested in following up with Greece, in particular on the situations at some of the smaller airports on islands and elsewhere. I have even visually looked at how the dynamics will work in different places. This is an ongoing conversation with them, and it is tied up with implementation of the entry-exit system and the flexibilities around it. One other thing we have been doing, particularly through our posts, is ensuring that Brits living abroad who are withdrawal agreement beneficiaries know how to sign up for the relevant residence permits and others, if they have not already done so, to ensure that that can enable quicker access, particularly in locations such as Spain and elsewhere. We have been putting out a lot of information over recent weeks and months to ensure that British citizens understand what these changes are going to mean and that they can prepare and be ready for them.

Finally, Minister, you are absolutely right that I spent a lot of my time listening to complaints from touring artists about the difficulties they face. You are also correct that for orchestras and big bands such as Iron Maiden who have a fleet of trucks, it is not just the admission of the performers; it is all the kit that they have to carry, often from different countries—they may be visiting five or six countries, and they need a carnet for each one. Can you give us a quick update on how far you have got to remove those obstacles?

First, it was a manifesto commitment. For us, though, it is particularly crucial—it a huge priority. In the Common Understanding, we had a recognition of the importance of this issue going forward in enabling us to continue to push this for the annual summit. We have not set a date for the annual summit in 2026 yet, but certainly that is something we will want to press. There are conversations ongoing, not just by me as the lead negotiator who sits at the centre of the Government, but obviously at DCMS as well in particular. I think the Minister there has changed over the weekend—there have been a couple of changes over the weekend, Sir John—but I know from the previous Minister, and from speaking on the weekend, that it is a priority for them to continue. As to progress, I guess the proof will be in the pudding, as they say, but it is certainly a priority for us. It is a priority because it is obviously economically important—we want to see whether it is orchestras or bands having this opportunity in places around Europe—and it is a really important part of our soft power that we have the very best of the British cultural scene being showcased around Europe.

Absolutely right.

We are going to move on; we have to try to keep to time.

I want to take a moment to ask the Ministers about the deal for UK fisheries as part of the UK-EU reset. I wanted to share from fishing industry leaders. The first is from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation CEO, Elspeth Macdonald, who said that, on fishing, the deal struck by this Government was a “really unfair and unbalanced arrangement…We believe there will be some advantages, but those advantages do not outweigh the cost of giving away free access to UK fishing waters for 12 years.” Mike Cohen, who is the CEO of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, said that annual fishing quota negotiations were “the best card” Britian had in trying to get a “fairer division of rights”. He said: “We had a card in those negotiations with the EU and we have given it to the other side.” My first question is simply this. Given that you have said that this deal is good for jobs, what is your message to the UK fishing industry?

First, Elspeth and Mike are both extremely powerful advocates, as I know very well from my engagement. Salmon Scotland obviously takes a different view—if you look at what it said about the deal, it was in a very different position. I believe we have struck a deal that is very much in the interests of UK fishers. Let me say why I think that is. First, we have given it long-term stability—I think 12 years is a period of stability. That means it is a period when we can invest both in coastal communities and upgrading the fleet. That is why we have launched the fishing and coastal growth fund, which will invest £360 million over the next 12 years. The other crucial point is that if you look at the UK catch, around 70% of it—roughly, give or take—is exported to the EU market. That is just a reality. The deal allows certain types of fish—shellfish in particular types of water, for example—that could not be exported to the EU to once again be exported to the EU. It also, with our sanitary and phytosanitary agreements, removes a lot of the red tape and barriers, so it will be easier for our fishers to export into what is by some distance the largest market. I believe we have struck a deal that is in the interests of fishers. Whether it is Elspeth, Mike or other very powerful industry representatives, my door is open. I am more than willing to work with them on how best we utilise, with DEFRA as well, this £360 million of investment.

It is interesting that you mentioned Scottish salmon. That is mainly farmed, so that is not actually helping the fishermen and women. You also talked about having better access to EU markets. On that basis, I want to share what the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations have said. They say that the Prime Minister and the EU have claimed that the SPS agreement will benefit the UK fishing industry in the form of boosted exports. As you have said, they say it might be possible, hypothetically speaking, for farmed shellfish and salmon exporters, but they make it clear that for the majority of the fishing community the reality is that it is “very unlikely that any savings from reduced export costs will be passed down to the men and women who go to sea.” They go on to say: “If the government has a plan to ensure” that the costs will be passed down the supply chain, they are “eager to hear it and happy to work with them on it.” Perhaps you could tell me and those fishermen and women if you have got a plan and how they will benefit from the deal themselves.

I take issue with your first point. Scottish salmon is a hugely important UK export—

I don’t think we are disputing that.

It is hugely important and is recognised around the world. I think the deal delivering for Scottish salmon will obviously be great for that sector and for the UK economy as well. Your broad point is: how is the benefit going to be passed down? I think that is the basic challenge that you are putting to me.

It’s not just me; it’s the UK fishing industry that is asking.

Of course, and we have regular dialogue with them about that. My answer is that, first, we want to see wide benefits of the SPS agreement. At the moment, we have the outline that exists in the Common Understanding. We will now negotiate a legal text and take that forward. Secondly, the fishing and coastal growth fund is £360 million not just to coastal communities, important though that is, but directly to what we can do to upgrade the fleet as well, which will obviously be of direct benefit to our fishers around the country. I am determined that they see benefits. I know that DEFRA are as well. You are absolutely right to read out their views. They have expressed them to me as well, quite rightly. Also, and I think it was reflected in the final quotation you read, we have always had a constructive relationship, and that will continue to be the case. In terms of continuing to work with them on this implementation, or indeed with DEFRA Ministers on the fishing and coastal growth fund, that will continue.

We want to move on and talk about the EU security and defence partnership. You are going to kick off, Alex.

Thank you, Ministers. You both mentioned the UK-EU security partnership in the introduction. It is a very significant part of the EU reset. It has a number of dialogues embedded underneath it: Russia and Ukraine, the western Balkans, the Indo-Pacific. Can you tell us a bit more about what you expect to achieve from those dialogues?

The good news is that we have already started them and are getting on to implementing them. I was delighted last week to host the European External Action Service in London to discuss the western Balkans. That was particularly important, given not only our historical engagements in the region but because we are going to be hosting the Berlin Process summit, which is coming up as well. It is crucial work that we are doing there, not only on peace and stability in the western Balkans, but on tackling irregular migration, and other challenges, including serious and organised crime and flows of materiel, through to the UK and indeed EU countries, so this is a very timely moment to have this discussion. I will be travelling to Brussels shortly to have important discussions with them on hybrid threats to the UK and EU. The idea is that we pick those as four key areas where we want to see a greater understanding and co-operation between ourselves and the EU on matters that affect all of us and then ensure that we can align. There are some important decisions that the EU and applicant states must make on further enlargement of the EU in future. That is a matter for the EU and those countries. However, we also have some common aims, for example, improving governance, judicial systems or processes to tackle serious and organised crime, which are going to be of mutual interest to the EU and UK on where we want to see those countries head. It is natural that we should be trying to come alongside and bring those efforts together. Obviously, on the current situation in Ukraine it is crucial that we are aligned. In the last week we have seen horrific attacks across Ukraine, with the British Council being hit by Putin’s barbaric attacks on the same night as the EU delegation. We are facing the same threats, and we need to be aligned in our response.

While EU institutions have a more limited role in security than member states or other organisations, could you say more about what the E3 or JEF might do on the back of those type of arrangements?

As I said, we should see those as all mutually complementary. We continue to play a key role in the JEF, E3 and other groupings. NATO is our foremost security and defence relationship and always will be. We have a NATO-first policy as a Government, and there are investments into defence and security more broadly. The Minister of State at the MOD is going to make a statement to the House later today about defence industrial capability. On that very issue, there is an important link to decisions that the EU is taking on defence industrial capacity in Europe and the importance of our live discussions on the SAFE programme, along with other capabilities and work that we are doing together in the future. Those things are all mutually complementary for our security. In the end, we face the same geographic threats and are seeing the same attempts to target and undermine our democracies, along with the same threats to our critical national infrastructure and challenges from hostile state actors operating transnational repression. It is crucial that we speak with the EU and share insights on that.

It is worth looking at the scale of that and why it was so crucial. Having a security and defence partnership is a prerequisite for participation in SAFE for third countries. It is a €150 billion instrument. It is very significant and could lead to significant opportunities for our defence industries, both boosting our capabilities and delivering jobs and investment here in the UK. It is crucially important to understand at the start. There is now a process, and our ambition is to move that forward quite quickly. We hope that UK industry would therefore then be able to participate in the first round of bids in November. It is a very live process, and I am not going to comment on the discussions because we have to ensure that there is value for money and that it meets our strategic objectives as set out in the SDR. I am not going to commit before the Committee to any particular project or spending. There is certainly a huge opportunity to align, and that will contribute to our ability to defend Europe and generate jobs and new technologies, which are crucial.

Adding to Stephen’s point, the issue now is that the Commission has proposed a mandate, which is not yet approved by the European Council. Once it is, we can enter detailed negotiations. At the summit on 19 May, when we signed the Common Understanding, the President of the Commission was very forward-leaning on pressing forward on that. As Stephen rightly says, there is an opportunity here for jobs in our defence sector up and down the country, which is hugely important. However, it is also important that we do not lose sight of the geostrategic imperatives. This is not a moment to fragment European defence. We have a situation where Europe is collectively stepping up on its defence responsibilities. This Government is increasing defence spending and leading the way. In addition to that, war returned to our continent with Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine back in 2022, so it is really important economically and strategically. That is why, just as Stephen says, the deadline of the first round—which, from memory, is 30 November—is also important.

It is worth emphasising that this is crucially important for the whole of the United Kingdom. Around 68% of defence spending goes with UK businesses outside of London and the south-east. It is crucially important in south Wales, which Nick and I both represent, and it is crucial in the north-west. It is crucial in many locations. It also opens up new collaborations in areas where there will be dual interests for defence and civil purposes. I was just with the space sector in in Leicester, discussing the importance of UK-EU co-operation in space technologies, which will have both defensive and civilian applications.

Probably not, is the answer. I think I was just asked about a doorstep pitch. You do not get very long for your doorstep pitch.

There you go: we know that! At least we don’t—I don’t know about the Lib Dems.

You could do it. I used to talk about this, which may be to your point, Richard. I used to talk about security, safety and prosperity, which probably would then encompass a bit better the point you are making. There is a really serious point here. Of course, we have things that will be a tangible benefit—look at what the supermarkets said about the downward pressure on prices, which is the SPS, as well as what the energy sector has said and what the defence sector has said. It is really important that we talk about those tangible, real benefits, but you are absolutely right that there is a much bigger point here. That is what I was talking about with the new strategic partnership. It really is about a moment where the return of war to our continent really sent a message to all of us about how it is in our mutual interests to work together. You are absolutely right that we should never lose sight of that in this debate.

Of course, that goes beyond just the UK, the EU and SAFE. Look at what we have just done with Norway: an incredible deal in terms of those frigates. It is going to be good for our security, but also good for jobs.

As I said, we are trying to expedite that process at the moment. I do not want to give a running commentary on where that is going, but there is certainly a shared ambition to move forward on this.

Yes, but it is a good point, isn’t it? Von der Leyen said that she hoped to have UK participation within a few weeks. That has obviously not happened, because she said that back in May. Something is holding it up and we just wonder why.

There is not a particular delay—I would not accept that. We very much respect the EU’s internal processes. The Commission has proposed the mandate for the Council to sign it off. As a Government, we are certainly prepared for the 30 November deadline. We will be pushing that forward. The reason—as I am sure members of the Committee will understand—is that this is a live negotiation in terms of participation. The security and defence partnership that we have already signed gives access in principle to the SAFE programme, so that is established. What is not established—and is subject to negotiation, which is why I am treading carefully—are the terms upon which we participate. That is the negotiation that is ongoing.

I have a quick follow-up. I appreciate that you cannot make a commitment at this stage about the level of future funding, but can you clarify whether the UK has already made any payments in relation to the EU SAFE fund, and if so, how much and what access has been promised—

No, there have not been any payments. It is not established.

Just to reiterate again, any contributions will absolutely be assessed for value for money and aligned with our strategic objectives.

So no payments have been promised or made yet? Nick Thomas-Symonds indicated dissent. Stephen Doughty indicated dissent.

Thank you.

Uma, do you want to talk about youth mobility?

I would love to. Thank you all for being here. I must declare that I am on the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. We were in Brussels earlier this year, as was Minister Thomas-Symonds. We had a really great reception, I would say; they were pleased to see the Brits back at the table—and it was good to be on the front foot in Europe once again, so thank you for your work. Some people would say that they have not had a say in all this, and they are the young people in Britain. Brexit happened at a time when many of them were not eligible to vote, and as such they lost loads of benefits that came with being part of the European Union. There is lots of talk about youth mobility and Erasmus+. How far apart are the UK and the EU on agreeing a youth mobility scheme? Have you seen the final EU negotiating position on the youth mobility scheme?

First, can I say something about the PPA and thank you for your participation? I want to reassure cross-party colleagues around the table that not just myself but the former EU negotiator Lord Frost was there, so you will be pleased to hear that there was a range of views being expressed in the PPA. In all seriousness, it was really positive, and I think the PPA is a really important part of the architecture that we have in the UK-EU relationship at the moment. To your point about young people, I was recently struck very personally by this: my oldest daughter was picking up her GCSE results in the summer, and I was struck that a lot of that cohort would have been about eight at the time of the EU referendum. They have very different memories, and I am always struck by that. For me, I am thinking about that cohort of young people and I want to enhance the opportunities that they have. Where we are now in 2025, we are putting the Brexit battles of the past behind us, but it is about how we can enhance their opportunities. On the youth experience scheme, I think that it will actually bring very significant benefits to young British people who want to go abroad, and it is a valuable form of cultural exchange. In my earlier exchange with Sir John, I was talking specifically about the cultural sector then, but I also think this group of young people who go overseas will be part of our soft power. I have said that it will be a capped scheme, and it will be in line with the existing schemes. We have 13 youth mobility schemes already, so there will need to be visas, and there will not be any ability to claim benefits and so on. That sort of smart, controlled and capped youth experience scheme will be of economic benefit when young Europeans come here and contribute to our economy. It will also be a huge opportunity for young people across Britain. I will come to Erasmus+ in a moment, but I also want us to make sure that this scheme is open to everybody of whatever background—I think that is hugely important. When this scheme is launched, I also think that Members of Parliament collectively have a particular role in being able to say that the opportunities are available for everyone, regardless of their economic background. On Erasmus+, firstly, we will be learning from the existing schemes that we have in the UK, including not just the Turing scheme but the Taith scheme in Wales, and I am particularly interested in how well that has been working. Just like the earlier exchange that Stephen had with Aphra on value for money, that is how we will approach Erasmus+. It will be done strictly on the basis of value for money. I also observe again that there is real value in our university sector as a source of soft power. I am sure this is exactly the same for Stephen, but frankly, when I have been going around to European capitals and Brussels to prepare the negotiation, I am forever struck by meeting people who studied or have been here in the United Kingdom, and as a consequence have a starting favourable view, which is again a real strength for us on the international stage.

I absolutely agree. I have four universities in my constituency, so I am always banging the drum for the exchange of students, views and cultures, as well as what it does for our soft power globally. You have talked about a cap. Is that hard cap on numbers the red line for the UK in the negotiations on the youth mobility scheme?

There has to be a cap, and we have been straightforward about that throughout. I see this scheme in the context of the ones we already have. Again, I am treading carefully because this is a live part of the ongoing negotiations, but we have 13 youth mobility schemes at the moment, a number of which were signed by the previous Government with different countries, and I see this working in that same way, on the same basis. You were asking about the mandate; I think the EU has published its Council decision on the opening of negotiations on a youth experience scheme. I am obviously never going to see what the EU’s ultimate bottom line is—that is not how negotiations work—but the EU obviously wants to push forward with this, and so do we. We want to see those opportunities for young Brits in place as soon as possible, for exactly the reason that you mentioned, Uma: we all want more opportunities for our young people.

Are you confident that we can get through these negotiations on the cap? I know that the EU was very keen on pushing the youth mobility, or exchange—there is a difference in the terms we are using—but do you think we can get through this?

I am an optimist in life, and I genuinely think that we can. As I always say about this, when we came into Government, we delivered the Common Understanding within 10 months, which was not bad going, so having had one experience of very intense negotiation, I am at least confident we can get there again—absolutely.

On Erasmus+, the Financial Times reported last month that the Department for Education has put out a formal tender for an organisation to run the UK’s participation. Does that mean the terms of any UK putative participation in the Erasmus+ programme have been agreed now?

No. We are operating what I call a hub-and-spoke model in Government. Obviously, I sit at the hub in the Cabinet Office, and I have to take the final decisions on the trade-offs in the negotiations—that has to happen in one place—but we rely on the expertise of the different Departments. I haven’t been familiar with that issue of the contract, but what is happening there is that the DFE will be preparing the kind of things that it needs to do to support me and the negotiations I will be doing on the association to Erasmus+. I repeat the point that Stephen made earlier: we will do it if we believe it represents value for money and is in our national interest. That is how we will explore it, but just as I take a ruthlessly pragmatic approach—as I have called it before—or a hard-headed approach to what is in our national interest, I am also very conscious that the national interest is also about opportunity. It is about opportunities for young people. I think both Erasmus and the youth experience scheme, which I know, Phil, you have raised a number of times with me in questions in Parliament, are potential paths that can absolutely be of benefit to young people.

I have a couple of other questions for you, Paymaster General, on borders, which you mentioned in your opening remarks. As I understand it, the EU did not agree to a formal returns mechanism on irregular migration in the Common Understanding back in May. Instead, what we have seen has been bilateral agreements, most notably the one in, one out agreement struck with France over the summer, which is going through a pilot at the moment. As the secretary of the Germany all-party parliamentary group, I have been closely following reporting of a similar putative agreement with Germany. To what extent do discussions on an EU-wide scheme still feature in the negotiations?

In terms of the UK-France arrangement, it is a pilot. If you pilot something and it is regarded as being successful in its objectives, then clearly it can be scaled up. That is the nature of a pilot. The European Commission has given the green light to that pilot, so it has that going forward. What we obviously want to do is deal with the problem, which we all know about, regarding the small boats in the English channel—people who are risking their lives in the tiny boats that we are seeing. The Government are looking at, and using, a wide range of measures. There is no silver bullet to deal with this issue, and no single neat solution; it requires a variety of things. In addition to the work we have been doing on this pilot—which is to do with talks that I and my officials have been having with the Commission, and bilateral work done at the Foreign Office, which Stephen can come on to in a minute; it has been a real team effort to get that over the line and maybe scaled up—it is also about what we are doing in terms of changing our domestic law. As you will know, the borders Bill gives law enforcement the same level of powers to tackle people smugglers as they have to tackle terrorists—that is hugely important. We have made pledges in terms of closing asylum hotels in this Parliament. Stephen may come on to this, but the bilateral work that we do across Europe is hugely important for smashing the gangs. The gangs work on an international basis; people who are smuggled come thousands of miles. Sofia is probably about as far from here as you can get and still be in the EU, and I am having the same discussion 1,200 miles away—it is exactly the same issue. Regular migration is very much part of the discussions, but it is also going to be about changes in our domestic law and the other international work that we do.

To reassure the Committee, this forms a core part of every bilateral conversation that we are having, and it will form part of some of those other forums that we are discussing issues in. Whether that is in the EPC, or the Berlin process with some of the western Balkan countries and the Balkan routes that get used, this is a core part of what we are doing. The other thing that I would highlight is that there is a great deal of interest in our new sanctions regime, which is the first of its kind in the world. It has already designated a number of those who are involved in facilitating people smuggling and trafficking. Co-ordination with the EU, individual member states and non-EU member states will be crucial in identifying the key targets and nodes into the future about people we might take further action against. I am very confident that the spirit of co-operation that we have now will help us to meet mutual objectives in terms of tackling those people who seek to shamefully exploit individuals, and will, crucially, result in less people attempting to make dangerous crossings to the UK.

Thank you for those responses. I want to ask a question on Brexit border infrastructure. We have talked about SPS. Politico reported last month that the previous Government spent £700 million on ports infrastructure after the UK left the EU. That was in addition to the £120 million spent by UK ports, plus the National Audit Office’s estimate of £711 million spent on inland infrastructure for customs and SPS checks. Many of those facilities currently lie empty. That is more than £1.5 billion on infrastructure, much of which is not being used at the moment. If the UK Government do manage to agree an SPS deal over the coming years, what can be done to recover that cost, so that it is not simply written off? Are there any discussions that have been had?

Just to answer off the top of my head, I find it very difficult to see how we can recover much of that. I am more than happy to steer back and have a discussion about whether any of it could be, of course—it is important value for money for taxpayers—but the reality is that the ruthlessly pragmatic approach that we have taken on the SPS means that we do not need those import checks, which is why we have delayed it so we can get the SPS agreement in place. This Government are about freer trade; we are about taking away barriers to trade. That is what this Government are seeking to do, so we do not have to spend money like that on additional border infrastructure, and we can save businesses money, whether that is on the identity checks, the sampling checks or the export health certificates that we can sweep away. I do not want to open up a new line of debate, but I should comment that the SPS agreement had a really positive impact on trade across the Irish sea. We are, or course, a good faith actor on the international stage: if we have signed agreements, we stick to them—it does not matter whether it was signed by us or a previous Government, that is the view we take. That means that we will continue to implement the Windsor framework, which is why we have just implemented the phase 3 checks on 1 July. But we can get to a stage where we can significantly reduce those checks on the Irish sea as well, which I think can only be a positive thing.

I wanted to ask a bit more about the role of the FCDO. Of course, it is really important to have the agreements, mechanisms and dialogues, but as the Chair said at the start, a measure of success will be how people in the EU feel about the EU reset—and how they feel about the UK as a whole. Could you tell us a bit more about the public diplomacy the FCDO is doing, and how successful that is or otherwise?

In terms of individual relationships with EU member states?

Populations—the people in the EU. How are they feeling about us? Tell us about the good work you have done.

But please do it shortly.

I haven’t got a detailed table of polling. I can genuinely say—this is anecdotal—that the response that we have had from Governments in all my engagements on different visits has been incredibly positive. They see the UK as a key partner. They understand that we have left the EU and that we are not returning, but they want to have a new, modern partnership that responds to the quite dramatically changed world that we have seen since the Brexit referendum. Particularly in that security and defence space, they see us as a key partner as a strong military power that also has unique expertise, reach and our transatlantic special relationship. They are very keen to see increased trade—it is mutually beneficial—and, crucially, I think they increasingly see the UK as a great destination to invest in. I think particularly of my visit to Spain. Even before we reached the agreement on Gibraltar and the new agreements with Spain that we entered into last week, I visited Iberdrola, which of course is a massive renewable energy investor investing billions in renewable energy generation and jobs in the UK, particularly in Scotland. That is fantastic. It was absolutely clear: it has a vote of confidence in the UK and our investment and economic environment. That is even more strengthened now by what happened last week. When meeting with Spanish businesses with the Chancellor and the then Business Secretary last week, it was clear that they just see opportunity after opportunity for mutual investment in both directions. That is a tangible result of us doing the new relationship with the EU on 19 May but also a result of our new relationship with Spain. There are huge opportunities here, and it is a genuinely positive environment to work within.

That is really good to hear. At the same time, we are looking at the headcount reduction in the FCDO, so I wondered whether you had done an impact assessment on how that is going to affect Europe as a whole and maybe the UK mission in Brussels. What impact might that have?

We were told that it was going to be between 15% and 25%.

I do not want to prejudge the ongoing consultation processes. You will understand that it is important that those are done appropriately with staff and trade unions and others. It is right that we are looking to remove some of the top-heavy nature of the FCDO and to focus resources more on both doing diplomacy overseas and ensuring that we have a lean and fit-for-purpose structure within the organisation. That is why the decisions that are currently in train are being made, and I certainly want to see empowered individuals both across the network in Europe but also within HQ as well. I want to see more people out there banging the drum for Britain and banging the drum for deals, growth, new security arrangements and people-to-people contacts. I have been incredibly impressed by the teams that I have met in our embassies and missions, including in Brussels. Nick and I have worked with them very closely. They are brilliant, but that does not mean you do not need to change and improve and reform. One thing I can absolutely assure the Committee on is that Europe remains one of our key focus points for the FCDO, for all the very obvious reasons and the benefits of that relationship for the UK.

On Gibraltar, which was mentioned, the FCDO announced a political agreement for a new treaty with the EU, but we haven’t seen any of the detail of that yet, so I just wanted to find out when we are likely to see the final treaty and whether there are any significant issues of contention remaining.

No. Hopefully imminently. We are working at pace to get the final treaty text agreed, and then it can go into its relevant processes, but the political agreement that we reached between the UK and the EU and with Spain and Gibraltar was highly significant. It was historic, and it has genuinely been welcomed across the piece and has had much wider benefits, even beyond the immediate benefits. Crucial to understand is that it was backed absolutely by the Government of Gibraltar. We were clear as the UK that we would not enter into any agreement that impinged on their sovereignty or their rights or any agreement that they were not comfortable with. That is exactly what we said at the start, as well as maintaining our military capabilities, and that is what we have stuck to. When you see the detail of the treaty, that will be very, very clear. I really want to pay tribute to not only the Government of Gibraltar but our partners in the EU and in Spain for the spirit in which they have undertaken the discussions. It really, genuinely opens up a new period of partnership that is going to benefit not only the region and Gibraltarians but the UK-Spanish and the wider UK-EU relationship, and that was very apparent in the talks last week in Downing Street. I will visit Gibraltar this week. I am in regular contact with the Chief Minister, and with my Spanish counterparts. I saw Foreign Minister Albares in Denmark, and that was a very positive chat. We all agree that it is in all of our interests to get the detail of the treaty agreed as quickly as possible and get it out there for proper scrutiny.

You mentioned Gibraltar’s sovereignty. Back in June, the previous Foreign Secretary, when giving an update on the agreement, said in his statement to the House that a clause explicitly protecting sovereignty would be inserted. Can you give us a bit more detail about that clause?

I do not want to prejudge the treaty, but important guarantees were made. The crucial point to understand is that the sovereignty of Gibraltar was never on the table in these negotiations. This is very much about the technical arrangements that govern the relationship with the EU, trade across the border, individuals passing the border, the operations of the airport—all of those things. We have agreed a deal that absolutely does not cross the red lines that we set out at the start. That was one of the first changes we made to the text when we came into office.

Will there be a sovereignty clause?

There is a relevant clause that you will see when it comes out. I absolutely assure you that it in no way impinges on the sovereignty of Gibraltar. The Gibraltarian Government are absolutely clear on that. I assure you that they would not have agreed to the agreement if they felt that was not the case.

I have to say, we met representatives of the Gibraltarian Government nine or 10 months ago and we were struck by how optimistic they were. We were not at all sure that they were being realistic, but they seem to have been right. There seems to have been able to be the sort of deal that they were looking for.

Like Nick, I was an optimist. There was a genuine spirit of co-operation and recognition that this is good for the economy in Gibraltar and Andalusia, for the UK-Spanish relationship and for our wider relationships, and that, ultimately, it does not cross any of the red lines set by us as the UK and by Gibraltar.

Can I ask you about scrutiny? For free trade agreements, the Government have said that they will publish the finalised treaties well before they commence, to allow time for Committee scrutiny. Will you also commit to make the text of any new treaties with the EU available for longer than the CRaG process requires, in order to ensure proper scrutiny?

First of all, I welcome scrutiny. One thing I have discovered in this role, given how multi-faceted it is, is the number of Select Committees, of both Houses, I find myself before. It is quite a range, I have to say, but it is a delight to join the Committee for this session. Whether it is parliamentary questions or statements, you would expect the usual run, but you are quite right to challenge me on the CRaG process. At the moment, obviously, I cannot anticipate what precise form the final agreement will take, whether on the SPS, the emissions trading system linkage, or the different aspects that we are driving forward, but we are very conscious of the CRaG process, and where that process is appropriately engaged, we will follow it. As you know, Chair, as part of that process we will provision to the relevant Select Committee. Wherever that is appropriately engaged on the form of the agreement that we reach, we will certainly do that. I am and always have been keen to be as open as possible with the agreements. The negotiations are conducted in a different way, as you would expect. I have given speeches over the past 14 months about direction, but to get the best result from a negotiation you need trust and confidentiality, particularly in the final weeks. At the same time, when we signed the Common Understanding and the security and defence partnership, they were published on the same day. I am keen for as much transparency as possible and very respectful of the CRaG process. It goes back to the Ponsonby rule of 1924.

Oh, don’t talk to me about the Ponsonby rule—honestly, the whole thing is so out of date. But given what we have—and that is what we have—I want to make sure that that out of date rule is used as best it can be. Even when you are negotiating, you can say, “We won’t get this. Parliament won’t like this.” If we are able to be engaged, and able to hold to account, we think that the negotiations and the agreements will be better. It is our job, as parliamentarians, to scrutinise.

I entirely agree that it is your job to scrutinise. I am a huge respecter of Parliament; I have always loved Parliament and come to be held to account. On these negotiations, it is a question of balancing. You are absolutely right that to say, “Look at the pressure in Parliament about X, Y, Z,” can be helpful, but in my experience of the 10 months of delivering the Common Understanding, you need to have trust between the negotiating teams and you need that space as well alongside the public-facing aspects of it. It is getting the balance right that I think is important.

The other thing is that, given the use of the exceptional cases provision—

This is on UK-France, is it?

Yes. That use took place over the summer. Do you envisage relying on that provision again in the near future?

I will let Stephen come in on UK- France, because obviously there are very particular circumstances to do with that treaty—

No, I understand that, but it’s a one-way expediting process and we would rather it didn’t happen.

Do I envisage relying on it? Well, I do not anticipate that, but I obviously cannot say 100%, because I do not know particular urgent situations that might arise, given that the context of that treaty was in irregular migration. However, I hope that you will take from the tenor of my answer that my general tendency is towards transparency and scrutiny, simply because I think they improve things.

Do you think it would be a good idea, if it is anticipated that the exceptional cases provision is going to be used, that at the very least those whose job it is to scrutinise are told in advance that that is what you are going to do?

In any such circumstance, I will bear in mind the position of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Thank you very much. Good. That was all I wanted to hear.

I totally agree with what Nick said, Chair, and you know the respect that I have for this Committee and for Parliament. I have appeared in relation to other treaties and will appear, I am sure, in due course in relation to others. Even despite that exceptional procedure, an explanatory memorandum was still provided and a statutory statement on section 22 procedure. We took steps even in that exceptional circumstance to try to keep people informed and we would always seek to do that.

When did you publish the explanatory memorandum, because we were waiting for it when we came back after the summer recess—?

My understanding was that that it was published during the recess, but I will find out for you the exact date that it was provided. I can make sure that we get you a list of dates.

If you wouldn’t mind, because we thought that it would be published when we came back, so we have been looking for it. Okay—good. Let us move on to John.

May I turn to dynamic alignment? Behind that rather technical-sounding phrase, what it actually means, for those of us who supported taking back control, is giving control away again, because we will now be required to accept EU laws that will be decided upon without our having a vote or any influence. I understand that there will be some kind of ability for the UK to “decision-shape.” Can you say what influence we will have in practice over new EU laws that we will be required to abide by?

First of all, may I challenge the premise of your question? Far from giving away control, this Government are exercising control, and indeed exercising control on the independent trade policy. Let me give an example. In the same month, we secured an FTA with India—to be fair, Boris Johnson, the previous Prime Minister, promised one by Diwali, but he did not say which Diwali. None the less, that FTA was secured; we then secured an economic deal with the United States and then the Common Understanding with the European Union, all in the space of about four weeks. Sir John, I remember very well you arguing for an independent trade policy. There you have it, exercised in our national interest, not just with the EU but with different countries around the world, as well. That is exercising control and exercising sovereignty. On the SPS agreement that you very fairly challenged me about, first of all the Government have a mandate to get that agreement. The commitment was in our 2024 manifesto—I remember it well because I drafted that page in the manifesto. It is there, so we have a democratic mandate to secure the SPS agreement. As part of that manifesto commitment, we promised that we would not rejoin the customs union, and we are not rejoining it; in fact, we are securing trade deals. We said that we would not go back to single market and we are not. We said that we would not go back to freedom of movement; we are not doing so. I would say that the framework and the respect given to the decision that was taken in 2016 is embodied in our manifesto. Indeed, the steps that we are taking to build a new strategic partnership have a democratic mandate from last year. Regarding how this process works, we are taking a decision as a high-standards jurisdiction to align with another high-standards jurisdiction. That is our decision; it is our decision to make. Parliament and, I am sure, you, Sir John, will have your say when we bring the legislation to Parliament. I expect to do that next year to meet the deadline of implementing by 2027. I am sure that you will use every opportunity to speak and that we will have a few exchanges about this when we take that legislation through Parliament. That is our choice. There will be some carve-outs. I will not delve into ongoing negotiations, but if you look at the Common Understanding, it is clear that there will be some things we are going to want to carve out from. Again, it is our sovereign choice to do so. What does rule shaping mean? It means being in the room when we are talking about things like new directives or new regulations. The other point I would make is this. We do not go into any trade agreement wanting disputes—no one does—but any free trade agreement you wish to enter into around the world is going to have some form of independent dispute resolution mechanism. Of course it is. It is going to require the two participating parties to accept a set of common rules. With the arbitration mechanism we have here, as I indicated towards the opening, the European Court of Justice role relates to the interpretation of European law; it is not to do with the overall decision in the dispute. In my view, that is fair, reasonable and balanced. If we wish to enter into more FTAs—I generally think that that is a positive thing to do—we have to agree to have that common set of rules.

I am always in favour of FTAs too, but FTAs do not include the provision whereby we have to obey the laws passed in another place over which we have no influence. That is the difference with what is now proposed for the EU. Are you suggesting that if the EU passes a law that we do not agree with that is part of the arrangements for dynamic alignment, we will be able to not implement it?

We will sign up to align on those standards, and it is our sovereign choice to do so. You asked me specifically about rule shaping. As I say, it is participatory. You will have access to things like data, and be able to participate in discussions around the development of the rules. I am not being defensive about this. We are taking a decision as a Government to align with another high-standards jurisdiction. It is our sovereign choice to do so. That does not undermine our sovereign ability to strike other free trade deals if we want to. Of course the EU deal is very particular. Why? Because we have over £800 billion-worth of trade. We had decades where we were a member state. We are not any more, and we are not proposing to change that status; as I have said, we are very respectful about the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement. We are taking that decision because it is in our national economic interest to do so. It is a perfectly reasonable position for people not to want to support our SPS agreement. They do not have to, but in 18 months or two years’ time, they will have to explain to businesses why they want to reimpose all these costs on them—why they want them to pay for export health certificates, identity checks and sampling. They would have to build all the border infrastructure that Phil referred to earlier, and they will have to tell people why they want to put upward pressure on prices in supermarkets. If people want to have that debate, that is fine, but that will be the consequence of that position.

You are suggesting that the price of a lot of the benefits that we spent some time talking about earlier this afternoon, such as making travel easier and co-operation, is that we again accept some degree of control from the European Union and the imposition of laws through dynamic alignment.

It is not a price; it is an economic benefit. It is a strong economic benefit. You are perfectly reasonable to put that argument, but you have to front up about the consequences of it in terms of costs to businesses and to consumers in terms of the price of food and drink. I welcome that debate. I gave a speech only a couple of weeks ago, at The Spectator event, where I said that I would welcome that debate. I certainly would. I want to get the SPS agreement in place as soon as possible. If people wish to then make the case that they want to push up the price of food and want to put all this border infrastructure in place, I would look forward to the debate.

Can I ask about one other aspect? You referred earlier to your respect for Parliament. Can you say a bit more about how Parliament is going to have a say over this? I think it is suggested there will be primary legislation, but that will give Ministers powers to introduce the individual alignments through secondary legislation—in other words, statutory instruments. Is that correct?

We are now going to negotiate the legal text, but the general framework is that first, yes, we are going to need legislation. I have said that before; I think I said it in an earlier answer, Sir John. It is critical that we do that. Again, I will welcome the debate, when we come to it, as we take that through Parliament. Clearly, there is a bit of a negotiation to go, in the sense of the carve-outs that I mentioned. That is a live discussion and will need to be dealt with. Then we will have that piece of legislation. You are right: there needs to be a mechanism by which Parliament has its role. We have not yet finalised the legal text, which is why I am probably slightly more cautious in the answer than you might want me to be, but certainly the role of Parliament is hugely important. The one thing I was insistent on with the EU was that we show mutual respect for each other’s processes. I very much do that in terms of the EU—we have been talking about the relationship between the Commission and the Council in terms of some of my previous answers—but equal respect is there for our procedures in Parliament. I make no apology for the decision we are taking to align with another high-standards jurisdiction and the economic benefits it will bring.

Going back to the comments you made at the start about jobs, Paymaster General, I visited over the summer a local trailer manufacturing business in my Bolton West constituency, and they were telling me, on conformity of assessment and conformity of production, they have to manufacture to three different regulatory regimes—for the GB market, for the Northern Ireland market and for the EU market. In practice they have to incur an extra £120,000 cost per annum and they have to employ a member of staff to complete paperwork for three different regulatory regimes which achieve the same outcome. As I understand it, conformity of assessment and conformity of production for that sector are not in scope of dynamic alignment in the Common Understanding. What message do you have for that business in my constituency?

My message to that business is probably the same as I would give to a number of different sectors. I think what you are referring to is the issue about mutual recognition of conformity assessments. One of the reasons we have the annual summit process is for businesses exactly like the trailer business you have referred to in your constituency to be able to feed in issues that they have—issues that they think would make their business easier, that would reduce costs and red tape on their businesses. I had an exchange with Sir John earlier about touring artists. That is another good example of something that we need to feed into future summits, and it is why I think that ongoing process is so important—so that issues like that can be raised and aired.

Very tangibly—to go back to what Nick was saying before—this is fundamentally about the costs that are being saved by what we have already agreed and about listening to businesses about the future. On that issue of export health certificates—this applies to the fishing industry, of course, and shellfish industry too—you save £200 per consignment, each time goods are sent, because we do not have to have the export health certificates. If you had a mixed lorry, for example, with lots of different products in it, that is potentially saving thousands of pounds every single time. That is a direct benefit to business and to jobs here in the UK. Those who want to take more ideological approaches to this are going to have to explain why they would want to impose those costs on businesses and jobs in the UK. This is about making things work and improving the circumstances for businesses here.

That concludes our session on the UK-EU reset this afternoon. I thank the witnesses for joining us today and urge you to keep going. We look forward to seeing you again soon.

Thank you all very much for a very good, and good-natured, session. It is much appreciated.