Nick Thomas-Symonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I reject the suggestion that there is any wrongdoing, as regards Palantir contracts being renewed—I think one was renewed by the Ministry of Defence—in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I reject that absolutely. On the meeting between the Prime Minister and Peter Thiel, to be clear, that did not happen.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I will take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but then I need to make a bit more progress.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  It was an official-led process. Let me just make that clear, because the right hon. Gentleman points towards a pretty important issue. We had the Humble Address and its wording—hon. Members can read that wording—with the quite extensive list drafted by the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). At the end, it said: “except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee”. What the Government have done, and indeed were entitled to do so, is take into account the precedents set by previous responses to Humble Addresses—under the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported, indeed. The Prime Minister has written to the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee on precisely that point. There were a number of Humble Addresses during the 2017-19 Parliament when I was in opposition. I would not say that they were a constitutional innovation, because they have quite an ancient origin, but I personally played some part in their re-emergence. It is obviously the case that, as those Humble Addresses have been replied to—now by a number of parties in government—principles have been used in approaching them which come from things such as the Freedom of Information Act, the duty of Ministers under the ministerial code, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the general data protection regulation. Those are based on precedents for responses to Humble Addresses.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  To the right hon. Gentleman’s direct question, I have not been part of the process or been given precise dates for when the Metropolitan police said what. However, I will say this: the documents with the Metropolitan police have been viewed by the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), so within the confines of not wishing to undermine the ongoing investigation we have tried to be as transparent as we can be with Parliament at this stage. In addition, the summary document of the vetting has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee, so to the extent that we have been able to share documents, we have. The request in this debate from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, will no doubt have been heard as well. Let me turn to the issue of redactions, which I started to develop in earlier answers to interventions. I will not repeat what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said on Monday, nor the methodological note that is available for right hon. and hon. Members to look at, but I want to clarify some issues so that there is no doubt about the process that was followed. As I have said, no material was redacted on grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the ISC’s approval. The redactions agreed with the ISC are all triple-asterisked throughout the publication. When you see the three asterisks, that material was agreed with the ISC to be redacted. On my point about precedent in the earlier exchange with the right hon. Member for New Forest East, the redactions were limited to the names of junior officials, contact details such as telephone numbers and email addresses, the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion, and some cases where there was legal professional privilege. That is in line with the process that has been followed by successive Administrations in relation to Humble Address motions. Those redactions are clearly labelled in the publication. To reconfirm, no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions; that was done by the official-led process. I echo the comments made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on Monday in thanking the Chair of the PACAC, the hon. Member for North Dorset, who is not in his place, for reviewing our approach to the third-party redactions and the material withheld, so as not to prejudice the ongoing police investigations and to ensure that we are being transparent with Parliament, as we should be. Let me turn to the specific point about the Metropolitan police. Everyone across the House will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation, and will understand that I am unable to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. They include questions to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff and Peter Mandelson’s responses. The remaining documents, as I said a moment or two ago, fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material, conflict of interest process material and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will be published in due course, either at the conclusion of the investigation, or at a point, if there were one, at which publication would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation. On 4 February, the House made its will clear.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my right hon. Friend makes her case forcefully. I am treading carefully in my language because this process has been led by officials working with the ISC. The officials working on it will have heard the request that she just made.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is, quite rightly, for the police and not for Ministers to determine the way in which they want their investigation to proceed and to identify documents that they feel are reasonable lines of inquiry. However, to give the House reassurance, even that class of documents was viewed by the Chair of PACAC—obviously, under particular controlled circumstances —because we wanted for Parliament the level of transparency that we could provide at that stage, despite the ongoing investigation. The Government have discharged their duty to the House in complying with the Humble Address motion, aside from that small amount of information that will be subsequently published in a final tranche. As Members will have seen, Monday’s publication complies with the spirit and the letter of the motion, as well as being one of the largest ever publications laid in this House. Members have had some time to consider the document—certainly, since Monday—and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for making further time to debate the issue today. I know that throughout the course of the debate, Members will be conscious of not prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation. I am grateful to the House for understanding the position the Government have taken and my position on answering questions on that. I look forward to the debate before the House. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will close and respond to points made during the debate. I commend the motion to the—

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  That of course strays into the conflict of interests class of documents, which is still one of the classes that is with the Metropolitan police. I conclude by saying again that it is very important that the House has this debate today. From the debate in February to today, I have certainly taken my duties, and indeed the Government’s duties, to the House very seriously, as has my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister—I think today is his eleventh appearance in the House on this matter. He will, of course, close the debate and answer any further questions. I commend the motion to the House.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  On Palantir, I refer my hon. Friend to the methodology statement at the start of each of the three volumes, where it is made absolutely clear that there is a recognition that Palantir is a matter of interest to the House; indeed, there are references to Palantir within the documents. As I am sure the House will understand, I will not speculate on the contents of the documents that remain with the Metropolitan police, but certainly I invite everyone to look at the references to Palantir in the tranche of documents before the House—indeed, the public can do so as well.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I am not hiding from the fact that we have to make changes to the appointments process. Indeed, the Government have changed the process for all direct ministerial appointments to make sure that due diligence and national security vetting have to take place prior to appointment. It is absolutely right that that change was made. Let me turn to the process. The process that was followed was obviously a significant one in order to publish such a large volume of material. When I was at the Dispatch Box on 4 February, I committed to publishing material in scope of the motion—bar that which the Intelligence and Security Committee agreed would be prejudicial to national security and international relations. At this point, I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee. Members who were in the House that day might recall that even as I was speaking in the Chamber I was making the case for the involvement of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I know that it was not a small undertaking for the Committee. A huge amount of time has been spent on this, and I am very grateful to the Committee’s members for their very careful and—it looks to me—painstaking work in going through the volume of documentation. On 4 February, and indeed since, Members have raised a range of issues, and it is absolutely right that the Government are held to account on those. As Members will have seen from the material that was published on Monday, the Government have acted on the House’s request for transparency to an extraordinary extent.

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Trade · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to drive forward to deliver on our commitment. The electricity trading negotiations are absolutely vital, not only for energy security but to bear down on household bills.

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Trade · Hansard source

  More

  We are taking forward negotiations with the EU to drive investment, jobs and growth for the UK pragmatically. On ideological grounds, the Conservatives and Reform would undo it all, and Green party foreign policy—let us be frank—is a dangerous fantasy.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I wish a happy Warwickshire day to my Warwickshire friends and a happy St George’s day to all my English friends. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We are prioritising paying compensation to those impacted, and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has reached the significant milestone of paying out over £2 billion, including the first payment to all eligible groups. I am sure that the right hon. Gentlemen will be aware that I recently announced substantive changes in all seven areas on which we have recently consulted.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman quite correctly raises not only the fact that people have waited decades for compensation, but the urgency with which we want to drive this forward. To be precise, 3,304 infected people had received an offer by 23 April, totalling over £2.6 billion. We have started paying the affected cohort, and the milestone of paying out in the first case by the end of last year was met. It is quite right that IBCA is operationally independent, but I nevertheless stand ready to do all I can to support it to speed up payments.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I look forward to an invitation from my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group. What he says about the voice of the community going forward is absolutely right. That is why I have created, and announced to the House, a mechanism by which concerns that are expressed are appropriately elevated to where decisions need to be made. I was determined not to have some sort of glorified post box that people sent correspondence into. If concerns are raised, they must be dealt with at the appropriate level, whether that is the Infected Blood Compensation Authority board, or escalated to the Cabinet Office.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work in providing a voice for the pupils who suffered such heinous medical experimentation at Treloar’s. On the issue of the evidence, generally speaking I have always said to IBCA that there needs to be a very sympathetic approach, because we are talking about not only events of a long time ago, but deliberate document destruction. On the specific issue of severe psychological harm under the special category mechanism, I will write to him very precisely about the position.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Contaminated Blood: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he has done campaigning for victims. On IBCA and the culture, and on how it treats evidence, as I said, there needs to be a sympathetic and compassionate approach to evidence. In that regard, when I have visited IBCA I have been very impressed with the general ethos that people have been trained in. Specifically on severe psychological harm, I have made very significant changes to the special category mechanism. On the precise issue of the evidence, I will write to my hon. Friend, as I promised to do to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That is why the EU-UK reset is so important, as it will help us in bearing down on fuel bills and energy bills, which will help my hon. Friend’s constituents.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are absolutely committed to promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT people worldwide. Our UK-EU security and defence partnership is underpinned by shared values, and I absolutely give that commitment. We will continue to work closely with EU partners to uphold those values.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks powerfully about the impact of long covid, and it has had that impact on many people following the pandemic. The most recent module 3 report from the covid inquiry covered this issue in detail. Of course, the Government will carefully consider the inquiry’s work on this in our full response—it absolutely should.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Cabinet Office has been withholding milestone payments from Capita. We have a robust recovery plan, which says that full contractual service has to be restored by the end of June. I have been absolutely clear that I will consider all options at that moment, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member could write to me with the details of his constituent’s case.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Public Contracts: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, is doing great work to ensure that public procurement is on the side of working people. Outsourcing by default has not delivered, so a new public interest test would ensure that outsourcing decisions are based on value for money, social value, market and economic impact, and capability and capacity.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Public Contracts: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of Capita’s lamentable performance on the civil service pension scheme. We have to take individual decisions on contracts. For example, yesterday I cancelled Capita’s contract for the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme. I am robustly holding Capita to account, including by withholding milestone payments on the civil service pension scheme. With regard to the Synergy contract, that was led by the Department for Work and Pensions through the normal process, and it too will be managed robustly.

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  The common understanding agreed between the UK and the EU last May provides for carve-outs, subject to negotiation. But if the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that all the export costs and fees that businesses are currently paying, which the SPS agreement will take away, should continue, he should say so.

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  Just this week and last, I have been across the channel to speak to EU counterparts and counterparts in member states. We are making good progress with the EU in our strategic partnership in a changing world. It is a strategic partnership that is good for bills, good for borders and good for jobs.

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  The new UK-EU strategic partnership will bear down on household bills, provide opportunities for young people and create jobs. The Opposition, for reasons best known to them, have decided to oppose all that.