UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning work that she does on this issue. At the next UK-EU summit in 2026, we will seek to complete the negotiations on a food and drink agreement, which would mean less red tape and less cost for businesses; on the linkage of our emissions trading system, so that we do not have our businesses levied with carbon taxes; and on the youth experience scheme, so that we have even more opportunities for our young people. That will be a positive 2026.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for the work he did in another capacity on behalf of the victims, and the relatives of the victims, of the infected blood scandal? He did a very good job, and he reached out to us in a much-appreciated, non-partisan way.

This statement is entitled “UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations”. Is it his understanding, as the Minister for EU relations, that the people with whom he is having dealings are still bent on the creation of a federal United States of Europe? [Interruption.] Do I detect some chuntering on the Government Benches to suggest that some people in this House might want to be a part of that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is best directed to the European Commission. In relation to the first part of his question, he knows that I have always worked cross-party on infected blood, and it is important that I continue to do so.

On working with our European friends and neighbours—whether it is the work that the Prime Minister is doing in leading the coalition of the willing, or the painstaking work that we have been doing in recent days on Russian assets—the close relationship and strategic partnership between the UK and the EU is crucial for our nation’s security.

Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. As he will acknowledge, the report was published less than a couple of hours ago, but the Government will look very carefully at its findings. I give him and the House an assurance that where there is a requirement to act, we will not hesitate to do so.

The hon. Member’s point about our EU partners was well made. We value our relationships with our neighbours, EU partners and Five Eyes colleagues, and I recently met members of the G7 to discuss these matters. When it comes to standing up to the threats that we face, we are much stronger when we join up with our international partners, and that is the right approach. I completely agree with what the hon. Member said about the rules-based order; I am sure that all Members of this House do. That is the right approach. Respecting international law and standing with our allies is the best way to defeat Putin.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Have the Government formed a view as to why President Putin—the killer in the Kremlin—chose to target Sergei Skripal after he had been pardoned and exchanged? Nothing that I am saying now derives from my time chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I recall speculation in the press that it was because Mr Skripal had been actively involved with either the British state or the military, or had in some way been, shall we say, active in opposing the Government of the country from which he had been exchanged. If that is the case, surely the conclusion in paragraph 8.18—that the only measures that could have prevented the attack

“would have been such as to hide him completely with an entirely new identity”—

should have been considered. It is rather surprising that it was not. Was Skripal engaged in anything that made him a target?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the very high regard in which I hold him. He has asked me some important questions, but they are not necessarily questions that it would be in the interests of our national security for me to get into in any great detail. I can say that I have formed a view about the motive that underpinned this particular attack, but I am not going to get into it today. The point he made about the detail of the report was also raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I can give him an assurance that we will go very carefully through the all the detail of the report, and I will consider what he has said today. The conclusion that I draw, which I think is the conclusion that Lord Hughes has drawn, is that responsibility for the attack lies with the Russian state. It is the Government’s responsibility to do everything we can to guard against the threat posed, mindful of the nature of that threat.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on the Joint Committee, and I completely agree with the premise of his point: the Committee considered these matters in a non-partisan way. That is precisely the right approach. It is the approach that I will always seek to undertake, and I know that the majority of Members of this House will proceed in the same way.

My hon. Friend raises an entirely fair and reasonable challenge about the organisational lessons that have been learned as a consequence of this process. All Ministers, whether in this Government or in the previous Government, should have approached these kinds of reports with a degree of humility. Undoubtedly, there are lessons that will need to be identified, learned and implemented as a consequence of recent events. As I know he and the House would expect, the Government need to do that in a measured and considered way. I give him and the Joint Committee an absolute assurance that we will look at the detail of the report very closely indeed, and we will respond within the timeframe that the Committee has set us.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Having previously read out in this Chamber the relevant section of the Official Secrets Act 1911, I am pleased that the report concludes that the decision not to prosecute under the terms of that Act flies in the face of common sense. What also flies in the face of common sense is the Government’s previous position that China poses a range of serious threats but does not constitute a threat itself. Is that still the Government’s position?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I always listen assiduously to what he has to say, given the experience that he brings to this House. I am certain that he will have looked very carefully at what the Prime Minister said in his Mansion House speech on Monday evening, but on the off-chance that he has not yet had the opportunity to do so, let me tell him and the House the essence of what the Prime Minister said with regard to China, because he very clearly set out the Government’s approach. He said that China

“poses real national security threats to the United Kingdom”,

but that it is

“time for a serious approach, to reject the simplistic binary choice. Neither golden age, nor ice age…So our response will not be driven by fear, nor softened by illusion. It will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism.”

I agree with the Prime Minister, and I suspect that most sensible Members of this House do as well.

G20 and Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning and all her efforts to keep a constant light on that appalling situation. It is shocking that Russia is treating those children as a weapon of war, kidnapping and subjecting them to all sorts of abuse and ill treatment. We are doing and must do everything we can to safeguard those children and get them back to their families, where they belong.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I ask the Prime Minister to focus on the question of effective security guarantees? Security guarantees deter aggression only if there is no doubt that the guarantor will act in accordance with the guarantee that he has given. Therefore, if there is a security guarantee to unoccupied Ukraine, it is absolutely essential that the guarantor has some forces on the ground, because otherwise a guarantee to an unoccupied region that is a strategic vacuum can lead to a wider war by miscalculation by the killer in the Kremlin.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. That is why we have done so much work with the coalition of the willing on the capability and planning for land and sea; detailed plans are now as advanced as they can be until we know the next stage of the proceedings. It is also why I have worked so hard with the US to get a US security guarantee going alongside the coalition of the willing, so that the two go together. He will have seen that that is part of the discussion in Geneva, on which we have managed to make some progress.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

That is an entirely fair and reasonable point. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a reassurance, further to what I have already said today and on other occasions. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated here to the UK. I recently met members of that community myself, specifically to discuss their concerns. The defending democracy taskforce is doing a lot of work on our response to transnational repression, but if the hon. Gentleman has any further concerns, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them further.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Do the Government accept that China is a bad faith actor whose basic technique can be summed up by a single phrase: buy influence and build dependency? Is that not exactly what has happened in our universities?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on this matter, and he will know that I am limited in the way in which I can describe the nature of the relationship. I have given him the characterisation that I think is appropriate. We have to be pragmatic in the world that we live in. We have to do what we can to secure our national security, while at the same time ensuring that we are engaging in a way that is advantageous to our country and our economy. Any Government—the previous one and this one—have to balance those sometimes competing interests, but this Government will do it in a way that always ensures that we safeguard our national security.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The straight answer is yes. My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the victims in his constituency of Easington. Whether for hepatitis C victims or the other victims of this scandal, I want the consultation to be as accessible as possible, and I very much hope that he will encourage his constituents to respond to it.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister is clearly totally committed to this subject, and I thank him for the way in which he reaches out to the MPs he knows have an interest in it. Will he join me in commending IBCA for the quality of its communications? Both the website and the MPs’ toolkit recently sent out could not be more free of jargon, which sets an excellent example.

Going back to the point raised by the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), as I understand it, if a compensation grant is made to the family of someone who has already died, those relatives will receive it tax-free, but if the grant is made to the individual shortly before their death, the very same family members might have to pay inheritance tax on it. That is clearly an anomaly, so will the Minister speak to the Treasury about it?

China Spying Case

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to release the minutes of the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025, at which the prosecution of the two alleged Chinese spies, since dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, was discussed, including all actions arising from that meeting; and further calls on the Government to publish the minutes of all other meetings where the case was discussed, whether by officials or with Ministers, all relevant correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government and between Departments, including correspondence between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Cabinet Office, Attorney General’s Office, and the Treasury, and advice provided to the Prime Minister relating to the China spy case.

The purpose of this Opposition day debate and of our motion is very simple: transparency—that is all that we ask for. The basic facts are that two men were arrested on suspicion of having spied on hon. Members of this House for China, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that this appears to have been a “gross breach of trust” against hon. Members, yet the case against the two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was “effectively unsustainable”; it was brought to “a crashing halt” because the Government’s own witness, the deputy National Security Adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence.

Mr Little had what he called a million-dollar question: was China an active threat to national security? The deputy National Security Adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The Government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive to the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why they refused, and why, for example, the Prime Minister did not intervene to prevent the case collapsing, when we know he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed. It is also reported that the Home Secretary tried to intervene.

We do not call for the publication of this material lightly. We know it is an extraordinary measure to call for the Government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy, but this is an extraordinary event. We have reached this point because the Government have been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what they knew when, and why they acted as they did. They have hidden behind civil servants and advisers, when it is Ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, they have brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular.

Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the Government’s statements, to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of theirs. There are a number of examples. First, on 13 October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the mega-mandarin meeting on 1 September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. Last week, the Solicitor General admitted that the meeting did take place. We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser and attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, senior representation from the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office, and the chief of MI5, but we still do not know what was said there, what was agreed or why the Government tried to deny its existence.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I was interested to see that the National Security Adviser was listed as being involved in that meeting. The National Security Adviser is a political appointee—he is a special adviser—and that is usually the reason why the deputy National Security Adviser is put forward to take all the flak. If the NSA himself is participating in policy meetings about this matter, why does he not come forward? Why is he sheltering behind a full-time official who is being hung out to dry?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point and is personally very experienced in such things. It has been reported that the National Security Adviser chaired that meeting. That is to say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come clean with us about what happened in that meeting, who attended and what was decided there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what would have made a massive difference: if we could have updated the Official Secrets Act far sooner than 2023. That would have made a material difference. This case was being prosecuted under a 1911 Act. The National Security Act was passed in 2023. If only the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been in the Cabinet Office to be close to what was going on; perhaps the legislation could have been changed at an earlier stage and we would not be in this position.

Let me be clear with the House: the allegations of political interference in this case are absolutely baseless. The CPS decision to discontinue the case was independent of Government. Indeed, the Opposition should ask what the Director of Public Prosecutions himself said about that; he reiterated it again yesterday when he gave evidence, sitting alongside Tom Little KC.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Can the Minister explain to the House, once and for all, how it is possible for a Government to believe that China is responsible for posing a wide range of threats, but is not a threat itself? He would clear matters up, and allay suspicions that the Government are holding back for economic reasons, if he would simply say that China is a threat to our national security. Will he say that?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

China poses a multiplicity of threats; it poses a threat in terms of espionage, in terms of cyber, and in terms of economic security. However, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the issue is whether it was considered a threat at the material time, and I cannot go back and change that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I will not—too short of time.

There was nothing to prevent that because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the Government were not prepared to change their approach. It is a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Member for Torfaen to say to me, “Back in 2021, the policy of the Government was not to describe China as an enemy,” but at that time, we had not had the spying, the intimidation, and the direct targeting of this institution and the democratic assembly of our people that we have now seen by 2025. Things have moved on, and it was incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their approach, which was that they would not describe a duck as a duck. The witness was prepared to say, “It has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a bill—but we are not prepared to call it a duck.”

Are you telling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside No. 10 and said, “We have a policy problem. It is a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it?”? Is he saying that that was never discussed with the National Security Adviser, that the DNSA never raised that with any relevant Minister? The Attorney General, when he met on 3 September, said, “Well, I couldn’t intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence.” That is perfectly true; he cannot intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, “What do you need? Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require?” But nothing was said. Nothing was said on 3 September because “nothing” was the policy of the Government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope straight into the pan where no doubt many of the, not inaptly named, mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide.

There is extraordinary cheek in the right hon. Gentleman, who came to this House four or five years ago with his Humble Address when he asked for legal advice—advice on the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in with the Berlaymont—to be disclosed for all to see, now saying that we should not see the truth of what in reality the Government were saying and doing at the time.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck, and when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is almost certainly a complete crock of old—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Duck!

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Duck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Respect for democracy is fundamental to our British values, and to who we are as a country, but the world is increasingly an unstable place, and we can no longer be complacent about the multiple threats that our democratic norms and values face. Threats are coming from China, as we see from this espionage case, but also from other malign states, such as Russia and Iran. It is the job of all of us in the House to stand up to those threats and work in the interests of national security.

When I held a roundtable with my local Hong Kong community earlier this year to discuss proposed changes to immigration, I was saddened, but unfortunately not surprised, to hear that many members of the community chose not to attend a meeting with their local MP because they were worried about the long arm of the Chinese state, and the repercussions of the Hong Kong national security law on them and their family. Transnational repression is being used by hostile states to directly prosecute those whom they see as their enemies overseas, but it also has a wider, chilling effect, leaving whole communities afraid to engage with their basic democratic rights.

Meanwhile, I grow increasingly concerned about the influence of foreign actors on misinformation and disinformation online. In recent months, I have seen how anonymous posting on local social media groups in my community can have a pervasive effect on community cohesion and our democracy. Social media companies need to step up and do more on that. I am not suggesting that every anonymous social media post is from a Russian bot, but we all know that Russia and other states are using social media against us.

There have been direct attacks on our democracy, too, such as those from these Chinese spies. Last month, Reform UK’s former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, pled guilty to eight counts of bribery; he was bribed to make statements in favour of Russia while he was a Member of the European Parliament.

I turn to the China spy case. Part of the reason why the case did not proceed to trial and the two gentlemen could not be prosecuted was prevarication over reforming the Official Secrets Act. The Act was introduced in 1911 —it predates the first world war—and despite unanimous recognition for at least eight years that it was completely out of date and not fit for purpose, the previous Government failed to act to fix the holes in our national security laws and left our country ill defended.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Of course, the previous Government did subsequently introduce new legislation. However, under the 1911 Act, if the Government had been prepared to state that China was a threat, the case could have gone forward and would likely have been won. The hon. Member cannot blame that Act.

[Peter Swallow]

The case collapsed because under that Act neither Government provided enough evidence. The witness statements issued by the previous Government are a matter of record, and they do not state anywhere unequivocally that China is a threat. In fact, multiple Opposition Members have said on multiple occasions that it would not be possible to describe China unilaterally as a threat. That is a matter of record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I think he hit the nail on the head. I have been thinking throughout the debate that this is not just about the failure of the prosecution, but about our approach to China—not just this year, last year or during this Government; this has gone on for years and years. The sanctions were imposed in March 2021, which is four and a half years ago. Interestingly, neither the Government of the day nor the official Opposition demanded sanctions; it was the Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords who responded by banning the Chinese ambassador from entering. It has been reported that at the time, the Government attempted to overturn that decision. The key point, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has said, is crystal clear: all of us need to work on our lines and we need cast-iron assurances that, no matter where we have been in the past, going forward we will be very clear about the real threat that China poses.

China’s history tells us that already: six decades of military occupation in Tibet; the mass detention, re-education and forced sterilisation of the Uyghur population; we have witnessed democracy come under attack in Hong Kong time and again; and there is the ever-present threat against Taiwan. China runs a global influence operation and it has been acknowledged in this House that the united front has penetrated every sector of the United Kingdom’s economy. We have been well warned.

As I said earlier, and as has been repeated many times, in 2023 the Intelligence and Security Committee said that China was a “threat”, an “acute threat” and a “grave threat”. In 2022, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that the Chinese threat

“might feel abstract. But it’s real and it’s pressing. We need to talk about it. We need to act.”

That is what we have failed to do until now.

If one of the key hinderances to the prosecution appears to be the concern that the Government would not be able to convince the jury that China was an enemy, how would the Minister describe a state that conducts long-term, large-scale espionage operations, including recruiting those who work in Parliament, and that poses a serious national security threat on these islands? Why has it taken the failure of this case for the Government to definitively state that China is a threat? Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent and unanswerable case, but the trouble is that even in the circumstances of this case, the Government have not said that China is a threat. They keep saying that it poses a range of serious threats, but they keep baulking at saying that it is a threat. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has no hesitation in saying that China is a threat, and he should challenge the Government to do likewise.

[Chris Law]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. China is a real and serious threat. I say that not just as an individual who happens to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet, who is anxious about being spied on too, but on behalf of my party and of colleagues across the House who feel the real and present threat not only to ourselves but to our constituents.

Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis, rather than as the principled position and proactive strategy for which so many of us have been calling for so many years? Why is it, as Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, put it that

“the Chinese Communist Party’s progress towards the ‘Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation’…has met formidable resistance, not from governments, but little ole’ constituency MPs.”?

That is a really good question to consider.

The Government and the Opposition will squabble over who met with whom when, about who said what when, and about who they can blame to squeeze as much political one-upmanship from this case as possible, but the Chinese Communist party must be laughing at this House right now, as we ping-pong when it is clear that we need national security to be taken very seriously and we need to see China placed on the foreign influence registration scheme.

Public trust and the confidence of international allies are wavering, and the ongoing threat to our national security, democratic institutions and economic infrastructure remains. To conclude, it is time to end the inertia, caution and self-censorship from Whitehall and from Government when it comes to China, and to acknowledge, address and act on the threat that we continuously face.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member because she asks an entirely reasonable and constructive question. She acknowledges, I am sure, that the previous Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House about the China audit, and I hope she will acknowledge that the nature of the relationship is complex. I am not aware that anyone in this place thinks that we should not have some form of economic co-operation with China. It is in our country’s national interest to be clear-eyed about the nature of the relationship. Where we are able to co-operate economically where it is in our national interest to do so, we should proceed, but we should proceed, as I say, with a clear set of principles that underpin that. Fundamentally, our national security comes first. This Government will of course look for opportunities to co-operate economically with China, but fundamentally, we will always do what we can to keep our country safe.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sorry that the Minister finds himself in a position which was not of his own making. I am also sorry that only four members of his parliamentary party out of over 400 are standing up to contribute to the debate. Does he accept that one reason for the cloud of suspicion of political interference around this matter is the decision to appoint a highly political special adviser as National Security Adviser for the first time? That has put the deputy National Security Adviser in the firing line. Can the Minister at least confirm that if and when, as I am sure it will, the Intelligence and Security Committee asks the National Security Adviser to come and give evidence in its inquiry that he will do so?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to what he described as a “highly political” appointment. With great respect to him, and he knows that I hold him in the highest regard, I disagree with his characterisation of that appointment. The National Security Adviser is someone who has huge experience of government, is extremely well connected—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may think it is not a good thing that we have somebody occupying a very important role in government who is known around the world; the Government contend that it is a good thing. We only need to look at the comments made by President Trump’s foreign affairs adviser just the other day, commending the important work that the National Security Adviser has done. He works incredibly hard to secure the security of our nation. Rather than talking him down, we should get behind him and ensure that he is supported to do the important job that he has been given.

Middle East

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Children in Gaza have not been to school for the best part of two years—that has had a huge impact. We are already working at pace with others to see how quickly that could be one of the first issues addressed in the rebuilding process, because it is so essential for those children to ensure that they have a better future.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has said again today that there can be no place for Hamas in governing the Gaza strip, but who can physically prevent Hamas from retaining their weapons and regaining control, as they did in 2006? When he talks about antisemitism in Britain, is there any other interpretation of the demand to internationalise the intifada than as a call to attack Jewish communities around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

There is no other interpretation. I am pleased that the right hon. Member raises, and gives me the opportunity to agree with him on, that important point. On his first point about decommissioning, of course that will be difficult, but it is vital. It was difficult in Northern Ireland in relation to the IRA, but it was vital. It is why we have said that we stand ready, based on our experience in Northern Ireland, to help with the decommissioning process. I will not pretend that it is easy, but it is extremely important.

Speaker’s Statement

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to add my words of tribute to my friend, Ming Campbell. He had an impact on me long before I met him. The first general election I was active in was 1987. No offence to any other Liberal MP at the time—none of them are present here—but I was very impressed with Ming Campbell. He struck me as not being like other Liberal MPs: he looked like he could actually run the country. [Laughter.] He had gravitas. I am pretty sure that is what I said to my mother in the early hours of, I think, 12 June 1987, when he gained North East Fife from the Conservatives: “You look the real deal. You look incredibly competent.” And of course, in the years that followed, he demonstrated that.

We have talked about the Iraq war. What Ming Campbell did—yes, applying his legal expertise and insight into international law as well as the law of this land—was to make the connection, in what is often thought of as the esoteric business of human rights, that human rights are about human duties. They are about making sure that nobody is above the law—no Prime Minister and no President. He made that clear and made it crossover into public consciousness in a way that was really very remarkable.

I then realised I had a connection with Ming. When I met my wife, Rosie, in the ’90s, it turned out that her now, sadly, late father, Mark Cantley, opened the bowling with Ming at Glasgow Hillhead. They had not spoken to each other for 30-odd years until Ming came to do a talk at the university at Ambleside shortly after I had been selected, and the two of them continued a friendship until Mark’s passing just two years ago.

In 2005, the year I was elected, the late, great Charles Kennedy was meant to be doing the constituency visit to Westmorland, but his son was born the night before. Ming got drafted in at the last minute and did two visits for me—when you win by 267 votes, every single thing counts, so I have him to thank for that.

When Ming became leader in 2006, I had the honour of serving as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. What insight did I get during that time? He was obsessed with sport and running, and, despite the fact that this was a man who could run 100 metres in 10 seconds, he was incredibly generous in hearing the stories of somebody who was a 10th-rate fell runner.

In my time as leader, Ming was a great source of advice and wisdom. After that time, he and his wife, Elspeth, who we have mentioned, would regularly go on holiday in Ullswater, and they would always make a point of doing a visit in Westmorland—whether we asked them or not. [Laughter.] My recollection is of Ming talking to the local newspaper or TV station and Elspeth with not simply a fag but a pink cigarette holder, looking every bit a real-life Lady Penelope from the “Thunderbirds”.

One of our predecessors, the late, great Jo Grimond, once said that the best Liberal candidate should dress to the right and talk to the left. Ming Campbell bore all the airs of an establishment figure and was a radical to his dying breath. He was kind, wise, decent, talented and loyal. He was my friend, and I miss him.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to state that Sir Ming Campbell, as he then was, was the perfect example of how it is possible to disagree with another parliamentarian on a key issue and yet work side by side on other issues without any rancour or reservation.

My dealings with Ming did not get off to the best start, as we were generally on opposite sides of a debate about the replacement of Trident submarines and the replacement of continuous at-sea deterrence by part-time patrols. Nevertheless, once we got to know each other better on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we found ourselves making common cause on such issues as the safeguarding of the vital BBC Monitoring service for the future, the need to enhance spending on defence with an improved defence budgeting priority and, above all, the folly that could have happened of Britain intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war.

In short, Ming brought courtesy, style, courage and grace to public life to the benefit of society as a whole.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would also like to pay tribute to Ming Campbell, whom I met personally in later years, but whose political influence has hung over my entire adult life.

As an 18-year-old student at the University of Glasgow, I heard about these three great figures of British politics who had studied together and been great friends: Donald Dewar, who became the first First Minister of Scotland; John Smith, whose legacy as leader of the Labour party is well respected; and, of course, Ming Campbell. I found that his persona, his influence, his attitude to politics and his integrity influenced me. It was one of the things that pulled me towards the Liberal party, as it then was.

The first time I came across Ming personally was years later, about a year after he had stepped down as leader. When I made my maiden speech to the Scottish conference, I discovered that I was speaking on a motion proposed by Ming Campbell, which was, of course—this will come as no surprise to many—about RAF Leuchars, its future and what we needed to do to defend it. That was a thread that ran through.

In 2017, when I was standing in Edinburgh West, Ming came to launch my campaign—in fact, he helped me up on to a chair so that everybody could see me. He was there to be supportive. I learned a lot about his kindness and thoughtfulness a few weeks later, when my husband died and Ming took the time to take me aside and make sure I was okay and that I had the support I needed to get through the campaign.

Most of all, though, I enjoyed my chats with Ming on a Monday in the departure lounge at Edinburgh airport. He always had a tale to tell, and he always had a kind word about my column in The Scotsman. My team in the office were endlessly amused by how pleased I was that Ming Campbell had even read my column, never mind agreed with it.

Ming was, in many ways, with the integrity, kindness and thoughtfulness that everyone has spoken about, an example that we should all aspire to and try to live up to. There is a certain restaurant in Pimlico, which I am sure my colleagues are aware of, that many of us were introduced to by Ming Campbell. I am sure we think of him every time we go there, as I think we will the next time we go. We may make a point of going there and raising a glass to someone who was an example not just of what we should be, but perhaps of what the world needs now more than ever among its politicians.