Foreign Interference

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and my co-sponsors for their support. Since I submitted my application for the debate, the profound and urgent national importance of this matter has only increased. Foreign interference now strikes at the very core of Britain’s democratic institutions, our economy and our national security.

This debate takes place against an extraordinary backdrop. Just last week, the United States released a national security strategy that represents nothing less than the wholesale rejection of the values and alliances that have underpinned British security for 80 years. That serves as a warning signal, threading through everything that I will say today. The world order that we built, and the certainty that we have relied on, are no longer guaranteed.

Let me be clear about what we are witnessing and what it means for the United Kingdom. The post-war settlement that Britain helped to forge, and the post-cold war structures that we helped to build, are eroding simultaneously. International institutions—the United Nations, where we hold a permanent Security Council seat; the World Trade Organisation, where we championed free trade; and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—are receding in influence at precisely the moment when Britain needs them most. Their weakening leaves us—a medium-sized power that has always punched above its weight through alliances and institutions—dangerously exposed.

We live in a fractured world in which authoritarian states test boundaries with impunity, and Britain is squarely in their crosshairs. Russia’s war with Ukraine is not simply a regional conflict; it is on our doorstep, and it threatens the security architecture that has kept Britain safe. China has already made a grab for British infrastructure, from our nuclear power stations to our telecommunications networks. The United States’ new doctrine explicitly criticises European allies more harshly than it does adversaries, with senior officials accusing Britain and our European partners of “civilisational suicide”.

Europe is the most liberal, free and democratic continent on earth. That makes us a prime target. Sweden’s chief of defence put it starkly last month, when he said:

“Political polarisation in many countries in the west is…a candy shop for a hybrid-warfare warrior to exploit”.

Britain’s own political polarisation—the Brexit divisions are still raw, and trust in institutions is declining—creates exactly the type of vulnerabilities that our adversaries seek to exploit. The rejection of value-based alliances outlined in the national security strategy and espoused in Beijing and Moscow underscores precisely why Britain must now step forward as the champion of liberal democratic values.

That is not merely idealism; it is in the national interest. Britain’s prosperity depends on the rules-based international order. We are a trading nation—an island that lives by global commerce. We are a financial hub that requires stable international law. Britain’s power is at its greatest when multiplied through alliances and institutions. Liberal international institutions brought peace and prosperity on an unprecedented scale—and Britain was their architect. From the Atlantic charter to the United Nations, and from NATO to the Bretton Woods institutions, British statesmanship created the frameworks that defeated fascism, contained Soviet communism and enabled decades of prosperity.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this timely and important debate. Given the NSS and other challenges, we must move closer to European partners—we see what happens when there is division. I commend him for his work in Georgia in particular. Will he comment on the breakdown of the belief in the rule of law and democracy there?

[James MacCleary]

I will come to Georgia later in my speech, but on the European aspect, the context of the national security strategy has, if anything, made it more urgent to work more closely with our European friends. The SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund negotiations seem to have broken down. It would be good to get more clarity from the Government on exactly what assessment they have made of the benefit to British industry of the SAFE fund, in the light of the amount for which the European Union has asked for entry into that fund. Clearly, there is an urgent need to work more closely with our European friends on rearmament.

The institutions that I mentioned must adapt and evolve, but retreating into transactional geopolitics—treating alliances as protection rackets and viewing international law as optional—leads to disaster for a country of our size and position. Cyber-attacks, disinformation and economic coercion are now as potent as tanks and missiles. The Defence Committee reports rising numbers of cyber-incidents targeting British infrastructure, Government systems and private companies, but the threat is not merely digital. In July 2024, a parcel exploded in a logistics centre in Birmingham. The explosion would have been powerful enough to bring down a cargo plane, had the parcel detonated on board. Security services traced the plot to Russian-directed saboteurs. Their plan’s next stage? Attacking flights to the United States, using British territory as the launching pad for an attack that would cause more disruption than any terrorist attack since 9/11.

In March 2024, a warehouse in east London was set ablaze by Dylan Earl, a 21-year-old recruited online by Russia’s Wagner Group and paid in cryptocurrency. He was convicted after a video of him starting the fire was found on his phone, alongside a Russian flag and £34,000-worth of cocaine. His Wagner handler told him to watch the television series “The Americans” for tradecraft tips. The arson was meant as an audition. Earl wrote to contacts afterwards:

“They have a warehouse in Czech Republic to burn for 35 thousand”.

This is hybrid warfare, and Britain is on the frontline. As Chatham House observes, what is publicly understood is just the tip of the iceberg. There is far more happening that the Government have chosen not to disclose, often for good reason. These attacks seek to destabilise British democracy internally, rather than defeat us militarily. They exploit our openness, our freedoms and our legal systems. Young men recruited on Telegram carry out sabotage, often unaware that their paymaster sits in Moscow. When caught, they are released by the courts, which lack sufficient evidence. This is not so much le Carré or Bond; it is espionage delivered via the gig economy.

We must also see China’s systematic penetration of British infrastructure as more than just a financial investment—it is strategic positioning. Huawei’s involvement in our telecommunications network sparked years of debate before partial restrictions were imposed. China General Nuclear’s 33% stake in Hinkley Point C nuclear power station gives Beijing influence over critical national infrastructure. Chinese ownership of British Steel, of swathes of student accommodation near sensitive facilities and of port infrastructure, and a potential new mega-embassy, all represent potential leverage.

The United States’ new national security strategy explicitly threatens economic warfare, even against its friends. Washington now imposes tariffs on its allies. The Trump Administration have already placed such measures on Britain. That should be viewed in combination with our botched post-Brexit trade position. Having left the EU single market, Britain faces economic pressure from multiple directions. We cannot and must not separate economic security from national security. Every foreign investment, every supply chain and every trading relationship carries potential for coercion if not handled with the utmost care.

Let me offer two international examples of the corrosive effect of foreign interference that should worry, if not terrify, British policymakers, because they show what happens when western resolve weakens. Georgia stands as a clear example of hybrid interference and democratic backsliding. A country that aspired to Euro-Atlantic integration and sent troops to fight alongside British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq has been pulled increasingly into Russia’s orbit through economic pressure, political interference and an ever-present military threat. Young Georgians take to the streets of Tbilisi, desperately protesting to protect their European future, while their leaders respond with water cannon and arrests on trumped-up charges.

In Sudan, we see foreign interference layered upon state collapse. British interests in the Red sea—through which 12% of global trade flows, including vital supplies to Britain—are directly threatened, yet we did nothing to prevent state failure or ensure early stabilisation. At the very moment when sustained UK engagement was most needed, this Government cut our overseas aid budget and hollowed out the very conflict prevention and stabilisation tools designed to prevent crises like this. Exacerbated by interference from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and others, we face regional instability and a humanitarian catastrophe, the scale and horror of which are hard to comprehend.

Russia’s influence on operations in eastern Europe is unmistakable. Across the Balkans most recently, and also in Moldova and Romania, Russian interference has been both brazen and routine. Ahead of Moldova’s most recent elections, the BBC reported voters flying in from Russia carrying thousands of euros in cash, which was allegedly handed out in exchange for people backing Moscow’s preferred candidate. These are not distant problems; they are British problems. Georgia’s struggle warns us what happens when we fail to support democratic allies and to counter foreign interference, and the tragedy in Sudan demonstrates the cost of inaction. Both show that Britain, having retreated from global engagement, now reaps the consequences. That is why we must stand up with our allies, and continue to live and promote our values, both at home and around the world.

One key way we can promote and protect those values is through our alliances. For 20 years, one of Vladimir Putin’s top objectives has been to undermine and break up NATO. The alliance is the cornerstone of British security, which makes reckless comments by individuals, including the new leader of the Green party about leaving the alliance, music to the Russian dictator’s ears. Russia has interfered in our domestic politics for years. Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report documented credible open-source commentary suggesting Russian interference, but the Government of the time shamefully refused to investigate properly. As a result, we still do not know the full extent of Russian influence on the most consequential vote in modern British history.

Even more starkly, Russia has murdered British citizens on British soil. Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium in London. Sergei and Yulia Skripal were attacked with Novichok in Salisbury, tragically leading to the death of Dawn Sturgess, too. Not only were those assassinations carried out on British soil, but we now know that they were messages. They demonstrated that Russia would violate British sovereignty with impunity. That makes it even more critical that our politics is free from Russian influence. Unfortunately, the recent trial of the former leader of Reform UK in Wales has exposed bribery in UK political movements. Until we have seen a thorough investigation of Reform UK’s wider funding, question marks will remain about that party’s links to the Kremlin.

This is not a minor issue. Russia is working every day to infiltrate and undermine our politics and our infrastructure. British train lines are surveilled. British infrastructure is mapped for sabotage. British political discourse is poisoned by disinformation, and British resolve is tested constantly. We are up to the test—our security services are among the world’s very best—but we must root out corruption and foreign interference with energy, resolve and openness. That makes the language of the new American national security strategy all the more alarming. The document’s bleak, even dystopian, worldview, echoed in recent days by the US President, should alarm us all. It trashes the values underpinning alliances that have guaranteed British security since the war. It seeks to interfere directly in European politics, and to fuel instability by calling for a cultivation of resistance to mainstream European political discourse. Essentially, it is endorsing nationalist populist parties such as Alternative für Deutschland, Le Pen’s Rassemblement National in France, and the Reform party here in Britain. It emboldens Russia and China to push further against British interests.

Most alarmingly, the NSS reserves its harshest criticism not for its adversaries but for allies. Christopher Landau, the US Deputy Secretary of State, posted that America can no longer

“pretend that we are partners”

with European countries, Britain included, that are pursuing policies “utterly adverse” to American interests. He listed climate policy, tech regulation, and alleged “censorship” as justifications. Russia’s reaction tells us everything. Putin’s spokesman praised the NSS, and Russians close to Putin endorsed Trump’s attacks on European allies. They sense an opportunity, and we must respond.

The UK must therefore take foreign interference more seriously than it has done in decades. We cannot rely on an America drifting towards transactional nationalism. We must prepare for a world where Britain and Europe stand together to succeed in a transformed global political and security landscape. That is why I was particularly disappointed by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw from negotiations on UK access to the EU Security Access for Europe fund, and I hope we can revisit that at a later time.

Britain must act with urgency on multiple fronts. We must strengthen our democratic resilience, implement the Russia report’s recommendations that the Government ignored, expose foreign interference wherever it exists, protect electoral integrity, and expose attempts by foreigners to bribe British officials. We must bolster our economic security, enhance our cyber defences and rebuild our conventional military capabilities. We must be out front in defending free trade, democratic integrity, and international institutions, even when our closest ally wavers. Britain shaped the world order. Britain championed the rules. Britain built the alliances. If we will not defend them, they will collapse and we will suffer first, and worst.

The world is entering an era defined by hybrid threats, authoritarian ambition and weak multilateralism. This Parliament must confront foreign interference with cross-party seriousness and honesty. The threats are real and the vulnerabilities are known: already British citizens have died, British sovereignty has been violated and British democracy has been attacked. The UK built a global system of rules to reject the notion that might is right. As Putin, Xi and now Trump attempt to reassert that very notion, it falls to us to stand firmly by our values to secure a fair, peaceful future at home and abroad.

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

My hon. Friend invites me to play party politics, and I have promised several times that I am not going to do that. Factually, it is true that if the espionage Act had been updated more quickly and the current Act had been in place at the time, the case would have been able to proceed. That is the case. Decisions were taken not to do that, and I think that is greatly regrettable.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister to his place on his first outing— I have to say, I think the Prime Minister owes him a favour. The Minister will understand the need for absolutely clarity, and I know he says that, but given the serious threat that he has said China poses to us, can he be absolutely clear on two issues: first, that there was no ministerial involvement whatsoever in pulling this case, and, secondly, that the Government provided all evidence that they were asked for? I am afraid that just saying “It is my understanding” is not good enough. We need some assurances.

[Chris Ward]

The answer is yes to both.

Speaker’s Statement

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Ming Campbell was a good friend of mine. There is a body called the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which has not been mentioned yet today. Ming Campbell was a member for over 30 years, only really pausing when he became leader of the Liberal Democrats. When I joined that body in 2015, the respect with which Ming Campbell was regarded across the entire alliance—indeed, by so many partner countries, almost across the world—became apparent almost immediately. It did not matter if we were meeting Presidents, Prime Ministers or even royal families. Ming would come into the room and greet, say, the King of Spain in the same way he would greet somebody in the Tea Room and the respect shone through.

I remember very clearly when he was the chairman of several of the Assembly’s committees. Sometimes allies in those committees maybe did not quite see eye to eye and got into some really heated arguments. Ming simply hit the table and said, “Enough!” and the silence fell. That was the level of respect he had. During the coalition years, he was able to be appointed as leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Assembly. When I had the honour of taking on that role, I do not think many weeks passed when I did not call Ming on his mobile phone and say, “Ming, I need some advice on this difficult situation.” That was especially true during the covid years, when we were trying to work out how we were going to make the annual and spring Assemblies work online. Ming was always there with sage advice on how to lead our delegations.

One thing that is true about serving on an international body is that we spend an awful lot of time in airports, especially when flights are delayed. Ming always had a story and they were genuinely fascinating. His legal career has been mentioned. There was one particular story that I liked, because it showed his quick wit and his ability to move swiftly on his feet, which was an important ability for a KC. He said he had been prosecuting a defendant charged with causing affray and drunken disorderly behaviour. He put the question, “How much had you drunk?” Apparently, the defendant said, “Oh, only eight or nine pints.” He paused and said, “Are you meaning to tell this court that you drank a gallon of beer and you don’t consider that to be very much?” He said that at that point, he knew he had him. He would tell so many stories. He was very proud of his time in San Francisco, where he trained to be a top sprinter. He said, “Academically, it didn’t go quite as well as it should have done. I think I just spent far too much time at the track.”

He was, as I have said, enormously respected across the world. He was a great friend to me and a great sage. His politics were clear, but his party allegiance did not matter when it came to important roles of state and the intellectual rigour that had to be brought to important issues. I will miss him, and I know a great number of people in this House will miss him. He truly was a giant of British politics.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I had the distinction of succeeding Ming Campbell in this place. He probably was not unhappy that I am not his current successor—he spoke so highly of his current successor—but I have to say how highly I thought of him. I have heard so many nice stories today about his role globally, but as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) reflected so beautifully, more important than that was that he was so highly regarded locally. When I took over from him, it was difficult to go to any one of the 99 communities in his constituency where there was not a story or somebody who had been helped. And at the University of St Andrews, he was an outstanding Chancellor and colleague. I want to pay tribute to somebody who I may not have agreed with, but when we have that precious relationship between a constituency and the Member of Parliament—nobody better replicated that in his day-to-day work. I want to pay tribute to a European and an internationalist, but more than that an outstanding local representative.

[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.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank my hon. Friend, although I do not think that will help me with my diet. However, I am doing the great north run on Sunday so I will probably need the calories.

I am happy that we are having the debate, but I am somewhat surprised by its tenor, which runs contrary to the Salisbury convention—its correct name, of course, is the Salisbury-Addison convention; we too often neglect the Labour Member of that important duopoly. It has been surprising—particularly so on Second Reading, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), led for the Opposition—that there has not been a more straightforward argument from the Opposition in favour of the hereditary principle, because it seems fairly clear that that is what they are arguing for.

I dare say there is a—probably dwindling—proportion of the electorate who wish to see the hereditary principle enshrined within those crucial aspects of our legislature in the scope of our discussions, but no Opposition Members appear willing to make that argument. I am afraid it is an act of constitutional contortion for them to say they merely wish to allow some people to serve out their time. If that is the case, why do we have elections? Many wonderful public servants on both sides of the House lost their seats at the last election; but in this place we believe that, at the will of the people, any of us could be gone—and that is quite right.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

The hon. Member is making the point that any of us should be able to go, and I agree. Should that not be the case for all parliamentarians and not just those in this House?

[Mark Ferguson]

My long-standing views on reform of our Parliament can be looked up by any Member if they so wish. I very much welcomed, both on Second Reading and from the Front Bench today, the comments on the future reform of the Lords and what that might look like. However, I dare say to the hon. Gentleman that we might agree on some specific aspects more than he imagines.

There has not been much discussion of Lords amendment 2, on Ministers’ pay. I welcome the Conservative party’s stout defence of working people and of ensuring that people are paid what they are owed. We have also heard references to equalities law from the Opposition Benches, and I welcome that. I just think it is such as a shame that it is only being applied specifically and uniquely to hereditary peers.

As Conservative Members well know, there is a limit on the number of Ministers who can be paid. I think that is right and I do not believe that now is the right time to expand the cost of our politics with more paid Ministers. However, if the Conservative party believes, genuinely and deep down in its soul, that it needed to have more paid Ministers, it had 14 years of Government in which it could have done that, rather than tacking it on as a distraction from the issue at hand here, which is incrementally but crucially reforming our constitution.

I support the Government’s position on all the amendments. Let us get on with this. We have had 62 hours of debate—and counting. Let us crack on. It has been 1,100 years; I think it is time to cut it short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

Yes, she is very good. I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I want to start by addressing some of the points that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) made—he has left. His characterisation of the House of Lords is grossly unfair. He characterised everybody who is a Member as being some sort of pocket-stuffing hanger-on. I think that exposes more about his particular brand of petty grievance politics than it does about the actual calibre of the individuals down at the end of the corridor. Regardless of party affiliation or whether they are independent or bishops, the Members I have come across—in Committee or Joint Committee work, or in delegations when I was previously in the House are—good people who want to see the nation benefit and our country thrive and see good politics and good governance. The characterisation is often unfair and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire belittles his own position as a Member of this House.

[Stephen Gethins]

I intervene merely because my hon. Friend is not here to defend himself, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. There are a number of fine people in the House of Lords and I have worked with them in a number of ways. However, democratic accountability should be at the heart. Labour promised to scrap the House of Lords in the first ever manifesto it produced over a century ago, so although his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) might have been waiting 1,100 years, we have been waiting 110 years for Labour to fulfil its commitment to electing and giving them that democratic mandate.

[Gareth Snell]

Without getting drawn into the debate on the rights and wrongs, I will say that if the Scottish National party had wanted an elected second Chamber, it could have had one in the Scottish Parliament but chose not to. There are things about the way in which our democracy works that mean the SNP Members come down here simply to have a pop at this place for their grievance politics in Scotland. Frankly, if the SNP spent more time thinking about how it could help the nation rather than its petty nationalism, we might be in a better place as a country and things would be better in Scotland.

In a point relating to amendment 1, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) rightly pointed out, Lord Grocott has proposed this Bill in the House of Lords numerous times over the past 20 years. He has tried to get to the point when there could have been an opportunity over the past two decades for Members who are here by virtue of the hereditary principle to be phased out over time. At every opportunity, it was blocked by the Conservative party; at every opportunity, it was talked out.

When the Bill was introduced in this place, first by David Hanson and then by John Spellar, the Conservative party opposed it, saying that the principle was wrong and there was not enough reform. I therefore feel that it is slightly disingenuous now to propose something that the Conservatives have opposed for the past two decades as their solution to the problem that they themselves created by not accepting it in the first place. It is slightly unfair, and it is a categorisation of their own politics that they seek to find ways to frustrate the Bill because they have no option for themselves.

On the somewhat spuriously suggestion that this is a way of neutering opposition in the other place, the number of Conservative peers, even after the expulsion of the hereditaries, will still make them the largest party in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out. The Labour party is currently the third largest party in the House of Lords, after the Cross Benchers. Even after the removal of some of the Cross Benchers who sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage, they will still only be slightly behind the Labour party. The idea that this will remove any form of opposition in the upper House is simply incorrect—it does not hold water.

The other idea that good scrutiny of legislation in the House of Lords can somehow happen only by virtue of the application of the minds of the hereditary peers is equally incorrect. Some of the best challenges to Government in this Parliament have come from Members of the House of Lords who have been appointed. It does not necessarily mean they are less likely to be independent because they are not there by virtue of a hereditary peerage. I genuinely do not see that for myself. The times when I have sat and watched the House of Lords, because their sitting hours are later, I have seen that the challenges that come from the bishops, the Cross Benchers and the members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, regardless of how they reached there, have been thoughtful and well considered, and long may that continue. I do not think that is diminished by virtue of the fact that we say to a small group of those who have a right in the House of Lords, “Your route into this place was an irregularity, and we are seeking to sort that.”

The shadow Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), disputed my figure. There have been 21 appointments to the House of Lords who have had the Conservative Whip. I appreciate that some of those have been resignation honours from previous Prime Ministers—and there were a few to get through because of the way their party operated—but there have been 21. At any point, the former Prime Ministers could have said, “We would like to consider giving those to members of the hereditary group who are not able to continue.” There have been a number of appointees who were not part of a resignation honours list, and again, the Conservative party did not take the opportunity to say to Earl Howe, “We are going to make sure that you can continue.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole House is sorry to hear about the awful fires that my hon. Friend’s constituents have faced, including the destruction of St Mungo’s. I know just how important that church was to the local community. The Scottish Government have received the largest settlement in the history of devolution—£50 billion a year. That should be focused on the issues that matter to her constituency. I will take this up, and make sure that we raise it with the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Q7. First of all, I refer to my comments earlier in the week, since the Prime Minister’s research is not up to scratch. George Reid, a former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament and MP, passed away over the summer. He was a humanitarian to his very fingertips. He abhorred the demonisation of asylum seekers, including those desperate enough to cross the channel in small boats. Figures published by the House of Commons Library show that the number of asylum seekers who are forced to cross increased dramatically after Brexit, as a result of our leaving the Dublin regulation. Instead of punching down and joining in with the victim blaming of Reform and the Conservatives, will the Prime Minister reject their isolationism and look to rejoin the Dublin convention, which every other country in western Europe has joined?

[The Prime Minister]

There is nothing progressive about people crossing the channel in small boats—nothing at all. We need to ensure that that stops.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the question of the Dublin agreement. We had a returns agreement with the whole of Europe, but it was ripped up when we left the EU by people who made promises that that would not be the case. We are rebuilding that relationship—we have reset it—and we now have a returns agreement with France. We would not need a single returns scheme with France if we had not ripped up the Dublin agreement.

UK-EU Summit

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the past few weeks, we have absolutely been benefiting from trade deals around the world. Nothing we are doing with the European Union is stopping that. If the hon. Gentleman wants evidence of that, he can see the UK-India trade deal that this Government agreed in recent weeks, or look at the deal with the United States that we agreed in recent weeks. Nothing we are doing with the European Union cuts across that. Our position has been that we will not choose between our allies. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening—[Interruption.] No, there is nothing dynamic about the Conservative party. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening our trade relationships with all our partners.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have given way a number of times now.

Trade, security, defence and other areas of our relationship should never be treated as a zero-sum game. It is possible to deliver on all fronts, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

I look forward to turning the page next week, as we forge a new strategic partnership with our European friends and make Brexit work in the interests of the British people. We are stepping up and meeting the moment, making people safer and more secure, delivering growth and delivering in our national interest—that is what this Government will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

I can be strong; I promise the House that I will never join those Benches—I can rule that out definitively. What we should not be doing, as the right-wing press have slightly hysterically speculated, is trading away fishing rights for a defence deal, for instance. That is something that Liberal Democrats have been very clear about, and that we continue to be clear about.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Member makes an excellent case. To his credit, he set out four clear points, which is more than the Government or the main Opposition party have done. Members across this House have previously said that a democracy fails to be a democracy if people do not have the ability to change their minds. Does he rule out ever rejoining the EU?

[James MacCleary]

It is impossible to rule out anything in the future. If the hon. Member had asked me 20 years ago whether it were possible that we would ever leave the EU, I would have said that it was extremely unlikely. Who knows what will happen in the future? We may have a Government of a different complexion one day who choose to take those steps, but right now that is clearly not something that we are talking about.

The EU must show flexibility, too. Britain is no ordinary third country. We are a major economy and an indispensable partner on defence, security and trade. The EU must make space for bespoke, pragmatic arrangements. Alongside that, the Government must immediately introduce a youth mobility scheme. Our young people deserve the same European opportunities that previous generations enjoyed, including many on these Benches. The Tories obstinately refuse this common-sense approach and Labour has so far flip-flopped on the issue. We have existing schemes with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Canada, but not with our nearest neighbours. Our young people do not deserve this short-sightedness; they deserve access to opportunities across Europe.

As global threats multiply—Putin’s brutality in Ukraine and Trump’s economic recklessness—Britain’s security demands strong European partnerships. Our comprehensive UK-EU defence pact is not just desirable, but essential for our national security. We are no longer part of Europol, meaning that we have lost access to crucial intelligence sharing and vital databases that help track criminals and terrorists across borders. That is not taking back control; that is making British people feel less safe and less secure. To those who claim that a UK-EU defence co-operation pact would somehow weaken NATO, let us be clear: it would do the exact opposite. Greater mobility for personnel across Europe strengthens NATO’s ability to deploy forces, particularly in the east. Access to EU procurement mechanisms allows us to purchase more equipment more efficiently and boost British defence firms.

Stronger co-operation on European defence not only bolsters the alliance, but improves our shared operational effectiveness. The Conservatives are undermining British security and scaremongering by suggesting otherwise. With Trump in the White House, the world has been plunged into a trade war. Britain’s exports to the EU reached £356 billion last year, which is 42% of everything that we sell to the world. Imagine how much higher that would be and how much more money the British people would have in their pockets had the Conservatives’ disastrous deal not shrunk our economy by 4%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people in Chelsea and Fulham really want. They do not want a Prime Minister like the last one—a business Prime Minister—who said that we would level up to help people across the country but then did nothing about it. What they want is a Prime Minister who will invest in increasing skills and apprenticeships right across the country, as ours said yesterday that he will. That is what we need, and that is what we are getting now.

[Stephen Gethins]

On that point, because rhetoric is important, does the hon. Member agree with Lord Dubs, who said that what the Prime Minister said yesterday was outrageous, or does he agree with the Alternative für Deutschland leader, who agreed with the Prime Minister?

[Ben Coleman]

I have to say, when you ask about Lord Dubs—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

It is good to contribute to the debate. On the matter of Churchill, I am of course one of his successors in Dundee, where he was defeated by the only prohibitionist ever elected. It was after his defeat that he went on to make his speeches about Europe, after he had joined the Conservative party.

I suspect that I will in a moment slip into the same levels of exasperation expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—I hope that she does not mind my saying that we agree on so much—but before I do, let me thank the Conservative party for bringing this motion. I have to say, I salute their—how should one put it—courage in securing the debate. Nobody is saying that the Conservatives’ Brexit has been a success. In that context, I feel that they are leading with their chin today. Nobody is arguing that it is something that has gone well. Nobody is arguing that it has become a triumph. Rather, we are debating and discussing today how to tackle a problem that has been well set out by the Government. I am sorry to say that Brexit continues to cast a spell over the political classes at Westminster.

We have heard a rerun of some of the arguments and some of the falsehoods about the European Union, but let us talk about the evidence—I will be brief, as it has been well covered. There is the 4% drop in GDP that the Treasury has outlined, and the 15% drop in trade that was part of the Budget documents. The UK has now lost more than it ever contributed financially, with absolutely nothing in return. There is the loss of jobs, the loss of regional structural funds that were never replaced despite the promises, the loss of opportunities for SMEs and, critically, the loss of opportunities for our young people. I can remember when the Brexiteers told us that lots of countries would follow the UK out the door. Nobody has followed the UK, and I wonder why. It leans into the sense of British exceptionalism that we hear time and again. The UK has been left impoverished as a direct consequence of those arguments.

I have heard the warm words from Labour Members about wanting to be closer to Europe, but they are fundamentally grabbing hold of a hard Tory Brexit. I fail to see why a Labour Government do not stand up for Europe more. Rather than try to imitate failed Conservative policies and failed Reform policies—let us not forget that Reform has a track record, and it is not a good one—Labour should take them on, on that track record.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

Before I move on to the Treasury and some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I will give way to him.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman was pointing to an empty Bench when he talked about Reform, by the way, because its Members have not turned up.

On the structural funds, I know the hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to say something misleading. After Brexit, my constituency attracted Government funding of something like £60 million or £70 million for roads, a new leisure centre and the regeneration of our town centre. In the last year we were in the EU, does he know that it cost us £17 billion to be a member? What sort of price is that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

Seventeen billion is less than half the amount lost from the public finances. Those are not my figures, but the Labour Mayor of London’s figures. That is money lost without getting anything back in return, and the Scottish Government has lost £300 million in money that has not come from regional structural funds.

Let me turn to devolution and sovereignty. The EU is a Union fit for the 21st century. The UK is barely a Union fit for the 18th century, because it has not been modernised since. We have a Brexit deal that ripped up the devolution settlement, which Scottish Labour and others spoke out against but which has now been imposed on the devolved Administrations in a way that the EU could never do to its member states. I remind Members that not one of the 27 independent, sovereign member states of the EU consider themselves any less independent or sovereign for being a member of the European Union—not one of them. Just one did, and it is this British nationalist exceptionalism that is so utterly damaging to everybody in the UK.

The most sovereign country in the world is North Korea, because we give up a tiny bit of sovereignty with deals. All these other states that see themselves as sovereign—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) talks of Ukraine. Ukraine wants to join the EU. He talks of democracy. The democrats in Georgia and Moldova drape themselves in European flags because they see that as the future of the rule of law, democracy and greater wealth for their country. Every country that has joined the EU got better off. The one country that left got worse off, and its citizens had fewer rights.

We all have to recognise that the EU is a security actor, and a majority of European states now see the EU and NATO as the twin pillars of security. Those sovereign states see that. While I welcome the UK Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine—both the current and previous Administrations—we are not realistic about the challenges we face. Putin’s Russia fears the EU. That is why we saw the initial war in Ukraine in 2014, because of the EU accession agreement. We know that, and everyone else gets it except those in the United Kingdom. The EU provides food security and energy security for its members, and sitting outside leaves us more isolated and less secure. Why is the UK so exceptional? What makes the UK so special? How is it that everybody else has got it wrong, but the UK has somehow got it right? It is a piece of nonsense that is damaging us all.

Turning to young people, I am getting tired of hearing Labour talk about youth mobility schemes. I would like the Minister to tell me whether a youth mobility scheme will be put in place, and then say how it will compare with the free movement we all enjoyed when we were in the EU. We are leaving younger generations with fewer rights and opportunities than we ourselves enjoyed, and that is a failure of our political generation—an abject failure.

I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister’s rhetoric yesterday feeds into that. That he was called out by Lord Dubs, a Labour Member of the House of Lords, and yet praised by the leader of Alternative for Germany should surely give Labour Members some cause for reflection—some cause to reflect on how others are seeing them right now. I would expect such rhetoric from Reform and others, but I did not expect it from the Labour party and I say to Labour Members, “I’m sorry, I oppose you sometimes and you stood against me, but I did not expect that from the Labour party.”

The worst part of this is that we are getting it from a Labour Government who do not really believe in what they are doing. I know that from working with them over the years. They do not believe in the damage this is doing. What is damaging us in politics right now is that people are standing up for things they do not really believe in. They do not say what they believe in. They might say, “I believe in leaving the European Union”—(Interruption.) The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talks about Parliament—I just heard that—in a Parliament where we do not have an idea of British sovereignty. The definition of Scottish sovereignty—I would encourage him to read MacCormick v. Lord Advocate—is different from the idea of English sovereignty, because the supremacy of Parliament does not exist.

[Mr Francois]

I think it is fair to say that in the years I have been here generally most people have known what I believed in, but is the reason the hon. Gentleman is so incredibly angry this afternoon because, from his point of view, he lost not only one referendum, but two: on Scottish independence and then on the European Union?

[Stephen Gethins]

I will concede the point. I know what the right hon. Gentleman believes in. I was not surprised that he wanted to take me on not on the substance of what I said but rather on some of the semantics, because as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, a democracy ceases to be a democracy when it ceases to have the ability to change its mind.

My appeal would be this: yes, I believe in independence; I believe that the European Union provides a model that the UK Union does not. That is something I believe in, and some Members disagree with me and I respect them for that, and I know that Scottish Labour Members disagree with me on that, and I respect them for that as well. What I struggle with is that we know this is a bad deal with Europe. We know that staying outside the customs union and the single market is making us poorer every day. I would encourage Members to stand up and put the case of what they believe in, because that is the way to return respect back into politics—not repeat what has been said in the past, but truly look to the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate, but, to reflect on the unhappy nostalgia of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), it is quite clear that some people are having trouble moving on, as we need to. The summit is happening because of the process agreed by the Conservative party when it was in government. This is not a surrender summit; it is a summit for success for business and business people, and we can only achieve that if we move on in this debate. At one point, I thought Bill Cash was going to stand up and contribute. We are not moving forward as a Parliament, and thinking about the real priorities of the British people and our future relationship with Europe, but other people are prepared to move on and want to do so.

Today, I was pleased to have the chance to meet representatives of the Scottish Advisory Forum on Europe, known as SAFE, at an event that I had the pleasure of co-hosting with the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). It was an excellent event that reflected all their great work in collaborating with their colleagues and counterparts in Europe. They have been collaborating not just with Governments but with civil society, academia and a whole range of organisations, because that is in their interests. This is about growing the Scottish economy and furthering the interests of the Scottish people.

I pay tribute to my good friend Dr Irene Oldfather, who, as chair of SAFE, has done so much to promote ongoing collaboration with colleagues in Europe. She is a happy constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) and is doing vital work. We should go into these negotiations in a spirit of collaboration, seeking mutual benefit, in order to build a better relationship between the UK and our European Union colleagues.

[Stephen Gethins]

I put on record my thanks to Irene Oldfather. On a very hard issue—and we have seen today that it is very difficult—she is doing something extraordinarily constructive, and I think we can all learn from her work.

[Richard Baker]

I could not agree more. On the issue of learning, it is so important, good and welcome to hear that, ahead of this vital summit, the Minister for the constitution and European Union relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), attended a meeting with SAFE in Edinburgh yesterday. I understand that it was held at the Scotch Whisky Association, so I hope he enjoyed an excellent afternoon.

This is a good point at which to mention that our trade deal with India is securing £1 billion for the Scottish whisky industry over the next five years, and 1,200 extra jobs. This fantastic deal is in no way frustrated by our pursuing a better deal with the European Union. At that event yesterday, the Minister met young people who look to our future in Europe, rather than seeking to debate the battles of the past. They asked the Minister to find ways to ensure that they have the opportunity to work and study in Europe. I hope he can think inventively about how that can be achieved within the policy framework that the Government have set out, because the previous Erasmus+ scheme was important not only for the young people who participated, but for Scotland’s economy. It was worth £340 million annually, delivering £7 in value for every £1 invested.

Economic growth is rightly the priority for this Government. If they changed course in these negotiations in the way proposed by the Opposition, that would not be putting the national interests first. The Minister and his colleagues should proceed with the vital work that they have taken forward with their European counterparts ahead of the summit. That is the right thing to do for economic growth and in our national interests.

The Government’s approach, which is absolutely essential, recognises the EU’s status as our biggest trading partner. It accounts for 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. I am encouraged to hear from the Minister that issues that are vital to growth in my constituency of Glenrothes and Mid Fife—including closer co-operation on energy policy, which I hope may include increasing co-operation with the North Seas Energy Co-operation—are the issues on the agenda next week.

I hope that there will be measures that benefit small businesses in my constituency, particularly in the creative sector. Rightly, at the election, our party committed to making it easier for musicians to tour in Europe. That is vital for the future of our brilliant creative sector in Scotland, and in the UK, and I hope that we can make progress in this area.

Of course, we have to respect the decision of the Brexit referendum. However, while we should not simply repeat the debate on Brexit in this House, as we seem to, neither should we repeat the mistakes of the previous Government, who failed to ensure that our new relationship with the European Union created the right environment for trade and co-operation in key areas of policy. This Government have already made significant progress on resetting the UK’s relationship with the European Union in our national interests, and particularly in line with this Government’s policy on economic growth.

EU Trading Relationship

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is good to see how popular this debate is with colleagues. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing it.

Leaving the EU has been devastating for our economy. A hard Tory Brexit, which unfortunately this Government have embraced, continues to be devastating for the economy. The economic impact, particularly for SMEs, is something that they continue to live with from day to day, and so is the impact of the withdrawal of freedom of movement on our food and drink industry, care services and the NHS. In fairness, Scottish Labour, of which the Minister is a member, has embraced the issue by talking about decentralising and a potential migration system for Scotland; I hope that the Minister will be able to support my Bill on that subject tomorrow. We have also seen an impact on security. Every other country in western Europe considers the EU and NATO twin pillars of their security in the aftermath of Russia’s aggression.

More than that, as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield says, there has been an impact on all our rights, and particularly those of young people. This political generation is leaving behind fewer rights than we enjoyed ourselves. My sympathies go to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), who is under 30, because he enjoys fewer rights than the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and I did.

The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield talks about a cap. A cap on whom? Which young people do not get the opportunities that he himself had and that the Minister had? We should all feel deeply ashamed and deeply uncomfortable.

It does not have to be like this. As The Economist has said, we could rejoin the customs union, giving the Exchequer an immediate boost very rapidly. We could rejoin the single market. Even pursuing the trade deal promised by the Conservatives—there are precious few of them here today to defend their deal—would see 0.4%, after a 4% hit to the economy.

Today, Labour MP after Labour MP is going to stand up and tell us how awful the Brexit deal is. We have been through it before. Are they actually going to do anything about it? Are their Government going to do anything about it? This is the biggest crisis—the biggest disaster—to hit the UK, economically, socially and rights-wise. Instead of doing anything, they have stuck the architect of this deal, Lord Gove, into the House of Lords. Can we please see some action?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will certainly endeavour to extend that generosity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing an important and timely debate, and commend him for his ongoing work on the issue as the chair of the UK Trade and Business Commission. The letter that he and a number of parliamentary colleagues present submitted to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who leads for the Government on UK-EU relationships, made some excellent points, many of which I will endeavour to address in my remarks today. I will seek to specifically address the three main points that he raised in his introductory speech—the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the broader alignment and the youth mobility scheme. I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken today.

First, I will set out why we must use our strengthened relations with the EU to deliver a long-term UK-EU strategic alliance that grows our economy. I listened with care to the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), suggesting that if the Conservative party were in office, we would have the best of all worlds. I struggle to reconcile that with the universe that the rest of us live in: the Conservative Government not only abjectly failed to secure a trade agreement with the United States, but alienated our closest trading partners in the European Union and were in a deep freeze with China. It is not entirely clear what the Conservatives’ grand post-Brexit strategy involved.

Let us consider the numbers for a moment. In trade, geography still matters. As a bloc, the European Union is still the UK’s largest trading market, covering 46% or about £813 billion of our trade. It is important to note that the UK is the EU’s second-largest trade partner, but unfortunately, UK exports to the EU were 5% lower in 2024 than they were in 2018, which is the most recent stable pre-Brexit, pre-covid year for comparison, and UK imports from the EU have remained level at about plus 0.4%.

Moreover, our overall global trade performance continues to suffer, and we are lagging behind our G7 peers. In 2024, our global trade flows were only 4% above 2018 levels, while other G7 economies have seen an average trade growth of 8%. What explains those trends? There is an increasing body of external research studies, such as those of the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance and Aston University, which demonstrate that Brexit accounts for those changes. That is why it is in both the UK and the EU’s interest to strengthen our trading relationship.

Let me turn now to some of the specific issues raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), who I like and admire on a personal level, gave a sadly rather partisan speech in wilful denial of the fact that had his side prevailed in the 2014 referendum in Scotland, we would have found ourselves outside the European Union. A politics of manufactured grievance, flags and new borders is as wrong in Scotland as it is here in England. Thankfully, Scotland made its choice to support a sensible and pragmatic internationalist party in July.

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Alexander]

No, I am keen to make some progress.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) made a characteristically brilliant speech—a judgment in no way related to the fact that he is the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. In all seriousness, fresh from the spring meetings in Washington this week, he brought a wider geopolitical perspective to our debate that frames the conversations that are happening today between EU Commission President von der Leyen and the Prime Minister.

I note all the points that were made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). I simply say that when I see images of the Prime Minister meeting President Trump in the Oval Office, meeting EU Commission President von der Leyen today, at the Lancaster House summit, or sitting with President Macron in Paris, I feel a sense of relief and change. There is change, because the clown show is over, and there is relief that we have a serious Prime Minister for these serious times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), in a strikingly personal speech, spoke eloquently of the divisions we witnessed within families and communities at the time of the Brexit referendum. That explains why we as a Government have no interest in reopening old divisions and wounds, and instead are working to remove unnecessary barriers and strengthen our trading relationships.

No debate in this House would be complete without the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I assure him, although he is no longer in his place, that in the work of both the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the concerns and needs of Northern Ireland are never far from their thoughts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) brought to bear all his professional experience working across Europe and made a characteristically powerful case for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I made that case only this morning at a meeting with TheCityUK representatives here in London. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) then spoke eloquently of the need to maintain high standards in farming and the merits of strengthening our trading relationship with the European Union.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) took us on a veritable tour of research and innovation labs in his constituency. He is right to recognise that innovation today relies on not only often complex, integrated and international supply chains, but research co-operation. What was the opportunity cost of the years when the previous Government took us out of the Horizon cross-Europe research programme? It is exactly that kind of research collaboration that our own scientists need and demand if they are going to continue to be world leading in their research domains.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) highlighted some of the statistics that I also used in this debate to highlight the damage done by our predecessors. He asked if we would act only in the national interest. That is an undertaking I am happy to offer. National interest is the north star by which we are navigating these frankly turbulent trading waters today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke of the civic ties between his community and Germany. It was a timely and helpful reminder that first through the European Coal and Steel Community, then through the European Economic Community, and ultimately through the European Union, the European project has always been about peace as well as security and prosperity.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) also touched on the need for spending on defence to reflect the changing circumstances, not least in the Euro-Atlantic security area. That is a recognition that underpins the strategic defence review and the recent decisions that have been reached on defence expenditure by this Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) asked me to pass on her good wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office for all his excellent work ahead of the UK-EU summit next month. As a colleague in the Cabinet Office, and indeed as a friend, I will be happy to do so. She is right to recognise all the work that he is doing to undo past damage and to rebuild and reset relations with our friends, partners and neighbours in the European Union.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) urged us to take serious action to strengthen our trading relationships with the EU. Again, I assure her that that is exactly the work to which we have committed ourselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) rightly referred to the changed context on our continent, and indeed in our world. Red tape and uncertainty—his description—seems a pretty fair judgment of the inheritance that we secured in July. In these history-shaping days, it is right to recognise the changing geopolitical and geo-economic backdrop for the negotiations under way—not just the talks in Downing Street today, but those being led by the Minister for the Cabinet Office ahead of next month’s summit.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) urged the leadership to follow the trade and follow the money. As I said earlier, we have chosen to follow the data, rather than the post-imperial delusions that were the hallmark of our predecessors’ approach to trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who has eloquently spoken of the need for closer ties with Europe on many occasions, talked of the need for new debates and offered a number of powerful suggestions for the way forward at the UK-EU summit. I have to say that she offered a fantastically large number of suggestions in the necessarily constrained time for her speech, but I listened carefully to all of them.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) urged the Government to write a new chapter. I hope we are doing somewhat more than that: we are actually writing a whole new trade strategy, which we aim to publish in the coming weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) acknowledged the need for partnerships with like-minded nations. I agree with his powerful points about the particular need for security and defence partnerships given the changed geopolitical context with which we are all familiar.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) reminded us, with reference to the Good Friday agreement, that we must reject isolationism. I am happy to confirm that we have left behind the era in which a previous Prime Minister resisted the opportunity to confirm that President Macron is indeed a friend of the United Kingdom. Let me confirm today that we regard France as a trading partner, a close neighbour, a steadfast security partner and a country bound to the United Kingdom by bonds not just of shared history, but of shared and continuing friendship.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) spoke authoritatively of the need for cool-headed, ambitious negotiations. I assure him that that is the approach that the Government are taking to the coming summit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) made the case for recognising the challenges faced by touring artists. I put on the record my appreciation of all the work done for our country not just by touring artists but by the creative industries more broadly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), in a veritable Noah’s ark of a speech, highlighted not just the importance of the pygmy hippo that she met but, more substantively, the need for an SPS agreement. I assure her that we continue to work on all those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) moved seamlessly on to a discussion of Carl the crane, and indeed his local businesses. I assure him that we noted all his points, and we will endeavour to ensure that small businesses are at the forefront of our thinking as we work not least on SPS and the other issues about which we have spoken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) brought a Cornish perspective to the debate. I listened carefully to all the points that he made about the need to bring down unnecessary barriers.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) similarly spoke eloquently of the needs of fishermen in his constituency, and made the case for an SPS agreement. We committed in our manifesto to negotiate that veterinary agreement with the EU—an agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, to use the technical term. That is because agrifood producers across the United Kingdom are among those most affected, as they are buried in the paperwork left by our predecessors, and are affected by checks when exporting to the EU.

The EU remains an absolutely vital market for agrifood producers, accounting for 57% of the UK’s agrifood exports in 2024. Between 2018 and 2024, UK exports of agrifood products to the European Union, excluding beverages, dropped by 16% in inflation-adjusted terms. I have to say, that does not sound like the best of all worlds to me. The potential benefits of an SPS agreement are clear: Aston University estimates that an SPS agreement could increase UK agrifood exports by fully 22.5%. Bearing in mind that we import more agrifood from the EU than we export to it, a veterinary agreement would of course be mutually beneficial.

A number of Members raised a youth mobility scheme. The UK and the EU are in talks ahead of the summit, but alas I will not provide a running commentary today in this Chamber. We made a clear manifesto commitment to bring down net migration and to have no return to free movement within the EU. It is important that we determine who comes into our country, and those things are not up for negotiation in the continuing discussions.

We would like to strengthen MRPQ arrangements so that businesses can access the right talent at the right time. Again, improvements would be mutually beneficial. UK and European industries have repeatedly asked for the recognition of professional qualifications between the UK and the EU to be strengthened. That includes 24% of respondents to the recent British Chambers of Commerce annual trade survey and the European Services Forum.

On strengthening relations with the EU, we have an opportunity to address some of the trade barriers that we did not explicitly reference in our manifesto, including regulatory co-operation—

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

We inherited a Tory welfare system that is the worst of all worlds: it has the wrong incentives; it discourages people from working; the people who really need a safety net are still not getting the dignity and support that they need; and the taxpayer is funding an ever-spiralling bill. It is unsustainable, indefensible and unfair. Our principles for reform are clear: supporting those who need support, restoring trust and fairness in the system, fixing that broken assessment process and the disincentives and supporting people to start, stay and success in work. The right hon. Lady should support that.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on devolving the Crown Estate.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)]

I recently met the Deputy First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues, including the Crown Estate. The UK and Welsh Governments are focused on taking maximum advantage of the opportunities that floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents for Wales, which could create over 5,000 jobs and £1.4 billion of investment to the UK economy in the coming years.

[Stephen Gethins]

In the 2011 Scottish National party manifesto, we committed to have the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s electricity generated from renewables. The SNP met that target and then some, thanks to the devolution of the Crown Estate and to working with industry. It is now delivering jobs and clean, green energy to Scotland and throughout the UK. Why should Wales not have the same opportunity?

[Jo Stevens]

I will not take any lectures on the Crown Estate from the hon. Member, whose party’s mismanagement of the Scottish seabed resulted in Scottish assets being sold off on the cheap. We are focused on doing whatever it takes to secure more than 5,000 jobs in Wales and the billions of pounds of investment that the Crown Estate can unlock for Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Scottish universities punch above their weight internationally. They are one of the jewels in the crown of the Scottish economy, and of the Scottish and UK education system. Of course, Edinburgh University is the best university in the world—the House would expect me to say that as the MP in Edinburgh and as an alumnus. Let us not hide from the fact—I say this gently to the hon. Lady—that part of the big funding challenges for the universities is the lack of funding from the Scottish Government, because higher education is devolved. I will follow that up by very gently saying again that she says she does not want anything in the Budget that raises funds, but she wants to spend it.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I join others in congratulating the Secretary of State on the birth of his daughter. That is one gain from Labour that even the SNP can endorse!

One of the most important areas that business has identified for growth is a more Scotland-specific approach to migration. That was touted by Scottish Labour in its manifesto and by its leader, but it was shot down by the UK Government in no time at all, going the same way as the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, child poverty commitments and the winter fuel payment commitment. If the UK Government will not listen to Scotland’s Labour leader, why should anybody else?

[Ian Murray]

I am very surprised the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to apologise for his Twitter rantings at the weekend on foreign policy with regards to the Prime Minister. He said:

“The UK has left itself in an utterly isolated position.”

I think the hon. Gentleman left himself in an utterly isolated position.

This Government are completely committed to economic growth and to transforming lives in Scotland. We are already seeing the fruits of that in the Scottish context. I ask the SNP either to get behind that, or to give Scotland a new direction and get out of the way.

[Stephen Gethins]

If the Secretary of State had bothered to read in more depth, he would have seen that I was saying something that he once agreed with: leaving the EU has left us more isolated. He once agreed with me about that, before he went into government—but then, he agreed with me on other things before he went into government, such as tackling fuel poverty and tackling child poverty. Is the Secretary of State no longer worried about those issues and more worried about league tables? Is he more worried about being in the relegation zone? Do you know what is really interesting, Mr Speaker? Throughout all of this, not once has he stood up for his leader. That makes me think that we should not listen to his leader—because Labour Members are not listening to their leader any more.

[Ian Murray]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I lost the thread of that question about halfway through, but one thing I did take from it is that it was absolutely identical to the question from the Tory shadow Secretary of State. That tells you all you need to know.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

One in six Scots is on a waiting list today, and we face a housing emergency and a very stubborn attainment gap. Nobody could look around Scotland and say that it is going in the right direction. That is the choice that people will have to make in 2026: is Scotland going in the right or wrong direction? Canny Scots will, I am sure, make choices in the interest of their families and say that it is time to replace a failing SNP Government.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

Hurray!

[Stephen Gethins]

I welcome that welcome from the Labour Benches.

The Minister campaigned on compensation for WASPI women, as the Secretary of State for Scotland did, so will she tell me, if she will not listen to the women and if she will not listen to the ombudsman, will she listen to Scottish Labour MSPs who called for compensation?

[Kirsty McNeill]

There is a third Member in a dreadful fankle. We said at the election that we would wait for the ombudsman’s report, we would examine it and we would take a view. We have a taken view: we have taken a view that up to £10 billion of public money should not be spent providing compensation on a decision that was legal and of which it has been concluded that the vast majority of 1950s-born women were aware.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Secretary of State recently reacted to Labour’s dip in the polls in Scotland by saying that the voters “don’t like honesty”. I wonder if it was more to do with Labour not keeping its commitment to women pensioners, or saying that it would decrease fuel bills—and they went up—or saying that it would tackle child poverty and then taking on some of the most regressive Tory policies on the two-child cap? As we approach Burns night, I wonder if the bard was right when he said:

“Dare to be honest and fear no labour.”

Nowadays, would he say, “Dare to be honest and fear the voters”?

[Kirsty McNeill]

Polls come, polls go. The fact remains that this Labour Government have provided record investment for Scottish public services. I suggest the hon. Member invests in a notepad so that he can keep track.