Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We inherited the highest industrial energy costs in Europe because of the failed policy of the Conservative party. Our British industry supercharger is cutting bills for major industries, but my hon. Friend is right to champion SMEs as well. I can confirm that we will appoint Ofgem to regulate and stamp out exploitation by third-party intermediaries, helping to reduce bills, and I will make sure that she gets a meeting with Ministers to discuss the issues that she has raised with me.

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

Even the embarrassingly loyal Scottish Labour party seems to have lost confidence in the Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister, “Please don’t let that put you off coming and campaigning in Scotland on your Government’s record,” but can he tell us why it is that those who were so close to him have abandoned him, given the Government’s record?

[The Prime Minister]

I remember when SNP Members used to sit down here on the Front Bench, did they not, before the election, and now they sit up there, because we won the general election in 2024 with a landslide majority.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.

It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank colleagues for turning out for today’s debate.

We are now on the 10th anniversary of the vote to leave the European Union: a lost decade for the economy, a lost decade for business, and a lost decade for future generations and in particular our young people, which has left us poorer, more isolated and less secure in a changing world. I note—again, I am grateful to colleagues for turning up today—that those of us who seek to discuss the issue are overwhelmingly those of us who want a closer relationship with the European Union, because, bluntly, we know it has been a disaster. Nobody is arguing that leaving the EU was a good idea, or that it has left us any wealthier or made us better off. In fact, no other state has sought to leave the European Union since the Brexit debacle unfolded. Such isolationism and exceptionalism is something we must reflect upon very seriously indeed. I know the Government are, but we have a number of specific questions for them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

Not at the moment.

I want to reflect for a moment that, although the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I made him aware that I would be referencing him today, in this one instance—told us that the UK would not be the last member to leave, no one left and more members are seeking to join. That has been the legacy of this period. Are any colleagues from Reform here today? No. There are some from the Conservatives—I can never quite tell who is in and who is out and which way round they are—but there are no Reform Members in this debate on its showcase policy platform. This is an isolationist, nationalist project, and it has failed profoundly. On that point, I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he is always very courteous in the Chamber.

[Jim Shannon]

That is very kind. The legacy for us in Northern Ireland is that we are half in and half out, and our businesses, our exports and imports, and our people suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have very different opinions on Brexit, but does he not agree that Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit that everybody else got, which we wanted?

[Stephen Gethins]

It certainly did not get the Brexit it voted for, because the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to reject it—and no wonder; it was a Brexit that undermined the peace process. But do not worry. Mr Gove, who is not in this place so I do not need to notify him, told Northern Ireland that it was going to get the best of both worlds. Well, if only we had all had the best of both worlds.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Gethins]

I am not going to take too many interventions, but as I took one from the hon. Member for Strangford, I think I should take a viewpoint from the majority point of view in Northern Ireland as well.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Yes, indeed—I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I remind colleagues that Northern Ireland voted to remain. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt in all of this. I do not spend my time relitigating Brexit, because it tore my country apart, but for our community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, the legacy is that we have never had the European social funds replaced like for like by any Government since we left the EU, and that is a disgraceful legacy.

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful point, and the respectful way in which she makes her case regularly. I was in this place at the time; Northern Ireland was consecutively overlooked, and its views disregarded.

I hope Members will forgive me, because I am going to try to make some progress, but I think it is incredibly important that the first two interventions, although from different sides, were from Members from Northern Ireland, which is overlooked far too often in this place, because the peace process was a price that others thought was worth paying—to a far greater degree than it should have been.

Let me talk about the economy. The National Bureau of Economic Research states that £90 billion has been lost in tax revenues, or £250 million every day. That means that the amount wasted, and not taken in tax, every 48 hours is the entire annual budget of the council of the city of Dundee, part of which I represent. Investment is lower than it would have been, too. Despite that, the UK paid out billions for the privilege of putting itself in this ludicrous situation. More seriously, small and medium-sized enterprises, which grow our economy and employ so many people, have found it harder to grow; for households, the cost of living has increased at a time when they can ill afford it—the Government know this, and they know how serious it is for households—and trade deals that we knew would do nothing to compensate for the loss continue to do nothing.

There is a human element, too, in the form of opportunities for young people. As politicians, we should all leave more opportunities for the generations who come after us than we enjoyed ourselves, but this place leaves fewer opportunities. My life was transformed by doing Erasmus at the University of Dundee. I am glad that the Government have belatedly come round and reintroduced it, but there is a lost generation of those who never had it, and who no longer have freedom of movement, which allowed our young people to live and work in the EU. Why on earth do Members think—I wonder if the Minister can tell me—there was such an explosion in those with Polish, French or, in my case, Irish ancestry seeking second passports?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

If the hon. Member can tell me that, then I welcome her intervention.

[Alison Bennett]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous. Does he agree that it is totally unfair that one person in my constituency missed out on their gap year and the opportunity to travel abroad because they have a British passport while their friend got to travel and have that experience because they could access an Irish passport?

[Stephen Gethins]

I absolutely agree. That is the benefit of Ireland being a member of the European Union and why I cannot fathom why Labour and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats—I can understand the Conservatives and Reform—do not endorse rejoining the European Union. It is staring them in the face.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I tire sometimes of the hon. Member’s party in Scotland making this fuss about us not wanting to rejoin. If he looks back, he will see that the Liberal Democrats were the ones who desperately wanted not to leave. We campaigned for a second referendum. We want to create a new customs union. We desperately want to be closer to Europe, so, please, will the hon. Member kindly give the correct picture of the Liberal Democrat position?

[Stephen Gethins]

The correct picture is this—let us talk about the present. Do the Liberal Democrats want to rejoin the EU right now? My party does; does the hon. Lady’s? I will give way again—yes or no?

[Christine Jardine]

If the hon. Member can explain the contradiction between wanting to join one union and give up sovereignty and wanting to leave another.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Member has fallen into the nationalist exceptionalism trap that I would expect more from the Conservatives or Reform. Why is it that the 27 member states of the European Union consider themselves independent and sovereign? The European Union is a club for independent states; the UK is not. That is the fundamental difference.

I will talk briefly about migration, because it is important—and I want to make progress, as a lot of Members want to speak. The UK left the Dublin regulation, which led to an explosion in the number of small boats—the Brexit boats, the Reform boats, the Tory boats. In the EU, irregular border crossings have gone down, but in the UK they have gone up. I know that the Government are looking at returns, but that is a desperate situation.

On the impact on devolution, Scotland voted to leave, but even within the deal we have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I hope the Minister will revisit that Act—one that Labour cried out about previously, and the Scottish Parliament refused consent for. We have talked about Northern Ireland. Because we do not have the purest of pure Brexits, now the European convention on human rights is under threat. It is a bit like the purest of pure communism has apparently never been tried; the purest of pure Brexits, for the ultimate Brexiteers, has never been tried either. The threat to devolution continues under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and I hope the Minister will address that.

Finally, we are less secure. Today is four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I know we are all in the same place on that. It turned the whole of Europe upside down. The EU is integral to our security, so will the Minister tell me why Canada can join the defence procurement scheme but the UK cannot? What progress is being made on that? It is a fundamentally important issue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stephen Gethins]

Let me just make one more point, and then I will take an intervention from the Labour Benches.

We know the importance of food and energy security, and Ukraine, Moldova and others see their future in Europe, so why on earth does the UK not? Eighty per cent of our 16 to 24-year olds want not a customs union, but to rejoin the EU. Seventy-five per cent of Scots want to rejoin, because Brexit has been a failure.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

Nobody can doubt the hon. Member’s Europhile credentials, but I do doubt his party’s commitment to unions of any kind. Why else would the SNP spend more fighting a by-election in Shetland than it did fighting the Brexit referendum? When he has finished answering that, perhaps he can tell us why his party spent more fighting the Glenrothes by-election than it did fighting Brexit.

[Stephen Gethins]

I am glad the hon. Member raised that. In Scotland we campaigned and overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU—a vote that was ignored by his party and by this place as an anti-democratic protest. On the point of how much campaigning was done, the Brexit referendum took place six weeks after the Scottish, Welsh and London elections. In order to make the campaigning period longer, I tabled an amendment to the European Union Referendum Bill so that we could campaign more, spend more and make the case more, but his party rejected it. Its Members walked into the Lobby with the Conservative party, as they often do, to reject that amendment. I tabled an amendment so that 16-year-olds could vote, as they do in Scotland; his party rejected it. The only amendment it endorsed, and I am glad it did, was one that allowed European nationals to have the vote—that one was accepted. Throughout the process, we sought to amend the damage that his party had done under the Labour leader at the time, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Torcuil Crichton]

Who’s he?

[Stephen Gethins]

“Who’s he?” he says. He was your leader over two general elections.

Brexit has failed. Many of those who spoke of democracy have since taken their seats in the House of Lords and will never have to face the electorate again. We even have limitations on discussing and debating the Head of State, as has been happening today on, in fairness, a Liberal Democrat motion. To those who bewail the chaos and failure that has enveloped the UK over the past decade, which has seen us run through six—soon to be seven, apparently, if the Scottish Labour leader has their way—British prime ministers since the Brexit referendum, I say: please, reflect on where we are. We need to rejoin. I will endorse anything that brings us closer to the EU, but we know that anything would be simply less bad.

Ten years on, enough is enough. I am about to listen to all these Members make the case for Europe. I say to Liberal Members, to Tory Members, and to Labour Members in particular: have the courage of your convictions and get us closer to Europe, get us rejoining Europe, and stop damaging the UK.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

Huge thanks to colleagues, genuinely, and in particular to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who came along to represent one particular perspective. I also thank the Minister, but I remind him, of course, that the Prime Minister voted for a referendum on the EU in 2019. I do hope that the Brexit omerta is over, and I gently remind the House that our democracy is no longer a democracy when we no longer have the ability to change our minds. Brexit has been a disaster.

Standards in Public Life

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As I said in my statement, the vast majority of Members of this House, and also civil servants and other political appointments in the other place, come into politics to serve the public, not to serve themselves, but the Peter Mandelson issue has shown that, for all the rules we have in place that work for the majority of people doing the right thing, there have still been loopholes for people who want to do the wrong thing. We are now going to close those loopholes.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement—it was clearly preferable being here than at the reception that the Prime Minister is hosting for Scottish Labour MPs and MSPs later on. I have lost count of the number of times I have spent here dealing, in one way or another, with Westminster chaos. It often relates to Members of the House of Lords, who are there for life—be they Labour, Liberal or Conservative. This statement is tinkering. When will the Government commit to doing what they have promised to do for 115 years and deal with the obscenity that is the House of Lords?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member will know that the Government are committed to working with peers in the other place to modernise the House of Lords and that we agree that that needs to happen. That is why we are in the process of removing hereditary peers and are working with the authorities in the other place to ensure that we deal with the issues we are talking about today.

Lord Mandelson

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

I want to start by saying that I remain extremely supportive of the Government. I am proud of what we have achieved together in a short space of time. We have delivered massive investment into the NHS and schools. Those are all positive steps, and we are taking meaningful steps to reduce inequality, lift people out of poverty, and support families through the cost of living crisis in an increasingly uncertain world. We have also committed ourselves to tackling violence against women and girls with a seriousness and ambition that are long overdue.

Just yesterday, Members from across the House came together to vote to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including Members from Reform, the Lib Dems and other parties. I was proud to walk through the Aye Lobby, and I was proud of this House overall, yet that tangible progress has been almost entirely overshadowed by the growing scandal surrounding Mandelson. That should concern every one of us in this House, because we stood on a promise to do politics differently this time. We said that we would turn the page on the scandals, the secrecy and the sense that there was one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else. We said that we would restore trust in public life. Once lost, trust is extraordinarily hard to rebuild.

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

The hon. Member will be aware that, earlier on today, the Prime Minister made the concession from the Dispatch Box that he knew. Is this not a question of trust in the Prime Minister, given what he knew when he made his decisions? That is what makes it so serious for this Government.

[Matt Bishop]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think we are talking about trust across the House, so that includes every Member of this House, and across both Houses.

The Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is one of the proudest achievements of this Parliament. It is the product of years of tireless campaigning by survivors, advocates and frontline organisations who have fought to have their voices heard, but that work and that trust is fragile, and it risks being profoundly undermined when we appear unwilling to apply the same standards of transparency and accountability to those closest to power as we demand elsewhere. How can we stand in this Chamber and say to victims that we believe them and that we will stand with them, while refusing to release full documents relating to serious concerns about one of our own? How can we ask victims to trust the system if the system appears unwilling to scrutinise itself?

The files released last weekend further highlighted what many already fear: there exists a despicable elite network operating with proximity to power, entangled in international criminality, and shielded for far too long by status and influence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Let me first take a moment for us to remember those women and girls who were silenced, marginalised, degraded, objectified and discarded—collateral damage in the pursuit of pleasure for a network of men who thought that the rules did not apply to them. The correspondence between these men from across the political spectrum, from Steve Bannon to Noam Chomsky, is soaked in misogyny, and it is the misogyny that we women do not actually hear on a day-to-day basis. I am talking about the casual, relentless women hatred shared between men.

We know well the misogyny directed directly at us. There are many of us here in this House who work hard to expose that misogyny as we are witness to it, but the misogyny hidden from us needs exposing. That is why the transparency to which the Government say they are committed is so important. If we say we believe in tackling power imbalances and in ensuring that the law works for everyone, we cannot stay silent, and the hatred and the offences must be seen so that they can be tackled.

One man in particular is apparently guilty by association rather than actually involved in those particular acts, and he is the one who is the focus of the debate today, but it is also true that what has been revealed from these documents is that there appears to have been, over a number of years, horrendous breaches of trust and potential criminal activity amounting to misconduct in public office. I would like this Government, this House and our political class to take this moment to acknowledge that, while this is an extreme and egregious example of an individual believing that the rules do not apply to them, such behaviour cannot continue without the consent—active or passive—of others, and that this is the moment that we will agree that passive or active consent to allow such behaviour in public life will end.

[Stephen Gethins]

I have raised the point about the Prime Minister, but there is a broader point here. Lord Mandelson was appointed to the Lords. For 115 years, Labour has been promising to get rid of the Lords. The Conservatives and other parties have appointed people to the Lords who we should be getting rid of. Please—is now not the time to take the opportunity to scrap the Lords?

[Ms Billington]

I accept that there are wider constitutional implications for what we are talking about right now, and I will turn to some of those later. We also know, however, that there is a long track record across politics, not just across the political spectrum but across decades, where people’s talent—predominantly men’s talent—has been seen as a justification for appointment, regardless of their behaviour or their character, and we do need to consider behaviour and character.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

I wish the Secretary of State the best for 2026. I am glad he caught “The Traitors”, because I am so sorry to have heard the language used about Scottish Labour MPs by Labour MPs in the press recently. If what he is saying is the best way to improve our lives and our economy, why is Scotland the only part of the UK where child poverty is going down?

[Mr Alexander]

In part, child poverty will be falling because of the 95,000 kids we will help by abolishing the two-child benefit cap. It is not a coincidence that, in a single afternoon, our Chancellor of the Exchequer took the mantle from Gordon Brown as the politician who lifted the most kids out of poverty across the UK in a single Parliament. Gordon Brown had taken that mantle previously from Denis Healey. It is not a coincidence that Labour Chancellors lift kids out of poverty. That is what we do, and we are proud of it.

[Stephen Gethins]

I would take the Secretary of State a little bit more seriously if so many Labour MPs had not lost the Whip for backing our vote on tackling the two-child cap. The Scottish child payment, which has been described as “game changing”, has been extended to provide additional funding for babies, meaning that those from deprived communities in Scotland get the best start in life anywhere in the UK in Scotland, so why on earth is Labour abstaining on the Budget? [Interruption.] Just as the Prime Minister turns up, maybe Labour can explain why it abstains and why it does not stand for anything.

[Mr Alexander]

We are not spending our time indulging in the games of opposition; we are getting on with the serious job of government. That includes delivering a record package of employment rights to help raise pay, because the critical point the hon. Member failed to mention is that three quarters of the kids in poverty in our country today are in working households. That is why the Employment Rights Bill matters, and that is why the 220,000 people being lifted out of poverty as a consequence of increases in the minimum wage matter. We have a comprehensive approach, which is why we have a comprehensive strategy.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I think my hon. Friend has managed to create some cross-party consensus, which is pleasing to see. She makes a very powerful case. Whether it is the particular issue of Ashford International or many other transport-related issues, my door is always open for discussions. I would very much welcome her making formal representations to me as well.

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

I am afraid to say that it is almost 30 years since I made the transformative journey from Dundee to Antwerp for my Erasmus experience. I thank the Minister, because there is some progress in this area. May I ask him a couple of practical questions? First, obviously there is a different higher education system in Scotland, and Scottish universities are very involved in this. How will the financial mechanisms work? Has he worked that out with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations? Secondly, I want to see all young people have the opportunities that he and I enjoyed. When will we see a return to freedom of movement for our young people entirely?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his last point, because we will not be going back to freedom of movement. However, on his first question, I was talking to the Scottish Government only first thing this morning, and the same issue was raised. Obviously, this does not affect the home fees position, which, by the way, is distinct in England, Scotland and indeed Wales. In the university context that he is talking about, someone would have their home fees position, but, for example, they could take a gap year to take advantage of the Erasmus+ opportunity. I am pleased to hear that Erasmus+ was transformative for him in Antwerp, and I hope we will soon have many more people who can say the same.

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 and Espionage

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution that she has made and for the work that she has done previously. I am joined on the Treasury Bench by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who listened very carefully to her comments, and has indicated that he would be very happy to discuss them further with her.

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

May I thank the Minister for his responses today and for the way he is responding to this matter? I know he will be as concerned as the rest of us about descriptions of the process being “shambolic” and the criticism of systemic failures. Can the Minister tell us what has changed? Secondly, what has changed over the past almost four years? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine changed the world profoundly, and China continues to provide assistance to Russia.

[Dan Jarvis]

That is an entirely fair and reasonable question, and I can give the hon. Gentleman a very straight response. One of the things that has changed is that the Prime Minister—rightly, in my view—conducted a machinery-of-government change in September, which means that, as the Security Minister, I now sit not just in the Home Office, as was the case previously, but in the Cabinet Office. The purpose of that machinery-of-government change is to ensure that we can more effectively co-ordinate national security policy and activity across Government. It is relatively early days, but my analysis today is that that was the right move to make; I think it will enable the Government to make better, more informed and timely decisions in this area. At the same time, I approach these things with a degree of humility. We will look very carefully at the findings of the report and make sure that we consider them. We will look at what changes are necessary, and respond to the Joint Committee and to the House in due course.

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.