Foreign Interference

James MacCleary 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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

It just falls to me to thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I found many of the contributions very compelling and interesting. We are in a changing global environment that is moving very quickly in the security context. Security is a shared priority for everybody in this House and everybody in this country, and it is important that we name these threats and talk about them in this space, so that we are doing our duty as parliamentarians to talk about the specific threats that are coming down the line.

I thank the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), who spoke so well. Some fantastic themes came out from their contributions: the ongoing threats from Russia and China; the role of social media in the disinformation space in particular, which is being driven by those countries and others; the use of crypto—it is extremely welcome to hear from the Minister that action will be taken on donations in crypto format; and the clear lines of exploration, shall we say, that Russia, China and others are making to reach British parliamentarians, British influencers and British policymakers on a constant basis. It is important that we talk about that here. The final theme, of course, is the connections between Reform UK and Russia. It is unfortunate that no Reform MPs are here today to answer those specific concerns, but it is significant that almost every speaker in the debate has raised them; those concerns are profoundly important.

Finally, I thank my party’s spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), and the Minister for taking the time today, and thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

UK-EU Summit

James MacCleary Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank those on the Conservative Front Bench for bringing this motion, which reveals, if nothing else, the sorry state of their party—not a vision for Britain’s future, but a stubborn fixation on a failed past.

The Tories’ botched Brexit deal has left us not flourishing, but floundering—not prosperous, but poorer. Their dreadful Brexit deal has been utterly ruinous for our economy. While they cling to their Brexit dogma, British businesses, farmers and fishers in every corner of our country face the harsh reality of their record of incompetence. Britain deserves more than hollow promises and endless excuses—Britain deserves better.

The Conservatives’ motion today is a checklist of their own failures. What was once a pro-business party that supported open markets and free trade now cowers behind trade barriers. There is only one liberal party speaking up for British business in this House, and that is the Liberal Democrats. Businesses that were promised a bonfire of regulation are now buried in paperwork. The Tories did not deliver the streamlined trade they promised; instead, they created a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, who started a business importing organic produce from the EU but has to pay to re-certify the organic produce in the UK at their own cost. That is killing their business. Is this the type of red tape, introduced by Brexit, that the Government should remove?

[James MacCleary]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point speaks to the nature of the deal that was agreed when we left the European Union. Far from creating the streamlined trade the Conservatives promised, and instead of boosting growth, they have strangled it. Our farmers were promised golden opportunities, but have ended up poorer and weighed down by yet more Tory Brexit bureaucracy.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

The previous Conservative Government undermined farmers and our rural economy with a botched trade deal with Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs slammed it by saying

“the UK gave away far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should not allow our farmers to be thrown under the bus again?

[James MacCleary]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for farmers in her constituency and across the country, and I absolutely agree with her.

Our fishing communities have suffered similarly. I hear from local fishers in Newhaven, in my constituency, who fear their livelihoods are close to collapse. Elsewhere, we have the example of offshore shellfish in Brixham, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), where a vet is now needed to sign 17 separate documents by hand for every shipment of mussels. If the deadline is missed at Calais, the entire catch goes to waste. That is not taking back control—it is losing the plot.

The Tories have thoroughly botched our relationship with Europe, but Labour’s overcautious approach risks cementing this failure. We acknowledge the Government’s recognition that this Brexit deal was not working, but their approach falls a long way short. Where Britain needs bold leadership, they offer nothing more than reluctant half-measures; where we need decisive action, they offer excuses and red lines.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about shellfish. The environmental and hygiene standards we apply to our shellfish remained exactly the same the day we left the EU as when we were in the EU—it was the EU that supplied all that bureaucracy and requirement for wet stamps. Under World Trade Organisation rules, if a territory has equivalent standards, it is obliged to allow goods to enter its jurisdiction unchecked. Why does the EU breach this international law so wantonly, and why have the Government become a supplicant to the EU, trying to gain its favour to remove these illegal barriers?

[James MacCleary]

I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the regulations he references are not the only barriers to export in this country. I mentioned Calais; the port of Dover currently sees massive delays in getting any goods through the port because of the additional bureaucracy and security that are necessary as a result of Brexit. Newhaven port in my constituency, which I know very well—in fact, I humbly suggest that I know it better than other hon. Members—has had to spend millions of pounds simply putting in place more barriers in order to move goods through the port, and that is what is slowing things down. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about equivalence, but at the end of the day, it is not the only output of Brexit that is harming our industries.

With its half-measures, Labour seems so afraid of its Reform-shaped shadow that it has ruled out bold measures to set free British business and stimulate growth. Britain cannot afford such timidity; our businesses cannot afford it, and our young people, who face a future with fewer opportunities than their parents, absolutely cannot afford it.

[Sir John Hayes]

I assume the hon. Gentleman is not advocating returning to the common fisheries policy, which, with its ludicrous quotas and equivalence, was bad for fish, which were discarded live, and bad for fishermen, who were limited by quotas. It was a disaster that had a detrimental effect on the fishing industry across this country. Surely he does not want a return to that.

[James MacCleary]

Absolutely not. The common fisheries policy did a lot of damage to British fishing, as the common agricultural policy did to farming.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

On that point, it is possibly worth noting that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) attended only one of 42 European Parliament Fisheries Committee meetings that he could have attended, thereby never speaking up for British interests, and that is potentially why the common fisheries policy was not to our benefit.

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

What we have advocated for on all these areas is a new relationship with Europe, which would involve a new discussion around fishing. Unlike the Conservatives, who apparently cannot cope with the idea that we can actually move forward in the world and have a different arrangement, we acknowledge that we do not have to go back to what we had before.

The Liberal Democrats have a clear four-step road map to rebuild our European relationships. First, we must have a fundamental reset, rebuilding trust trashed by years of Conservative recklessness. I absolutely acknowledge the positive work Ministers have done in that regard. Secondly, we must rejoin crucial European agencies that directly benefit British people, such as Erasmus+, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and Horizon Europe, which back in 2023 the Conservatives agreed to pay more than £2 billion a year to rejoin due to the enormous harm that leaving that programme had done to our critical research and innovation sector. To recognise the necessity of such programmes, only to demand in the motion that the Government rule out paying for access to other schemes that could benefit the UK, is the very height of hypocrisy.

Thirdly, we must negotiate practical arrangements to slash red tape, culminating in a UK-EU customs union by 2030 that would give British businesses the oxygen they so desperately need. Finally, as trust rebuilds, we must pursue single market membership, unlocking maximum prosperity for businesses and maximum opportunity for future generations.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the common fisheries policy. Will he join us on the Conservative Benches and go one further by urging the Government not to give up any of the sovereign fishing rights that the UK currently benefits from by giving away fishing to France for other seen-to-be benefits from a wider deal? Can he be strong and urge the Government on fishing, like those on these Benches?

[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%.

[Calum Miller]

In my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, many workers at the Cowley Mini plant tell me that they are worried about the future of the plant, and one of the principal reasons is that the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has introduced so much red tape that the just-in-time delivery of component parts across the European network that BMW operates is threatening the plant. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just one example of how the Brexit deal damages our economy, rather than supporting our core industries?

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for sticking up for his local businesses, as he always does. Absolutely; the effect on supply chains in particular has not always been obvious, but it has been detrimental to many, particularly large, complicated businesses.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James MacCleary]

Not at the moment, no.

By contrast, the much-vaunted trade deal signed with India last week is worth just a fraction of our former deal with the European Union. It is around 20 times smaller than the economic boost that we gain simply by aligning with the EU on goods and services.

[Mr Francois]

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

[James MacCleary]

Of course.

[Mr Francois]

The whole House will have noted that the hon. Member clearly failed to rule out a second referendum, because he did not much like the result of the first one. May I ask him this directly? Like the Government, as is obvious from their evasion this afternoon, are the Liberal Democrats prepared to accept a process of dynamic alignment, whereby we effectively become a passive rule-taker from the European Union? Yes or no?

[James MacCleary]

The right hon. Member makes two points. First, he mentioned a second referendum. I find this a fascinating contention. Elections happen every four years. At the last election, we returned a Labour Government. This argument that the result of that referendum in 2016 must be held in perpetuity—no matter what the British people think of it—suggests to me that everybody should join the Labour party, because now we will have a Labour Government in perpetuity, too. Perhaps Conservative Members might want to give some consideration to that.

Secondly, the right hon. Member used the term “rule-taker”. I find that fascinating, too. It was quite noticeable that in the negotiations on Brexit, Conservative Members became enthralled by the philosophy of cakeism to the extent that it became their mantra that we could have our cake and eat it, and that, apparently, modern trade deals do not require any give and take. The recent India trade deal, which has been so trumpeted by Labour Members and, which, of course, was started by Conservative Members, does involve the UK having to take some things as well. That is what a trade deal looks like, and it certainly looks like that when we are talking with the largest trading bloc on the planet. The key question that the right hon. Member should be asking is what benefit would it bring to British people. That, ultimately, is the job of any Government and any politician: what will benefit us?

[Mr Francois]

Yes!

[James MacCleary]

I am pleased that the right hon. Member agrees with himself.

By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) tells me of an engineering firm in his constituency that, due to the mountains of Brexit red tape, now finds it far easier to trade with South Korea than with Europe. This is not just damaging, but frankly absurd. The one thing that the Government will not do that is guaranteed to deliver growth is negotiate a bespoke customs union with the EU, yet they are hiking national insurance for businesses, stifling investment and refusing to support the most vulnerable in our society by not scrapping the two-child benefit cap or safeguarding personal independence payments.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

rose—

[Helen Maguire]

rose—

[James MacCleary]

I will, if I may, make a little progress, because I am conscious of the amount of time that I am taking up.

Only a customs union can give businesses the long-term certainty they need, which will help to shield British jobs from the looming threat of Trump’s trade wars. I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first and then from my hon. Friend.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman told us that he has a constituent who finds it easier to trade with South Korea than with the EU. What does that tell us about the EU? Is that not one reason why people voted to leave? It is because of its excessive bureaucracy and its protectionism. Why is it easier to trade with South Korea than with the EU if it is not for EU bureaucracy?

[James MacCleary]

Just to be clear, I was talking about one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth. But on the hon. Member’s point, the reason was the trade barriers put up by the Conservative party as part of the Brexit deal. It is as simple as that. It was a protectionist party putting up trade barriers, and it continues to advocate for it.

[Helen Maguire]

On the issue of red tape, Epsom and Ewell constituents are facing preventable delays on essential medication for conditions such as diabetes, ADHD and mental ill health. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is simply not the time to play politics, and that we must urgently seek a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement with the European Medicines Agency to cut the red tape that is so detrimental to the health of all of our constituents?

[James MacCleary]

That is a really important point. We have seen shortages of key medications—my hon. Friend mentioned ADHD medication, which has a detrimental impact on the lives of children and parents—like insulin and others.

The Liberal Democrats understand that Britain belongs at Europe’s heart, not on its periphery, isolated and diminished. We recognise that rebuilding these ties requires patience and skilled diplomacy, but unlike the Tories, we will not bury our heads in the sand. Unlike Labour, we will not settle for tepid tinkering. As such, we will abstain on the Government’s amendment. We believe in Britain’s potential and in Britain’s future. We believe that our future is brighter, stronger and more prosperous when we work closely with Europe. Today, the Conservatives’ motion offers no solutions, only distraction from their disastrous record. Britain deserves leaders who will properly rebuild relationships, deliver genuine prosperity and restore our standing in the world. This is the vision that the Liberal Democrats offer—not Tory and Reform fantasies and not Labour fence-sitting. We believe in practical solutions, clear direction and an unwavering commitment to Britain’s best interests. Let us be honest, many on the Labour Benches agree with what I am saying. They know that this fence-sitting will not cut it, but they are not allowed to say so. Fear not, we will say so.

The Conservatives have nothing to say on Europe. Labour has tied itself up in red lines. The public know that our country’s future is European. For businesses and jobs, for our nation’s security and our children’s futures, it is time to put the divisions of the past behind us and act in the national interest. We will vote against this nonsensical motion, and we stand ready to work constructively with the Government to build a closer, more pragmatic relationship with our European friends and neighbours.

EU Trading Relationship

James MacCleary Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this timely debate, and thank all hon. Members for their well-informed contributions. The debate has shown that the discussion has moved on from whether we need to improve our trading relationship with the European Union to how we improve the relationship. That is an important step in the right direction.

It is beyond dispute that our current trading relationship with the European Union has profoundly damaged our economy. Businesses across the country—small businesses, farmers and fishers—have borne the brunt of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. They face layers of unnecessary red tape and barriers that strangle trade, dampen growth and undermine prosperity. The numbers speak for themselves: British exports to the EU fell sharply after Brexit and have yet to recover, remaining 11% below their 2019 levels, and astonishingly, four out of every 10 British products once stocked on EU shelves have now vanished. The impact on farmers and fishers is starkly illustrated by the leap from a single, simple form to an absurd 21-step bureaucratic nightmare, which leaves our produce literally unable to cross the channel. British sausages, which were once sold freely from Paris to Berlin, are now banned outright—an absurd situation that captures perfectly the farcical outcome of the disastrous deal negotiated by the last Government.

This is not merely about statistics; it is about livelihoods. I speak regularly to small businesses in my constituency. They tell me directly that their market shrank overnight, while the complexity and cost of doing business with the rest of Europe ballooned. Our farmers face financial uncertainty, and fishers, including my local fishing fleet in Newhaven, having been promised prosperity by Brexit campaigners, now struggle under an avalanche of paperwork and export costs, which put their livelihoods at risk.

We urgently need a new approach—a pragmatic, ambitious plan to rebuild our relationship with Europe and reinvigorate our economy. Disappointingly, the new Government appear to lack precisely the ambition we need. They have ruled out even common-sense measures, including, as recently as today, a youth mobility scheme, which could restore opportunities for young Britons to live, work and study abroad. This Government are wrapped in their self-defeating red lines, which seem designed more to please the leadership of Reform UK than to benefit British business and growth.

I was glad to see this morning that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield and 70 of his colleagues have signed a letter calling for a youth mobility scheme—it is encouraging to see that kind of resolve across the House —but contrast that with the Government’s response. When my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) questioned the Government on it earlier, the answer was a resounding no. When are this Government going to get serious? If we do not show clear and consistent intent in time for the EU-UK summit in May, the EU will simply move on.

We cannot afford to squander what good will remains. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a clear, four-step road map to heal our fractured ties with Europe, starting immediately with unilateral steps to restore good will and trust, which must include re-engaging proactively in vital foreign policy dialogues. We then need to rebuild confidence by rejoining crucial European programmes such as Erasmus+, participating actively in scientific collaborations, and reconnecting with a central body—the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, for example.

Central to our economic recovery must be deeper trade co-operation, particularly through a comprehensive veterinary and plant health agreement and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Those measures would immediately remove significant barriers to British businesses. Most important, we must place ourselves firmly on the path to negotiating a robust customs union by 2030. That step alone would remove needless checks and bureaucracy at our borders, injecting desperately needed momentum back into our economy.

It is vital to understand what a customs union could achieve. It means tariff-free streamlined trade for most goods—a practical, proven solution already successfully embraced by other countries outside the EU. A customs union would place Britain back at the heart of European trade, boost our economy and insulate us from unpredictable global disruption—especially from the protectionist forces emerging in the United States. Even a signal from this Government that they are open to a customs union would boost markets and stimulate growth. Recent experiences under Trump’s aggressive tariff regime have clearly demonstrated the need for leverage in global trade discussions, and that is something that a customs union with our largest and nearest trading partner could provide. Instead of begging for special deals with America, we could strengthen our relationship with Europe, rebuilding from a position of strength rather than weakness.

We cannot afford more timid half-measures or missed opportunities. British businesses, workers and young people deserve better. The Liberal Democrats are clear and unwavering: we must restore confidence, rebuild trust and revitalise our economic ties with Europe. The public are watching: will this Government be defined by cuts to international development and winter fuel payments for pensioners, and job-killing taxes on small businesses, or will they instead take the hard-headed, pragmatic decision to ditch their disastrous red lines and enter into negotiations for a customs union, so that Britain can truly regain the strong, prosperous economy its citizens deserve?

European Union: UK Membership

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The petition reflects how strongly the public—including the 367 in my constituency who signed it—feel about the UK’s future relationship with Europe.

If we listen carefully, we can still hear echoes of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal promises as whispers on the wind—“sunlit uplands”, “global Britain”, “endless opportunities”—but nearly five years after that deal came into effect, the sunlit uplands look suspiciously gloomy, global Britain seems isolated and the promised opportunities have become lost chances, especially for our young people.

The Government claim to be serious about growth yet they continue to ignore the most impactful step we could take: a UK-EU customs union. Entering a customs union would remove mountains of red tape, eliminate cumbersome rules of origin checks and unlock significant growth for businesses, both large and small. It would provide immediate relief for countless small and medium-sized enterprises suffocating under bureaucracy, and significantly boost our exports to our largest and nearest market.

Studies consistently show that aligning closely with European markets is overwhelmingly beneficial to British trade, employment and economic stability. A recent report from Best for Britain estimates that simply deeply aligning with the EU on goods and services could increase GDP by 1.7% to 2.2%. Why would we not want to do that? A bespoke customs union would also insulate us from Trump’s irrational pro-tariff policies, which have already begun to harm our economic growth. Once that customs union is achieved, we should look to join the single market, which would provide even greater opportunities for growth.

Instead of grasping that opportunity, the Government are busy cutting welfare and slashing international aid—actions that weaken, rather than strengthen, our economy. Last week I attended the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, at which the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), was also present. The Assembly issued a joint statement that included the possibility of UK accession to the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, as referenced by the hon. Members for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are seriously considering that—and, if so, on what sort of timetable?

The Tories’ botched Brexit deal has undoubtedly reduced opportunities, particularly for our youth. Young Brits can easily travel to and work in Canada, Australia or Japan, yet they are inexplicably blocked from France, Germany and Spain. Why? Because ideology trumps common sense. It is high time for a reciprocal youth mobility scheme with the EU—not a return to freedom of movement but a sensible, time-limited arrangement enabling young Brits to gain invaluable experiences abroad, like they used to, and like many of us grew up with. Such a scheme would be a clear win-win, benefiting the UK and the EU.

The tourism industry was once thriving, with enthusiastic young Brits keen to explore and work in Europe, but now faces severe labour shortages. Hospitality, retail and the arts have similarly suffered, deprived of the vibrant exchange of talent and ideas that once powered innovation and cultural enrichment. A youth mobility scheme is not only desirable, but an economic and strategic necessity.

Just recently, representatives from our legal services sector highlighted to me the significant challenges they face without mobility for young professionals. A youth mobility scheme would allow aspiring British lawyers and other professionals to work across Europe, boosting our exports of expertise, generating growth and enhancing Britain’s reputation for excellence internationally.

In her comments, will the Minister clarify whether the Government have any plans to negotiate such an arrangement, regardless of whether it is called a youth exchange, experience or mobility scheme—I am not too concerned about how it is branded—and, crucially, to treat it as a serious priority?

Farmers have encountered unprecedented bureaucratic obstacles when exporting to Europe, leading to a decline in overall exports in an already struggling industry. That is why we must negotiate a phytosanitary and veterinary agreement with urgency.

The current deal’s negative impact stretches even further. Just recently, the EU announced €150 billion for defence procurement, potentially rising to €800 billion in the coming years. That is funding from which the UK is completely excluded, meaning that billions of euros in research, innovation, high-skilled employment opportunities and global competitiveness will be lost because of sheer political stubbornness.

[Dr Chambers]

Some of the greatest challenges facing civilisation right now include climate change, how we feed 8 billion people and give them energy sustainably, the risk of pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance. Does my hon. Friend agree that barriers to research are not only damaging our universities and industries, but hindering the tackling of these huge problems?

[James MacCleary]

Yes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) spoke about that at length. Those barriers are clearly harming not only the UK research environment, but the global research environment. At a time when academics in the United States are being hounded out of universities and looking for other places to take their expertise, Europe is an obvious place to go. That could benefit our country substantially and, indeed, address the challenges my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) outlines.

Does the Minister agree that in order to counteract issues around defence procurement in particular, we must negotiate a UK-EU defence pact that ensures that Britain remains central to collective decisions about continental security, particularly during Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine? Our exclusion from crucial European programmes leads directly to reduced investment, fewer high-skilled jobs and diminished international standing, precisely when unity and strength are essential.

Speaking of the architects of the botched Brexit, where exactly is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? According to Hansard, he has mentioned Brexit just twice since his election in July. Surely, if this Brexit deal was the monumental success that he and others promised, he would be reminding us no end of times. His silence speaks volumes. Even he seems aware that this supposed triumph is best quietly forgotten.

We want to see this country back at the heart of Europe, but we must be clear-eyed about how severely the Conservatives damaged the UK’s relationship with our EU partners and how long it will take to rebuild. Trump’s return to the White House and his appeasement of Putin add new urgency to that task. His aggressive trade and defence stance reminds us of just how crucial our European ties are, not just economically but strategically.

Our real strength comes from unity and partnership. Together, as part of a larger European community, we wield far greater influence, command substantially more resources and drive innovation more effectively than when we are standing alone. Shared European co-operation amplifies our ability to fund ambitious research and development, enhance collective security and promote our shared liberal democratic values globally. Far from diminishing our sovereignty, collaboration with Europe expands and reinforces it.

The Government must move beyond cherry-picking and timid gestures and take a bold strategic stance in their approach to Europe—one grounded in realism, ambition and the national interest. Their self-defeating red lines are holding our country back. They claim they will do “whatever it takes” for economic growth, and that must surely include ditching their nonsensical red lines.

British jobs and businesses, our international influence and our young people’s futures depend on constructive engagement, not stubborn isolation. It is time for the Government to swallow their pride, to acknowledge reality and to begin rebuilding the bridges that the Tories so recklessly burned. Let us ensure that future generations inherit opportunities and co-operation, not barriers and isolation. Our young people deserve better. Our small businesses and our farmers deserve better. Britain deserves better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John.

I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for leading the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all other Members who contributed. Although we have heard some valuable and considered contributions, the debate has, at times, felt like a display of the patronising remainer echo chamber: “We know best,” “If only they had listened to all of our selectively picked stats,” and, “Brexiteers didn’t know what they were voting for.” Indeed, we heard sniggering when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) set out in an intervention the kind of Brexit that he believed in.

Brexiteers have been insulted, being compared with weirdos, or even those who assault other people on a night out—I thought that was a bit of a rich and testing comparison for a Labour Member to make, given the party’s own troubles on that front. Come on—this has even been blamed on Russia. Having listened to today’s contributions, I do not think that many of the arch-remainer MPs have learned much about why they lost the referendum in the first place.

We can all remember where we were when we found out the result of the referendum. In my case, having delayed a mini-break with my wife to the Lake district so that I could spend 23 June 2016 campaigning for Vote Leave, I decided once we arrived at our hotel that it would test Mrs Snowden’s generous patience and forgiveness if I spent the night and early hours watching the results come in. It was early the following morning when—to the annoyance of the other guests, I am sure—I woke up and shouted in jubilation as I found out we had voted to leave the European Union.

I accept that although that was a day of celebration for many, for others it was a day of disappointment and even anger. However, the verdict issued by the British public on that day was a final and binding decision, backed up with a confirmatory vote in 2019 when the Conservatives achieved a crystal-clear mandate to “Get Brexit Done”.

[James MacCleary]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Snowden]

No, we are low on time.

Since 2020, we have seen the benefits of an independent Britain. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 gave us freedoms over our borders, waters and money while offering the UK the chance to regulate and legislate in our own national interest. We are no longer bound by the free movement of people obligation that came with membership, which gives us a much stronger say over who can and cannot enter this country legally.

We departed the common fisheries policy, meaning that for the first time since 1973, we had sovereignty over our own waters. The Conservative Government used our new fiscal policy freedoms to cut VAT across a range of consumer products and to establish a number of freeports, stimulating growth in all the nations and regions of the UK.

Most obviously, our economic independence from the European Union has provided significant opportunity for tailored deals, helping to build British business and our wider economy. Under the last Conservative Government, 73 separate trade deals were secured alongside a deal with the EU. That will continue to happen only if we acknowledge and appreciate the strong democratic mandate we were given, and the opportunities we secured as a result, but it is starting to look like the current Government have little interest in promoting the successes of our independence and are unprepared to hold negotiations with the EU from a position of strength.

Just last week, the German ambassador told the British Chambers of Commerce that for Germany, as least, this Government’s so-called reset with the EU is an opportunity for us to join the customs union. Will the Minister make it clear that that will not be a consideration in any future negotiations?

We know that Brussels is committed to demanding that the UK surrenders its new-found fishing rights and controls, leaving our waters at the mercy of French trawlers and our fishing industry at serious risk. I ask the Minister, very clearly: is that surrender on the table or not? While she is here, can she confirm whether a youth mobility scheme is off the table? If it is, what has she been told by our European counterparts about their position? From what we know, the European Commission has made that a central demand. Today we have seen further reporting that the Government are set to cancel the single trade window. Will the Minister confirm that that will not lead to deeper EU-UK regulatory alignment in its place?

So far the Government have shown an inability to clarify and solidify their position on any of those issues and have been remarkably opaque about the form and content of discussions with EU counterparts. We Conservatives have been very clear and set out five tests that we hope the Government will take up to ensure that we protect our independence from the European Union and the successes, past and future, resulting from it. Will the Minister commit today that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers; that the UK will not allow any new money to be paid to the EU; that there will be no reduction in our fishing rights; that there will be no new rule taking, dynamic alignment or European Court jurisdiction for the UK; and that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the cornerstone of European security? Those are our tests for acceptable engagement. If the Government remain within them, they will have our support.

The UK must pursue its own interests, working with our European partners but not captive to purely their interests. Ultimately, the Government must respect the will of the British public, who voted to leave the European Union.

Ukraine

James MacCleary Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the quality of our armed forces, and we are all very proud of what they do in the vital defence of our country. I am pleased that we have been able to progress with the deal in Belfast so that those well-paid jobs will be there in Belfast, as well as the jobs in the supply chains that will then feed in to that contract.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I add my own congratulations to the Prime Minister on this weekend’s successful summit. It was refreshing to see a British Prime Minister not only standing alongside our allies, but working constructively with them and putting us at the heart of Europe, where we belong. Can the Prime Minister tell me how he intends to maintain the positive momentum from this weekend and ensure that Britain’s voice is heard loud and clear, particularly in the European Union, as it continues its own internal discussions on how to support Ukraine and counter the threat from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue our discussions with our European allies. They have meetings this week, and further follow-on meetings are planned coming out of yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, between those meetings, we are in constant touch with each other about how we take forward the plans we are working on.

Oral Answers to Questions

James MacCleary Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This incident was horrific and senseless, and I thank my right hon. Friend for raising it. I think the thoughts of the whole House are with the victim’s family and friends, and the school community and wider community who have been impacted by this. We are all grateful to the first responders—the police officers and the medical staff who attended the scene—and it is right that South Yorkshire police are given the time and space to carry out their investigation.

We need to do everything we can to bear down on knife crime. It is too easy to get knives online, and it is too easy to carry knives without proper consequences. That is why we have made it an absolute priority in government to absolutely bear down on knife crime, and I hope that it is a cross-party issue.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Q5. I know that the Prime Minister will share my deep concern that families in my constituency, particularly those with disabled children, face agonising waits for essential adaptations to council housing. In my inbox, I have cases where delays have left people unable to use the bathroom or even access a kitchen to simply make a cup of tea. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can make sure that councils have the funding they urgently need to build and retrofit homes, to ensure that all children have the start in life they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is a really important issue for his constituents and for so many constituents. I am pleased to confirm that we have put down £69 billion for councils—that is a 6.8% cash-terms increase—including up to £3.7 billion in vital additional funding for social care. We have doubled the funding for the disabled facilities grant, with an additional £86 million to allow 7,800 more disabled and elderly people to make improvements that enable more independent lives, and we will continue to do so, working across the House.