Calum Miller MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I associate my party with his thanks and appreciation for the dedicated service of our armed forces personnel around the world. While the world’s attention was on Trump and Netanyahu’s catastrophic war in Iran, Vladimir Putin was collecting vital information about our critical infrastructure. In response, the Defence Secretary told Putin, for the second time: “We see you.” But we need much greater confidence that the Government have the plan and resolve not just to observe Russia’s activities, but to meet and resist them, should that be required. As Putin plans for future conflict, our Government appear frozen. Delay and inaction is sapping the confidence of industry and our allies, while enabling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. The Government must remedy these failings as a matter of urgency. Our national security and the sovereignty of our Ukrainian allies demand it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before Parliament is prorogued, and will he publish a plan to raise £20 billion in defence bonds to be spent on urgent projects, including rebuilding our naval capabilities, which are critical for protecting our undersea infrastructure? The Minister rightly highlighted Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine. Péter Magyar’s spectacular victory in yesterday’s Hungarian elections should unlock European financial support to Ukraine. At just the same time, Donald Trump authorised a suspension of sanctions on Russian energy assets. The Government cannot allow this opportunity to slip, so will the Minister work with EU partners so that the UK’s £30 billion share of the frozen Russian assets in Europe can be sent to Ukraine’s defence alongside the promised €90 billion from the EU, and will he work with colleagues across Government finally to put an end to the scandal of UK companies providing maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The way I think about it, the Government are proposing to write 99 years-worth of cheques to Mauritius that the Mauritians will be able to cash over that period. It only stands to reason that this Parliament should be able to scrutinise such large expenditure during the duration of the treaty, in order to have some accountability for these funds. As things stand, this deal appears to be going the way of the dodo—another redundant creature that originated in Mauritius. I implore the Government to listen to the concerns raised across this House and recognise that the Bill in its current form is not fit for purpose.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats have argued consistently that the Chagossians’ right to self-determination should be honoured, so even at this eleventh hour I ask the Government to reconsider their obstinate refusal to give Chagossians a voice over the homeland from which they were shamefully and violently removed. Will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place that seeks to secure binding guarantees from the Government of Mauritius? The Government have also failed to address the concerns shared across this House about the vast sums of public money due to be sent to the Government of Mauritius over the lifetime of this agreement. We should not sign 99 cheques today that Mauritius can cash over the next century, so will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place to give Parliament annual scrutiny of the payments made to Mauritius? In the light of the shifting US position, I encourage the Minister to consider soberly the approach the Government are taking, and I urge him to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place for a pause while the US position is clarified.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  At the first Prime Minister’s questions of this Parliament I had the opportunity to invite the Prime Minister to scrap Ofwat, so I am delighted to see that in the White Paper. The Minister has said that Ofwat will now protect consumers better. We had terrible floods in my constituency in September 2024 from surface water. The lead local flood authority investigated those and, as is its responsibility, produced section 19 reports. I was shocked to learn that the LLFA has no powers to compel water companies to act on the recommendations—Thames Water had failed to inspect a critical pump for over 20 years. Will the Secretary of State set out how the new regulator will ensure that section 19 recommendations are taken forward to protect consumers better in future?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Members across the House expressed their deep concerns on this issue in the Backbench Business Committee debate on foreign interference that was led by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), last Thursday, so I am glad that the Government have taken this step today. There is clear evidence that other leaders of UKIP and Reform UK also associated with Nathan Gill’s Russian handlers. There is also evidence, laid out—albeit in redacted form—in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Russian money seeking to influence other parties and elections. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will be free to look back as far as it needs to inform its recommendations, including to the referendums of 2014 and 2016, and that it will be free to publish its findings without ministerial censorship?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her strong statement. I associate my party with her remarks about the appalling attack at Bondi Beach. We stand united against all anti-Jewish hatred. I share the Foreign Secretary’s utter condemnation of Jimmy Lai’s politically motivated conviction. The trumped-up charges and sham trial show how desperate the Beijing regime is to silence its critics. I agree with Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, that it is now up to the UK Government to ensure Jimmy’s welfare and secure his release. I welcome the summoning of the Chinese ambassador today. What was the outcome? Has Jimmy Lai’s access to medical treatment been assured? What further steps are the Government taking to secure his immediate release? The Foreign Secretary is right to say that China poses national security threats to the UK, so can she explain why it is not on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Jimmy Lai is not alone in the fight for civil liberties and the rule of law in Hong Kong. Countless brave Hongkongers continue to advocate for democracy and freedom, even as the CCP works relentlessly to erode the city’s independence. For speaking out, many Hongkongers living in the UK face daily intimidation and threats from Beijing. Just last week, pro-democracy campaigner Carmen Lau was subjected to a renewed campaign of intrusive and distressing intimidation and misinformation. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary provide today to Carmen and other Hongkongers living in the UK that they will be better protected in the future against Beijing’s predations? Has she updated her submission to the Housing Secretary about the risks posed by the new super-embassy? Will the Government look to sanction all those CCP officials who are responsible for extraterritorial intimidation of pro-democracy activists? Finally, the Government like to say that they will challenge China when they must. Can the Foreign Secretary indicate one thing that the Government will not do for China, in order to signal that the treatment of Jimmy Lai is unacceptable?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing the debate and all other hon. Members who have spoken so thoughtfully. The first duty of the state is to protect the freedom of its citizens. Today’s debate has highlighted how foreign states with malign intent are seeking to undermine our security, press their own economic interests through political interference, and take direct steps to subvert our democracy. I will focus my remarks on the threat to our democracy. We are rightly proud of the UK’s history of continuous parliamentary democracy, yet functioning democracy is not an end state, but a continuous task that we in this House all share. At its heart is the belief that each person’s vote should have equal standing, and that that equality is the best defence against tyranny and the best protector of liberty. Too often, however, the votes of our citizens are not equal, when the powerful, including other states, seek to buy influence or suppress opposition. The UK is beset by external threats that seek to undermine our democracy. Just today, we heard how the Hong Kong authorities have ramped up their campaign of extraterritorial intimidation against UK residents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) has highlighted that his constituent Carmen Lau has been subjected to the circulation of fake photographs to her neighbours. That follows similar letters that asked the same neighbours to take her to the Chinese embassy to receive a $100,000 bounty. This Government need to demonstrate to the Chinese authorities that there are red lines when it comes to protecting our citizens. That should begin with the Government rejecting the application for the super-embassy, which would allow the Chinese authorities to spy more effectively on British residents. It should extend to clamping down on the Chinese use of cyber to attack our universities and steal intellectual property in this country; to giving real reassurance to students and others on our university campuses that they are free to express views and research the activities of China and the Hong Kong authorities without fear of intimidation; and—as we are acutely aware—to saying that spying on our Parliament is totally unacceptable. China’s activities are eclipsed perhaps only by Russia’s. Vladimir Putin may be the President of Russia and perhaps the richest man in the world, based on hidden wealth, but above all, he remains the jilted KGB man from St Petersburg who has never accepted the break-up of the Soviet empire. In an eerie parallel with Adolf Hitler’s psychological response to the humiliation of Versailles, Putin has made it his life’s mission to restore Russia’s standing on the world stage. It is his doctrine to restore Russia’s borders to those of the Soviet Union and the Tsarist empire, as was evident from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the first decade of this century, and from the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. More recently, in Hungary, Moldova and Romania, we have seen clear examples of Russian interference in democratic activity. Most recently, the sabotage of railways in Poland shows Russia’s willingness to engage directly in interference in the critical infrastructure of countries. We have seen similar threats in this country. All of this activity comes straight out of the KGB playbook; it is a means of escalating intimidation intended to destabilise other states. The same is true of its attempts to interfere in our democracy. Russia is constantly looking for useful idiots. Sometimes those are petty criminals and thugs like Dylan Earl, who burned down a warehouse in east London containing goods for Ukraine; sometimes it is suited criminals whose interest in money or power is greater than their loyalty to their political party or country, like Nathan Gill. The relationship between senior Reform politicians and Russia is of particular concern. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him that I would mention him this afternoon—initially denied any connection to Nathan Gill’s handlers, yet photographic evidence shows him consorting with the wife of Oleg Voloshyn. Under the previous Conservative Government, there were commitments to tackle the flow of Russian money into London, but there was little action. I am sure that there is no connection, but at the same time, Russians in the UK were close to the Conservative party and provided it with funding during the previous Parliament. To their credit, a number of Conservative Members expressed concerns, yet those funds still supported Conservative elections, and the regulatory tightening did not take place. Perhaps these were wealthy Russians with strong Conservative values; if they were, then judging by the holiday companions of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), whom I have also notified, Russians like Lubov Chernukhin have switched allegiance, and are now entertaining the hon. Gentleman in their French Riviera châteaux instead of paying for tennis matches with the former leader of the Conservative party. We must have more scrutiny of Russian money in British politics, but sadly, Russia is not the only declining superpower that wants to meddle in UK politics. Last Thursday, Trump’s national security strategy was published. There is much that we should worry about in that document, as many Members articulated earlier today during the urgent question, but the most arresting statement is the claim that the US Administration will cultivate “resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”. The Trump White House declares itself to be isolationist, and interested in the affairs of other countries only in so far as they affect America, yet for the UK and the EU, it makes a special exception. Let us be clear: this means that the Trump White House intends to meddle in the domestic politics of European nations, including the UK. We should not stand for this, just as we would not stand for it from Russia or China. Just because the President is unhinged, it does not mean that he and his entourage are not a threat. There is a toxic set of anti-democratic forces around the President today who have ambitions every bit as imperial as Vladimir Putin, and the vice-president is the cheerleader-in-chief. Vested interests around Trump intend to meddle in our politics, urging him to use US national influence to bully the UK into serving its commercial interests, even when that would harm children here. They want to export to the UK the same toxic, violent and divisive politics that are doing such damage to America, and we should stand against that. We see Elon Musk funding the legal bills of a convicted criminal. We see Donald Trump sustaining lies about safety on the streets of our capital city, and making racist attacks on its mayor. We see James Orr, who has been described by J.D. Vance as a national conservative sherpa, joining Reform UK and providing a bridge for funding between the UK and the US. Other Reform UK advisers have complex corporate directorships that could mask donations from US entities that would corrupt British politics. These external threats are compounded by the perhaps more insidious political forces in our country that are enabling them. The hon. Member for Clacton blames the small boats on what he may call foreign courts, even though it was his irresponsible devil-may-care approach to Brexit that tore up partnerships that helped UK immigration authorities to exchange data and work together to prevent people trafficking. Meanwhile, Zack Polanski wants to take the UK out of NATO at the most fragile moment in European security since the early 1980s. Nothing would make Vladimir Putin happier. I ask the Minister to respond to a series of opportunities. To address China’s threat, will the Government state some red lines, and say that they will have no tolerance of extraterritorial intimidation of UK residents? Will they further sanction Chinese Communist party officials involved in bounty hunting, and will they finally place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? To protect Russia from interfering in our politics, will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in the UK, following up on the ISC’s Russia report? Will they commit, given that the leader of Reform will not, to investigating Reform’s links to Russian money? On wider reforms, will the Government commit, through the new elections Bill, to clamping down on excessive financial flows into British politics and tackle shell corporate structures, which are intended to shield those donations? Will they ensure scrutiny of access to Parliament through all-party parliamentary groups on dedicated countries, and other groups that allow people to come into Parliament under the guise of support for various issues? Will they regulate financial flows into the UK and its political parties from overseas and from Crown territories and dependencies? Finally, in the light of the US’s recent outrageous statement, will the Government commit to an urgent review of the national security strategy and the strategic defence review to ensure that both can protect us from the stated goal of US interference in our politics?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Venezuela: US Military · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the granting of this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. At oral questions yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) both stated that the UK was committed to upholding international law. Last night, Donald Trump announced that US military strikes against Venezuelan land targets would “start…very soon”. Does the Minister believe that such an action would be legal? Over recent weeks, the US has acted with complete impunity in the Caribbean, conducting unilateral military strikes in international waters with no due process. Let me be very clear. President Maduro is a threat to democracy and civil liberty. He is an ally only to dictators such as Vladimir Putin and President Xi. Yet the UK’s response to the culture of impunity in the Oval Office must be robust and consistent. We must always hold accountable those who breach international law. By failing to do so, we risk normalising abuses that are eroding the international liberal order, all to the benefit of strong men such as Maduro who reject entirely the rule of law. I have several questions for the Minister. Have US strikes in the Caribbean already violated international law? What steps are the Government taking, including on halting intelligence sharing, to ensure that the UK cannot be complicit in other US violations? Has the UK been complicit in illegal actions already taken by the US, including the alleged “double tap” operations authorised by War Secretary Hegseth? Does the Minister believe that War Secretary Hegseth has authorised the commitment of war crimes? Finally, will the Minister confirm what further steps the Government are taking to sanction Maduro and his associates, and to work with international allies to strengthen our collective diplomatic and economic pressure on his regime?

• 2 Dec 2025 · China: Threat to UK Interests · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, the Security Minister came to the House to describe sustained efforts by China to infiltrate Parliament, and to announce that the security agencies were launching an espionage action plan, yet when Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister and, today, the Foreign Secretary, are asked about Beijing’s super-embassy, with its extensive underground facilities in the heart of London, they hide behind the statement that the decision is quasi-judicial. No one seriously believes that; it is the most political decision that will be taken next week. Beyond the threat to our democracy, what signal does the Foreign Secretary think that approval of the super-embassy would send to Hongkongers in this country, who have escaped state-sponsored intimidation only to find that this Government are considering making it easier for Beijing to continue persecution in the UK?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the seizure of frozen assets connected to the Russian Federation; to require the Secretary of State to publish recommendations about the use of such assets to fund military, reconstruction and humanitarian work in Ukraine; and for connected purposes. In November 2024, my constituent Alex wrote to me. He is a research scientist who has lived in the UK for over 25 years. Alex is Ukrainian. At a surgery, he told me how devastated and angry he is about the destruction of his country by Russian invaders. He also told me of his fear for his brother, who is fighting on the frontlines. Alex wanted to know why Ukraine was struggling to obtain the weapons that it needed to resist Russian assaults. He asked me a simple question: “What more can the UK do to help my brother and my country?”. The truth is that, in November 2024, the UK could do more, and 12 months later, the UK can still do more. This Bill sets out what the UK can do in one key area. Alex’s story is one of tens of thousands just like it. We have all heard them from amazing Ukrainians who have been hosted by communities across the UK since Russia invaded. Those stories speak to the horror inflicted by Vladimir Putin. The UN estimates that over 50,000 Ukrainian citizens have become casualties of Putin’s war machine, including over 2,300 children who have been wounded, and more than 700 who have been killed. Tens of thousands of brave Ukrainian men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice on the frontline. Some in this House, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), would prefer to be apologists for Putin, but I know that I speak for most colleagues when I say that Putin alone is responsible for the atrocities that we are witnessing in Ukraine. Putin is not content merely to devastate Ukraine today. He is hell-bent on erasing its future. His systematic programme for the abduction of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children will go down as one of the vilest acts of this war. I want to pay tribute to those colleagues who have shone a spotlight on this appalling crime. We must all commit ourselves to returning each and every Ukrainian child to their home. Putin’s ambitions stretch beyond Ukraine. In the Baltics, Russia poses an existential threat to our Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian allies, all of whom face daily cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns. In the Caucasus, Putin’s cronies in the Georgian Dream party have cracked down violently on democracy activists, while the Kremlin’s insidious efforts to distort elections in Moldova and Romania are well documented. Putin also wages a campaign of sabotage and cyber-war across the rest of Europe, including here at home. Confirmation over the weekend that the RAF will now be deployed to defend Belgian airspace against Russian drone threats speaks to the collective nature of the threat we face. Putin’s imperial ambitions are extensive. That is why we must be unwavering in our support for the Ukrainian people. The UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine since the full-scale invasion. That support was sustained by all three Prime Ministers in the previous Government, by the present Government, and by nearly all parties in this House across that time. We should be proud of that legacy. By providing weapons, equipment and fighter pilot training, we have helped keep Ukraine in the fight. Our leadership on the G7’s efforts to crack down on Russian oil revenues has been vital in cutting Putin’s profits, but Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to go further to ensure that no actors in the UK economy can facilitate the sale of Russian gas. We are also pushing the Government to explain why more than £30 million-worth of Russian planes were imported to the UK last year. Britain’s contribution has been crucial, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Rather, we must double down on our support. Last month, Ukraine’s Defence Minister, Denys Shmyhal, laid out the challenge: he estimated that Ukraine will need to spend $120 billion on defence in 2026, of which Ukraine can cover half. That leaves a $60 billion hole, which Ukraine’s allies have a duty to help fill. For many months, Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to fund Ukraine’s defence by seizing frozen Russian assets across the UK. The most recent estimates suggest that $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen across G7 countries, which includes close to £30 billion here in the UK. Seizing the UK-based assets could allow us to fill half of the projected deficit in Ukraine’s required defence spend for next year, while ensuring that Putin and his cronies are the ones who pay. We could help turbocharge Ukraine’s deep strike capabilities while bolstering the supply of air defence systems. In short, we could provide Ukraine with a vital new lifeline of support. We find ourselves at a critical point. Ukraine’s need for finance is urgent. The UK’s efforts to move G7—and particularly EU—allies have not yet resulted in success. At the same time, one very specific item allied to this topic highlights the frustrations felt by so many in this House. In May 2022, the Conservative Government announced that they had “agreed a Deed of Undertaking” with Roman Abramovich, “in which he commits the proceeds to a charity in a jurisdiction agreed by the Government for the purposes of helping victims of the war in Ukraine.” In common with other Members, I have asked Ministers about those funds. On 24 February, 17 March and 21 May, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is in his place, told me they were “redoubling” their efforts, “doing everything” they can and “working at pace”. However, over three and a half years on, there is no progress towards releasing the £2.3 billion, suggesting an alarming lack of either resolve or creativity from successive Governments. I am keenly aware of the arguments raised against seizing Russia’s frozen assets. The primary concern is that a direct seizure creates the possibility of litigious action by the Kremlin. The second is that, by acting against Russia, we might inadvertently undermine wider confidence in the UK as a safe haven for financial assets. On the point about the legal risks, the US’s Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians—REPO—Act and Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act demonstrate that other allies believe it is possible to legislate effectively to allow for asset seizures. On the financial risks, I quote former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron, who said in March 2024: “I think that the economic case is very strong. Here we are in the City of London, one of the great financial centres of the world. I do not think that using that money will disadvantage us in any way.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2024; Vol. 836, c. 1545.] I am conscious that these concerns have inspired important efforts in Brussels, aimed at securing Europe-wide agreement to proposals that would allow for the use of frozen assets, while reassuring Belgium in particular, where the majority of frozen assets are held, that the legal risk will be both reduced and shared. Although I welcome these efforts at securing international consensus, those proposals have stalled, and with each day that passes without concrete action to unleash the potential of the assets, Putin’s war machine makes further progress. Last month, we learned that, shamefully, an elected UK MEP, Nathan Gill, took payment from a Russian agent, Oleg Voloshyn, to repeat pro-Russian propaganda in the European Parliament. Mr Gill sat in the European Parliament with party colleagues who now sit in this House. It is for the hon. Member for Clacton to explain his meetings with Mr Voloshyn’s wife, and for the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to explain his public support for Mr Gill in 2019 and his more recent receipt of hospitality from Vladimir and Lubov Chernukhin. But I know that the overwhelming majority of colleagues in this House—just like the constituents we all represent—want us to provide the brave men and women of Ukraine with the funds that they need to defend themselves. I am proud to present this Bill on a cross-party basis, and am grateful to my co-sponsors and other Members who have shown their support. Thirteen months later, I am still motivated by Alex’s question. I am no longer prepared to tell him that it is “very hard”, or that Belgium is cautious. This has become a question of will. The time for delay and timidity is over. I believe that it is the will of this House to legislate so that the UK can lead our G7 and EU partners in seizing Russian state assets in the UK and making them available to Ukraine. Ukraine needs her friends to step forward with urgency and purpose. She needs our financial support today, so that she can purchase the military matériel to drive back the Russians and defend her sovereign territory. I urge the Government to show leadership towards our European and G7 allies and to work with colleagues from across the House to enact this Bill.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Sudan: Protection of Civilians · Hansard source

  More

  I associate my party with the remarks about Hurricane Melissa, and wish those on the island of Jamaica all our best wishes at this difficult time. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for securing this urgent question, and to you for granting it, Mr Speaker. As everyone has stated, the reports of the massacre of civilians by the RSF in El Fasher are truly horrific, yet the tragedy is that the international community was warned, and there has been a pattern of these terrible atrocities by the RSF. The question for the Minister today is: has the UK done enough? On 26 June, the Prime Minister said that we do not spend enough time on Sudan in this House. That might be because the Minister for Africa sits in the other place, but when Lord Purvis asked Baroness Chapman on 17 July about the UK’s work to enforce UN Security Council resolution 2736 on the protection of civilians in El Fasher, she said: “I often find myself asking what the point is of many of these declarations”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 2000.] Is the Minister equally defeatist about the UK’s role as a penholder at the UN, or will the UK use its position today to press for a Sudan-wide arms embargo? On the role of UK weapons in the conflict, which has been widely reported, will the Minister today ban arms sales to the UAE, until it is confirmed that the UAE is not using British weapons to arm the RSF?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an honour to follow the tributes of so many across the House. Ming Campbell was an inspiration to me and to many others who admired his integrity, courtesy and tenacity. I am lucky to have known Ming all my life, and I know how much his death will be felt by his family and the many friends who loved him. I share their grief. Ming’s athletic achievement showed a man determined to work hard and make sacrifices to push himself to the limits. His international success has already been mentioned, but I remember him—in his mid-40s at that point—saying with some feeling that the annual school sports day had become a major focus, since he was the one the other dads wanted to beat in the fathers’ race. Behind that gracious façade was a true competitor. Ming was of that remarkable generation of Glasgow University debaters from all parties who strove for a better society. Across a lifetime in politics, he maintained close friendships with those of other parties, yet he was clear on his politics. Ming’s tenacity was shown in his dedication to Scottish liberalism, working hard to win the North East Fife seat at his fifth general election. Ming served our party for many years as foreign affairs spokesperson. With his distinctive eloquent delivery and his disarming courtesy, Ming could easily be underestimated by some as an orator, not an actor, yet his principled approach to the Iraq war demonstrated his courage and steel. He did not shirk from doing the right thing. For Ming, international liberalism was not an abstract ideal but a set of practical moral obligations. As we say goodbye to a much-loved parliamentarian, we also remember a private man. Ming’s marriage to Elspeth was the anchor of his life. The last time I saw Ming he spoke with love and feeling about Elspeth. He was continuing his life’s work in Parliament, but it was clear he felt acutely that he was continuing it without his life partner. Theirs was a truly devoted partnership. Ming Campbell lived an incredible life as an athlete, advocate, political leader and loving husband. He was a lifelong liberal whose principles drove his choices. He is rightly remembered with admiration and affection today across the House. He will be sorely missed.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for allowing me to clarify. As she well knows, their lordships in the House of Lords invited the Government to provide a statement on the rights of the Chagossians, and the Government agreed that they would not ratify the treaty until such a statement had been laid before both Houses, allowing for a debate in both. As I made clear in my speech, I look forward to that opportunity, and I very much hope that the Minister will confirm when that statement will be laid before this House.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Business Secretary is due to travel to China next week to restart trade talks. His trip will fall 50 days after Beijing announced its latest round of extraterritorial bounties, targeting 19 pro-democracy Hongkongers, including several more UK-based activists. In an earlier answer, the Minister laid out the many steps to sanction the Georgian Government for their assault on democracy. Will the Foreign Secretary implore the Business Secretary to cancel his trip and press for a block on all UK ministerial visits to China until Beijing rescinds those bounties?