Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Badenoch]

No, she does not want to—shame! We got our U-turn. Labour Members have to sit there looking embarrassed at every decision they have to row back on. The Prime Minister has led them up and down so many hills. He sends them out to defend the indefensible even this afternoon, and it is a great effort by the Whips, I must say.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is right that the Conservatives had a free vote on the partygate scandal. She chose to abstain, which is an absolute disgrace. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Dr Arthur]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The bigger disgrace is that she voted against taking action on Owen Paterson. An utter disgrace—she was whipped.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I actually feel bad at having to give this explanation. [Interruption.] I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness that I am trying to be kind, but there was no vote, so there was no abstention, because not a single one of us voted to block the investigation. That is a clear example—

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[Mrs Badenoch]

Sit down. No, I will not give way; he has had his chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, it is worse than that, because this post is the nexus of the entire Five Eyes intelligence co-operation. Our service is not like that of the Americans. In the American embassy, the CIA is freestanding; the ambassador does not matter. In our service, the ambassador runs the local secret service element, as it were, so he or she is entirely responsible and has entire access. That is an issue with the Americans in particular, because they are incredibly sensitive about the corruption, or the undermining in any way, of the security of that arrangement, so we could actually have put the whole Five Eyes co-operation arrangement at risk—but my right hon. Friend has led me off on a completely different tangent.

I come back to the general point. Sir Philip Barton was asked this morning about delay, attitude and pressure; when asked at the Foreign Affairs Committee if he recalled “any dismissiveness in No. 10 about the importance” of Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Philip—Sir Olly Robbins’ predecessor—described No. 10 as “uninterested” in his security clearance. The evidence that Sir Olly Robbins gave was that, throughout January, there was “constant pressure” and an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Yesterday, Ian Collard, the former head of the Foreign Office security team, corroborated Sir Olly Robbins’s account. Just this morning, again, Sir Philip Barton repeatedly emphasised that there was pressure to secure Mandelson’s vetting clearance within a “very compressed timescale”, yet the Prime Minister told this House only a week ago that “no pressure existed whatsoever”. If that was the only issue, it would justify being referred to the Committee of Privileges—in order to resolve what the exact truth was—but it was not the only issue. Plainly, if the Foreign Office is right, the Prime Minister is wrong—and, on that timetable, actually, deliberately wrong.

Let us take some other occasions. On 4 February this year, the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous impression, when asked about Epstein’s coverage in the security clearance, that he had seen Peter Mandelson’s security vetting file, but in April he told the House that on 14 April he

“found out for the first time”

that Mandelson had been granted

“developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.]

Those two statements are incompatible—again, a free-standing failure of the rules.

What is more, that chaotic clash of opinions reinforces the impression that, far from “following due process”, as the Prime Minister has maintained on a number of occasions, No. 10 was effectively making it up as it went along. As we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, issued explicit advice on 11 November 2024: secure the

“necessary security clearances…before confirming your choice.”

That was reinforced this morning by Sir Philip Barton, who said of the correct process:

“The normal order is vetting and then announcement.”

Normal due process was clear, but the Prime Minister did the opposite. Claims that this was normal defy common sense.

For career ambassadors, developed vetting happens for every new post. If someone goes to become the ambassador in Tehran, they are DV-ed. If they then go to become ambassador in Washington, they are DV-ed again—but at that point, the vetting is an update, so it is lower risk. By definition, our ambassadors are, generally speaking, low-risk security personnel anyway. That is plainly not the case for a high-risk figure like Peter Mandelson. Indeed, frankly, it is hard to imagine a higher-risk appointment to a post that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, is of the utmost sensitivity. To appoint first and vet later is not due process, and it is certainly not prudent. It is a gamble with national security and a risk to our single most important alliance.

There are three instances where the Prime Minister made questionable statements: his insistence that there was no pressure, when there evidently was; the two versions he gave of when he saw the vetting file; and his assertion that due process was followed, when it clearly was at odds with the process described by both the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary for the Foreign Office.

The Prime Minister made a deeply questionable decision. We cannot know for certain whether it was due to cronyism, a misunderstanding of the role or excessive leniency towards a member of his own party—something he would never have tolerated, and quite rightly, from any other party. Whatever the explanation, the conclusion is unavoidable: the decision was wrong. To implement it, established procedures were bent out of shape. The civil service was placed under extreme pressure to deliver outcomes that sat on the margins of propriety. When concerns were raised, they were not confronted but sidestepped. As usual in No. 10, an attempt was made to place the blame on somebody else.

Even in this week’s New Statesman, which is traditionally a banner carrier for the Prime Minister, there is a quote—I think it is in Tom McTague’s article—from a senior Government official who goes on at length against the Prime Minister and ends by saying:

“Ask Chris. Ask Sue. Ask Morgan. Ask Olly. He will say he takes responsibility, but then he makes everyone else pay.”

That is what we are looking at.

Rather than addressing concerns directly, the Prime Minister proceeded regardless, and only later sought to justify his decision with answers that were, I am afraid, frequently misleading. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions, he should have known better. What began as a mistake evolved into something more serious. A failure turned into a defence, a problem became a pattern and, ultimately, the situation now looks like a cover-up. But as we have already heard from my Front Benchers and a number of other speakers, today is not about determining guilt; it is about determining whether there is a case to answer. Finding the truth and adjudicating guilt is the task of the Committee of Privileges, which has both the time and the access required to examine the evidence in full.

Much has been made of Boris Johnson’s appearance before the Committee of Privileges, and I am famously a fan of Boris Johnson. When a similar motion was brought to this House on whether the matter should go to that Committee, it was clearly recognised at the time that we were not delivering a verdict, but deciding whether there was a case to be answered. At the time, I made it very plain to our Whips Office that I would not countenance any attempt to block a proper investigation into a House of Commons matter. I was by no means alone; a number of other colleagues made the same argument. As a result, the Government of the day accepted that it was a House of Commons matter. It is improper for the Government to intervene in such a matter to try to guide the House. Accordingly, the motion passed without a Whip, and without a Division. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) thought otherwise.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Davis]

In a debate about misleading the House, it makes me wonder when Members of this House accuse others of not voting on a motion that did not lead to a vote, so I will not take an intervention. I will certainly not take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. He is a noise maker, not a truth issuer.

On the evidence before us today—contradictions, procedural failures and an emerging pattern of conduct—there is plainly a case for referral. Where doubt exists, it should be resolved through proper scrutiny. Where a case exists, it should be tested. This case should go to the Committee of Privileges, and go today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

A referral to the Privileges Committee, particularly involving a Prime Minister, should be rare. The bar should be high, because we have so many other processes available to us in this place, and with this issue, many of those processes are already in action. The Foreign Affairs Committee, excellently chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), is taking evidence and will report in due course. The Humble Address from this House has put a process in place to ensure transparency, and the Government are complying with it.

Then there is attendance in this Chamber. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will continue to make himself available here, as he has done in recent weeks through statements and at Prime Minister’s questions, both because it is right and because the processes of this House require it. Let us be honest about the timing. Bringing this motion forward one week before elections is political. I do not criticise that—it is part of the system we operate in—but we should be clear about it.

I have been reflecting this week on the concept of pressure. We have heard from senior civil servants that there was pressure to proceed with the appointment of Peter Mandelson before vetting had concluded. They have not said that the pressure was inappropriate; they have said simply that it existed. For his part, the Prime Minister has been clear: he has said that this was the kind of pressure that exists in any high-performing environment where decisions need to be made and progress needs to happen. That is very different from pressure to do something that you are not comfortable with. I suppose the truth is that my experience of pressure is not the same as the Prime Minister’s—a degree of recalibration is required on my part.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we apply pressure to senior civil servants every week. We expect them to account for their decisions, often in difficult circumstances and under public scrutiny. Time and again, I am struck by their professionalism and ability to handle that pressure, and I am equally struck by the Prime Minister’s ability to do the same. Whether it is at Prime Minister’s questions or in extended sessions such as the one we held last week, when the Prime Minister answered questions for more than two hours, that level of scrutiny is constant and unrelenting.

In my time in this House, I have never known the Prime Minister to act in anything other than good faith. He is focused, serious and determined to deliver in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Is he perfect? Of course not—none of us is. His is an almost impossible job in turbulent times, but that is the nature of government. The public elect a Government and give them time to govern. That requires consistency, judgment and, at times, the ability to change course as circumstances demand. It does not require abandoning the course entirely at the first sign that another ship looks to be sailing more smoothly.

We are quite clearly in the middle of a storm. It is not a passing squall, but sustained, difficult conditions—economic pressure, global instability and challenges at home that have been building for years. In those circumstances, what matters is not whether the sea is calm, but whether the vessel is seaworthy and whether the person at the helm knows how to navigate. No ship is perfect—there will always be repairs to make, adjustments to take and decisions that, with hindsight, might have been handled differently—but abandoning a ship mid-storm or trying to sink it is a risk. We may find another ship that is sailing in different waters and under different conditions, but let us be honest: the same storm is heading its way. The real question is not whether things are perfect, but whether we have a vessel that can withstand the conditions and a captain who can steer it.

When I look across the Chamber, I do not see credible alternatives ready to take us through what lies ahead. On one side, we have a Conservative approach that too often feels like a ship designed for a different age—a wooden ship that is not equipped for the realities of the world we now live in. It is a vision that looks backward, rather than forward. On the other side, I see the SNP. If it cannot reliably build and run the ferries that connect its own communities, that raises serious questions about its readiness to navigate a much bigger journey. The SNP’s is less of a fully equipped vessel and more like something assembled for the appearance of movement, rather than the reality.

[Dr Arthur]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it appears the SNP does not have a ship right now? It must have—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think hon. Members will find that this debate is not about the SNP. Perhaps we all ought to confine our remarks to the subject we are actually debating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The motion to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee revolves around two words. Pressure is the first. The other, which is vital, is process. Of course, the Prime Minister is the master of process. He bangs on about it all the time. He is the king of process here in the Commons. He says that “full due process” was followed, yet we have already heard from other hon. Members that Sir Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, gave the Prime Minister due process in November 2024. Sir Simon said that the vetting and due diligence should be carried out before confirming the choice of ambassador. The Prime Minister chose to avoid that due process.

There is a second key element of due process that has not been properly teased out so far this afternoon, and it relates to the timing of the decision on vetting through January 2025. If full due process was being followed, the security authorities and the vetting authorities should have been allowed to take whatever time they deemed necessary to make their judgment. With Mandelson—goodness me—there was a lot to go through to check that clearance. We have heard from a number of senior civil servants that they were not allowed to carry out full due process and to take as long as they determined was necessary, even if that took them beyond the inauguration of the President of the United States—no, no.

I shall move on to the second work, which is whether any pressure whatsoever was applied. We have heard from not one, not two, but three separate senior civil servants that the pressure was not on the decision itself, but on the speed of the decision, because the decision had already been taken by due process not being followed. We have heard Sir Olly Robbins confirm that pressure was felt to get on with the decision; we heard yesterday from Ian Collard that pressure was applied for that decision to be made; and we have, of course, heard from Sir Philip Barton that—again—the pressure was to “get on with it.” There was “no space” in the decision. In other words, due process was not followed.

[Dr Arthur]

Did we not hear last week, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, that while there was pressure, it had no impact on the decision? It was a marginal decision, and it was felt that that the risks could be managed. I feel that the hon. Gentleman is missing that part out in his story.

[Richard Tice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but let me remind him what the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister’s questions just last week: “No pressure existed whatsoever”. “Whatsoever” is the critical word, and that is the flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument.

We now know that not only did the Prime Minister inadvertently mislead the House with regard to “full due process”, but he has misled the House a second time with regard to whether or not any pressure existed “whatsoever”. The evidence is in; while this is a Prime Minister who prides himself on process, anecdotally it seems that that is a culture that does not exist around him or perhaps within him. For example, we now know that those in the Cabinet Office questioned whether there should be any vetting at all. In other words, they did not want full due process. We now know, too, that in respect of the decision on whether to retain Sir Olly Robbins or fire him, full due process was not followed. As for the issue of whether or not a decision to refer any Member of the House to the Privileges Committee should be whipped, precedent clearly shows that it should not. I would argue that precedent is a process, and that in this instance, the process of not whipping a vote of this kind is not being followed. I therefore urge all Members to ignore the whipping, to follow their conscience, and to follow the evidence. The evidence is in: the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I will start by thanking the right hon. Lady, who has rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this matter over many months. I have come dutifully to answer many questions, I have met with her privately, and the subject has been scrutinised by many Committees. It was right to update the House today on these developments, and I am glad that she acknowledges that point.

Of course, it is not for the Government simply to choose easy paths. It is for the Government to choose the right path: the path that is in the interests of Britain and our national security, and that of our allies. At the heart of this is a fundamental question. The Opposition know that there is a huge challenge. They knew that there was a problem, which is why they started the process. Throughout all the exchanges we have had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.

I cannot recall a time when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. It is regrettable that the official Opposition and indeed the Reform party—I see that only one of its Members has turned up today—have been at the heart of this. Of course, they will say that this is just politics and that the Government should be thick-skinned, but quite frankly the British public deserve better.

The national interest is what drives this Government and our national security, as the Conservatives well knew, which is why they started the process. We have seen frankly ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats that it faced, and about the security provisions in the treaty, which of course we strengthened. We also seen it about the costs: no matter how often they give false figures, that does not make them any more accurate. We have also seen it about the views of Chagossians—I accept that they are wide and varied but, conveniently, the Opposition always ignore the views of the significant numbers of Chagossian communities and groups who feel very differently about the treaty and have supported it since the start. Indeed, we have seen it about the protection of the environment.

The Opposition operate in a state of convenient amnesia, but they know the reality, they knew the jeopardy facing the base and they know that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements and in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. They know, too, that the treaty signed by this Government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. As ever, the Opposition cannot run away fast enough from their record in government when it suits their tiresome politicking. The British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy, and they deserve better.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for working over many months with our allies on this issue to reach agreement in our national interest and theirs. He has remained consistent on this issue and has given many updates on it. I wish I could say the same about the Opposition. Their short memory, their flip-flopping and their complete disregard for national security are very similar to the position they have got themselves in with Iran—very, very similar. They are laughing in the face of real threats to our national security.

I am actually quite concerned, because it seems to me that the status quo is not in our national interest. What does being without a treaty mean for the long-term access to the base, for us and for our allies?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend sets out the fundamental issue: the risks to the operation of the base, which the Opposition knew all along. That is why they started the process, to which we have responded with this treaty, which protects our security and that of our allies. I will not speculate about the coming of those risks, but we know that we need to put things on a secure footing. We know that the treaty was the best way to do that. We know that this was agreed under two Administrations across the United States in an inter-agency process. We continue to believe that it is the right way forward, and we will announce our business in the usual way.

Gaza Healthcare System

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I am no different from anybody else; I hear the same points that the hon. Lady refers to. Everyone else in this room—and those who are not in this room—will have the same issues. I mentioned those two organisations because they are physically and practically active in the middle east and elsewhere. Repeated conflict will lead to limited access to medical supplies alongside the pressure on the hospital infrastructure. In addition, Hamas’s administration policies and ongoing issues complicate healthcare delivery and lead to a significant impact on its own people—residents on both sides of the Gaza strip, who are devastated and losing livelihoods because of the lack of available healthcare delivery.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way under time pressure. He has mentioned Hamas twice. It is an absolutely awful organisation and I want to see the end of it, but he must accept that Netanyahu has some role to play in the crisis and has to take ownership of the problem as well.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is right: everybody has a role to play in the problem. For the record, Israel is not perfect. I am not perfect and the hon. Gentleman is not perfect. We do things we should not do, and there is accountability and a process. I make that point, but I look back to where it started: Hamas started the thing. I have mentioned it specifically, but this is about the people who need help. That is why we are here. Let us focus on that.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise because in the previous debate we had on this, a question was posed to Ministers, and it has been asked again now: what are the reasons for this Bill? First, Ministers rested on one idea, which was all about how we had somehow received a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice, and this was therefore important because we had to stand by that. I remember it became clearer and clearer during that debate, particularly for some Members, that this simply was not correct. There is no binding judgment; it is an advisory judgment, because we have an opt-out for all matters to do with Commonwealth Governments. That is very clear, and it has been said by many judges and other learned legal people.

Some of my right hon. Friends, one of whom I see on the Front Bench, have raised other reasons in these debates. Beyond the ICJ judgment, we were told there were other issues, and that somehow if we did not do this we would face challenges under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and by the International Telecommunication Union, which stands steadily. What is most interesting about all this is that, when pressed throughout, bit by bit Ministers’ arguments fell apart. These issues are very detailed, so I will not go into them now, but they will have to be raised in much more detail later.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do not think I will get any extra time, so I am not sure it is such a good idea, to be honest. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to give me some extra time, I will give way.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know this subject is very important to him. He has carefully explained why he does not think the Government have to act, but he has not explained why his Government were negotiating a deal if they did not have to act, at great cost and with a great consumption of time.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It does not really matter to me who is in government because I am in opposition. I was opposed to this then, so if the hon. Member does not mind, I am not going to try to defend any of that. I can tell him that I was far more opposed to it than many of his hon. Friends on the Back Benches are now. I hope I have now expunged any dishonour on my part.

On the two critical areas—UNCLOS and the ITU—we discovered that certain articles exempted us from any legal challenge in any way, and therefore they were not binding. I say that because today is a matter of intense sadness. As the Minister knows, I am a massive admirer of him for his steadiness and determination, often on unpopular matters. However, I have to say to him on Lords amendments 2 and 3, and the Liberal Democrats say the same, that this is a matter of sophistry. If we believe in free speech and free debate, and if we believe in voting on what we believe or what we oppose, I genuinely ask why we cannot do so on Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Sitting in the Gallery are people who will be utterly depressed by the idea that this Chamber has shut itself out from debating the rights of the Chagossians and to vote on those rights today. I know it was clever to get that done, and I know the Speaker’s Office was under pressure to do that, but I simply say that this is not right. It is not right that this House cannot decide on those rights, particularly given that the UN committee mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) has made it very clear that the Government should stay this legislation, because of its fears with regard to race relations.

I simply say that this is a sad moment for this House, because this horribly flimsy piece of legislation completely casts away any rationale. Then this morning we heard from the President of the United States, who was previously prayed in aid in all this; it was said that we should somehow motor through this because he was in favour of it, and if the American Government are in favour of it, we should stand with them. A previous Foreign Secretary said that if America did not want it and did not agree with it, we would not do it, but here we are rushing through with it.

Why are we rushing? Why do we not stay this Bill, wait to hear exactly what America thinks about it and make a decision about whether we carry on? Surely, that would make more sense and be more rational. Through all of this, I just do not get what the unpalatable haste is all about—to dismiss the Chagossians, to dismiss the logic and the reasons why we have to do this, and to head towards paying billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for no reason at all. I think somebody else said that today.

Meanwhile, China is looking at this and laughing, as are Russia, Iran and all the other nasty states. Honestly, this is a bad day. This is badly done. It is a bad day for us and for the concepts of dispute, debate and liberty. We should hang our heads in shame, because the House of Lords is better at debating things than we are, and it has much better rights.

Ukraine

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I shall try to follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me begin by paying tribute to what Members have said already, and also to the fact that a number of Members in all parties have contributed in many different ways in trying to stand up for the Ukrainian people, not only in speeches in the House but through the initiatives that they are taking.

I want to talk briefly about my own motivation, which starts in Syria. Here I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a reference to my role in that regard. As Members will know, I have a deep-seated passion for seeing that the Syrian people have a proper free and inclusive future after years of brutal dictatorship from Assad, and, of course, Putin was central to that. Half a million people died in Syria because of the actions of Assad and Putin, and I question whether Putin would have felt emboldened to invade Ukraine—Crimea—in 2014 if our country and the United States had taken a stronger role back in 2013, when that red line was set.

I want to take a moment to reflect on what the Minister said about parties not being present, because another party is absent too: Your Party. Members of that party and of the hard left look at this conflict in Ukraine and blame the west. Hon. Members may remember the ridiculous statement that blamed NATO expansion for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Let us be absolutely clear: there was no excuse, and there never will be any excuse, for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if anybody has any doubt about Putin’s motives or morality, they should look at who his partners are in this war? Iran is a country that is killing its own people on the streets and is now executing them. Is it not the case that Putin is an absolute disgrace, and anybody who shows any sympathy for him really should look at who his friends are?

[David Taylor]

I think we know who Putin’s friends are, and that is a matter of public record. I completely agree, and if I had had time during my question on the Iran statement yesterday, I would have spoken about the role that Iran is playing in Ukraine. Shahed drones, which all of us who have been to Ukraine have had to cower from, are being provided by the Iranian regime, so the sooner it falls the better.

I want to praise Conservative Members for the role they played, alongside my own, in the lead-up to the conflict. In particular, I praise Ben Wallace for his role, especially in putting in place the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, because it was so crucial at the start of the conflict that Kyiv did not fall. Much as we may praise the actions of our Government or any other Government, we must of course praise the bravery of the Ukrainian people at the start of that conflict in stopping the tanks rolling into Kyiv.

I am very grateful for the work that Ministers and the Prime Minister are doing to support the Ukrainian people, and we have heard some of the figures about the billions going on defence spending. I am particularly grateful for the £3.5 billion that will be spent on hardware under the defence industry support treaty, and the continued support for Operation Interflex training and for the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has over 50 partners, as well as for the British built octopus drones that will be so crucial.

I absolutely welcome the talks towards a ceasefire. Who would not want a ceasefire? I also welcome the commitment with France to deploy peacekeepers at some point in the future. However, we must continue to support the Ukrainian people, because I fear that the Russians will use any pause in fighting as an opportunity to re-group and go again. We cannot be under any illusion about the threat from Russia. Many of us have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I had an opportunity to visit our fantastic troops in the Tapa base in Estonia just before Christmas, which really brought home just how real the threat from Russia continues to be.

I have made a couple of trips to Ukraine since the conflict started. The most recent one, almost a year ago, focused on drone technology and the imperative of supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves. I had some absolutely amazing meetings while I was there, including with Deputy Defence Minister Sergiy Boyev, as well as with Ukrainian MPs who many hon. Members will know, such as Dmytro Natalukha and Oleksander Marikovskyi, who are members of the Economic Affairs Committee. Dmytro referred to the vital importance of drones and the need for what he called the Kalashnikovs of the sky. A Kalashnikov is of course a very durable weapon, and if it does break in any way it is very easy to repair. As well as the most important high tech, the Ukrainians continue to need the everyday drones that can help on the frontline to do reconnaissance, so that they know the Russian positions, and help them as they try to advance. Yes, we need investments in advanced technology, but we also need the Kalashnikovs of the sky—weapons for which parts are easy to come by and that are easy to repair.

On drones, I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I agree that we need to look at how we can get more UK finance into Ukraine through joint ventures that can help with the production of drones. If we can work with the City of London to look at ways in which we can unlock any barriers that may exist, that would be a worthwhile venture, because we need to get more capital into the country to help Ukrainian companies, as well as our own, to build drones. The Octopus drone scheme is a brilliant example of our trying to work with the Ukrainians. There is a real opportunity here. The Ukrainians have the data, and the lived experience that can help us to build drones together. That will help us, and will help them in this war. I hope that, in the wind-ups, the Minister can talk about how we can work with the City of London to unlock more capital that will go into the country.

I want to talk briefly about a second trip I made, way back in 2024, when I was but a humble candidate. There are a number of organisations up and down the UK involving ordinary people who are trying to help in a grassroots way, in any way that they can. At a time when there is so much talk about charity beginning at home, and about problems here, it is remarkable that so many ordinary people have stepped up to help people they will probably never meet. Some have gone to Ukraine, and I want to pay tribute to them. I went there with an organisation called Help99. It delivers pick-up trucks that farmers do not need any more. Soldiers use them on the frontline to get from A to B. To go back to an earlier point, long-range missiles and expensive technology are really important, but we also need the things that will help soldiers on the ground. I pay tribute to those organisations. I had the privilege of hosting an event on this subject in Parliament last year, at which over 60 individuals and over 30 organisations from around the country came together.

I encourage the Government to look at ways that any excess vehicles on the Government estate, be they at the Home Office or at Network Rail, can be donated cheaply. Let us get the Treasury to write off these vehicles. It would not cost that much money, and it would make a difference to ordinary soldiers on the frontline.

Iran

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a wider issue of the impact of Iranian regime activity across the region, including supporting terrorist and extremist proxies and other organisations. We are particularly sensitive to that, and it is part of what makes this a broader issue about how we properly get peace and stability in the region. That will continue to be a central part of the discussions.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

When I was in Balerno on Saturday, a constituent politely reminded me that I had a moral obligation to be optimistic—not always easy when you are Scottish, I am afraid. But I do hope that what has happened in Iran will bring the international community together to take action and bring this horrible regime to an end. I hope the Secretary of State will commit to that. These murders are fuelled by oil exports, which were worth $78 billion in 2024. To what extent can we reduce that in the coming years? We have heard about tankers being apprehended, but is there more we can do? Surely that is not just an event.

[Yvette Cooper]

As we have seen with the case of the Bella, which was interdicted by US forces with the support of the UK, there is often a nefarious link, including through the shadow fleet, with the Iranian regime, Russia and more widely. We are continuing to increase pressure on the shadow fleet and the broader threats posed.

Middle East and North Africa

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his service both in the Foreign Office and in the British military. I can confirm that the camps in north-east Syria remain a high priority.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for being so quick to condemn Netanyahu for yet again trying to block aid from getting into Gaza, and for his condemnation of the new settlements, which, I hope, will not actually go forward.

I want to talk about Iran. Before Christmas, I visited a few schools in Edinburgh South West—Boroughmuir, Balerno, Currie and Tynecastle high schools—where I met young people who were really keen to vote in our Scottish Parliament elections this year. By contrast, I see on social media that young people of around the same age in Iran are out on the streets risking everything to vote—particularly women, given the pressures in that country. Will the Minister join me in applauding those young people in Iran, particularly the women, for all that they are doing? When he meets his Iranian counterpart, will he remind them that those people have the right to protest and determine their country’s future?

[Mr Falconer]

We do remind the Iranian authorities of the right to protest. It is vital that that people are able to conduct that right with access to communications, which have come under pressure in Iran in recent days, and indeed without the threat of violence.

Venezuela

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, successive Governments have not recognised the Venezuelan regime, which is the basis on which the independent Bank of England took its decision. We continue not to recognise the Venezuelan regime because it is important that we have the pressure in place to have a transition to a democracy, which is also about the will of the Venezuelan people. Obviously, there are independent decisions for the Bank of England to take, but our principles are about maintaining and pursuing stability and a transition to democracy, and that is what is guiding our approach to recognition.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. She has been getting lots of advice in response, but I do not think any of us really envy her position. I thank her for talking to the leader of the opposition, María Corina Machado, which is the right thing to do. The Foreign Secretary outlined how she had spoken to Secretary of State Rubio about a transition to democracy, but is there a timeline associated with that? Will the recognition of the Venezuelan Government only happen once a Government has been democratically elected?

[Yvette Cooper]

We do not currently have a timeline for that transition. The Venezuelan opposition have said that the first step has to be an end to political repression, the release of political prisoners and the safe return to Venezuela of opposition politicians, because without that there cannot be free and fair elections. So the first step that we are pressing for is an end to political repression, and that is what we are urging the acting President to do.

Venezuela: US Military

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Lady for those important questions. The US is of course the UK’s principal defence and security partner. We have extensive discussions on a wide range of shared security objectives, including counter-narcotics. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are, of course, continuing to work with our international partners to achieve a peaceful negotiated transition in Venezuela, which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

One of my guilty secrets is that I like to listen to CNN in the evening, so I know that people in the United States are divided on this issue. The Minister started by talking about sanctions. Have we assessed the impact of the sanctions on Venezuela? What efforts are we making with civil society there to protect human rights? I really respect the fact that we are not engaging with the way in which the United States is trying to deal with the drug trade there, but are we able to show leadership in the region by trying to restrict the drugs trade in a way that definitely fits with international law? When did he last speak to his counterpart in the US in an effort to reach a peaceful solution on this issue?

[Mr Falconer]

On my hon. Friend’s last question, I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in discussions with her US counterparts in recent days on these questions. He asks an important question about civil society. We strongly condemn the ongoing repression of civil society and members of the opposition in Venezuela. We continue to call for the unconditional release of those arbitrarily detained, including members of civil society and independent media, such as through the UK’s published statement to the UN Human Rights Council in its most recent session.

Budget Resolutions

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman is a veritable champion of his constituency and of rural issues. There are very important changes to the minimum wage and the living wage, which will have an impact, and there is a lot that can be welcomed for rural areas, but I recognise that his constituency and mine sometimes have very different challenges, and I welcome the fact that he champions that here. Obviously, I have not had a chance to look through the Red Book and the Blue Book, but we on the Treasury Committee will bear that in mind.

Seventy per cent of children in poverty are in working families, so the chutzpah of the Leader of the Opposition talking about people making a lifestyle choice really makes my blood boil. In 60% of households hit by the two-child limit, the parents are in work, and 15% of affected families include mothers whose babies are too young for them to work.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said it better than any of us could: the Victorian rape clause means that women face humiliation. Notionally, it affects 3,600 women, but we on the Treasury Committee heard evidence that women will not put themselves or their children through the humiliation of using that policy. Any policy that required a workaround like that is outdated and long needed to be gone, and I commend my right hon. Friend for tackling the issue.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her forensic analysis of our Budget. Will she take an intervention from the Leader of the Opposition, so that she can apologise for that awful policy and its impact?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

It is interesting that the Opposition are doubling down on the policy, which is humiliating people.

Let us be clear: the birth rate in this country has fallen year on year for the last three years. It is well below where it needs to be. I think that only Luton is at 2.1, which is about where the rate needs to be. Actually, that is a bit lower than where it needs to be. This is a real crisis for the country in the long term, so it is absolutely right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is investing in the future of Britain. Young people in my constituency may be poor, but there is no poverty of ambition. Children I met when I was elected 20 years ago are now doctors, barristers and enterprising businesspeople, in spite of the challenges they faced. Just think about the ones who did not get there because they could not overcome the challenges of deep-seated poverty. We should invest in our young people, and that is what this Government are doing, including through apprenticeships, the youth guarantee and the nine youth hubs in London, one of which is in my constituency.

I really welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend listened to the Treasury Committee on the gambling taxation regime. We are a cross-party Committee, but our report was unanimous that there was a real issue with the lower tax on online gambling because of the relative harm that it caused, compared with going to the races or popping along to a local betting shop. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to change the gambling taxation regime; that will contribute to taking children out of poverty.

On the ISA changes, I caution my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Treasury is watching very closely the impact on mortgages and lending by building societies, because that was a concern in the evidence we heard. If we want to get people into their own homes through the building that will be going on, we need to make sure that mortgages are available to them, so I hope that the Treasury is in ongoing dialogue on that issue, despite the change having been made.

We need to recognise some of the challenges with green taxes. I have not had a chance to go through the Red Book in the time since the Chancellor sat down, but I very much welcome her bold and necessary decision to take on the challenge of the reduction in fuel duty as people move to electric vehicles. This has been a point of debate for at least the last decade or so. In my time on the Public Accounts Committee, we kept challenging the Treasury on how it would fill the gap, and my right hon. Friend has been bold and right to address the challenge. It is a difficult one to grapple with, but it is great that she has done so. We look forward to hearing more about that. On supporting people with the cost of living, the freeze on rail fares, keeping the bus fare cap and the ongoing freeze on fuel duty will help people get to work.

The increase in the minimum wage and the living wage are vital. In my constituency, some people work four jobs over seven days, just to make ends meet. Even if they are lucky enough to have a council tenancy, it is hard to make ends meet on those salaries. Going into private sector housing is completely unaffordable for those on that kind of income. Contrast that with people who work four days a week because they can afford to do so. I am not criticising them for that life choice, but that is the challenge that we face.

There has been a lot of discussion about a high-value property tax. In my constituency, around 1% of properties are worth over £2 million, and that is in central London. The Opposition might scream foul on this, but in London’s zones 1 and 2—my constituency is right on the edge of the City and 10 minutes from Liverpool Street—around 1% of people will face the surcharge. That is a small price to pay when families next door are living in the deepest poverty, as I have described. It is also great to see some movement on energy bills, which is having a really big impact.

There is a lot more detail in the Budget, which the Treasury Committee will look at over the next couple of weeks. We look forward to welcoming the Chancellor to the Committee on 10 December, when we will ask her to explain, but also challenge her on, the detail of her Budget, as is our proper constitutional responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for a fascinating lecture on amnesia—it was dripping with irony given his last role in government.

I wish to congratulate the Chancellor on delivering what is almost certainly her final Budget. There is no conceivable way—not politically and certainly not economically—she can remain in post for a further year. Businesses, workers, bill payers, farmers, hospices, industry and the public sector cannot endure another cycle of this Chancellor. It has been just over a year since she stood at the Dispatch Box, delivered her first Budget and boasted that she had made the “right choices”—if anyone outside the real economy believed that, we would not be in this situation right now. She promised to

“restore stability to our public finances”

and to

“drive growth right across our country.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 828.]

She told us that growth would be her central Budget mission.

However, last month the IMF forecast that the UK will have the lowest per-capita growth in the G7 next year at just 0.5%, compared with the 1.4% average for advanced economies. Labour promised to turn the page on high food prices, but households see food inflation running out of control—it hit 4.9% last month. The Chancellor promised more jobs to tackle poverty, but unemployment hit 5% this month—its highest level since the pandemic—while poverty is at record levels. Government borrowing stands at a five-year high—£17.4 billion for October alone—and Labour is spending double the defence budget every year just to service the UK’s chronic national debt. The OECD has downgraded the UK’s economic prospects, singling out the Chancellor’s policies as exposing the economy to “significant downside risk”.

That gloomy prognosis is not borne out only in the SNP’s analysis; just listen to the Chancellor. She has spent the past 18 months insisting that the economy is in a terrible state, while blaming everyone and everything except herself, and misunderstanding what negativity her musings signal to investor confidence. It is as if she forgets that she is the Chancellor, as yet another stream of consciousness resonates—invariably negatively—around the economy. She has blamed the black hole—yes, the one that the SNP told Labour about before the election, and which she pretended only to discover after getting into No. 11. She has blamed the markets for their focus on her fiscal rules—you could not make it up—and she has blamed Brexit, despite having herself voted to trigger article 50.

However, this is not just about the fundamental economic incompetence of the Chancellor, nor just about Labour’s inheritance, which, while bad, was not the cause of this malaise. This crisis remains a product the Chancellor’s catastrophic decisions, and she will own them, just as she will own Labour’s compound fiscal bonfire. She is the in the frame for one of the most chaotic preludes to any Budget in living memory. Andy Haldane, former chief economist of the Bank of England, called it a “circus” of speculation around the Budget. The endless leaks, U-turns and media trails created panic in the economy, which, according to Mr Haldane,

“without any shadow of a doubt”

contributed to weaker than expected economic growth in the UK.

There is nothing meaningful in the Budget on energy. The measures on energy bills are a start, but they do not fulfil Labour’s election promise to reduce bills by £300. Bills are set to rise in January and again in April; £150 off energy bills will still leave the Labour party in a debit of £87 a year on its commitment at the election.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

I will give way in a second. The SNP did Labour’s job for it, with a Budget proposal that involved a surcharge on banks that would have created the £300 discount for bill payers, just like Labour promised. I am very happy to give way to the hon. Member, if he can tell me when Labour will come good on that promise.

[Dr Arthur]

Of course, if the hon. Gentleman takes the time to read our manifesto, which we were elected on in Scotland, he will see that that promise was to be met at the end of this Parliament, so we are actually ahead of schedule. I am sure he welcomes that, just like he welcomes the extra £500 million in cash and £300 million in capital going to Scotland, and the commitment to above-inflation budget rises up to 2029. It is fantastic, Madam Deputy Speaker, is it not?

[Dave Doogan]

I am sure the public will be delighted to hear Labour’s never-never promise on energy bills. Unlike the hon. Member, I do not exist on my knees, waiting to get patted on the head by Labour Ministers on the Front Bench. I am off my knees. The consequentials we get in Scotland are a consequence not of largesse by the Labour party but of the taxes that Scottish enterprise creates within this so-called United Kingdom.

There is nothing in the Budget on the energy profits levy, which is putting North sea oil and gas into an early grave. As things stand, 42% of the forecast revenue of firms in the North sea oil and gas sector for 2026 is expected to come from outside the UK continental shelf. Analysis earlier this month from the Fraser of Allander Institute showed that the industry is undergoing an accelerated decline. In my view, that is a direct result of this Labour Government, who do not understand energy or the economy. This is Scotland’s reality within the so-called Union: our future and our natural endowments decided on by Westminster Ministers rather than the people of Scotland.

It must really stick in the craw, especially for Scottish Labour MPs who have to come down here to toe the party line, to see the difference that Scotland has had under the SNP since 2007. Under the SNP, GDP in Scotland has grown by 10.2% per person compared with 6.8% in the UK. Productivity has grown in Scotland at a rate of 0.9% per year, compared to 0.3% per year in the UK, and Scotland attracted 135 foreign direct investment projects in 2024, maintaining our position as the top performing part of the UK in that regard. Labour MPs are not so keen on the facts. Scottish Labour MPs jump up and down about the new minimum wage, despite the fact that their constituents and mine are already on more than that as a result of the Scottish living wage being £13.45.

There was little today to suggest that Labour grasps the severity of the cost of living crisis, which for many people feels endless. Inflation has almost doubled under Labour, and food prices are up a staggering 37% over the last five years. People are rightly asking, “What is going to sort this?” I can assure them that it is not Labour. I am pleased to see that the two-child cap is gone, and with it the appalling rape clause. It is just a shame that all the Labour MPs who were cheering the Chancellor when she announced that today did not vote with the SNP in September 2024 when we had a motion to try to remove the cap. It is rank hypocrisy.

In the last year, businesses have been trying to survive this Labour Government, rather than trying to thrive and invest. Businesses know that this Chancellor does not understand business. Family-owned businesses feel that most acutely, and farm businesses know that the Labour party is out to get them. Today’s announcements will not repair the damage. The reality is that it is already too late for some.

Whisky duty is going up again. The Scotch Whisky Association said that hiking duty today, for the third time in two years, limits Scotch whisky’s ability to generate growth, and will have a direct consequence for investment and jobs. This Chancellor has run out of road with businesses across these isles. Last year, after £40 billion of tax rises, most of that on jobs, she said:

“I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”

She said the Government had “taken the hard decisions”, and as a result:

“We won’t have to do a Budget like this again.”

Twelve months later, here we are again with another round of tax rises. Let me make a prediction: 12 months from now, we will be back here once more, albeit with a different Chancellor.

Today’s Budget supports the view that taxes are up, borrowing is up, the cost of living is up, the cost of energy is up, spending is up, but growth—the central aim of the Chancellor, I remind the House—is down. Scotland deserves better than this Westminster version of groundhog day, and fortunately, the people of Scotland will be in a position to choose that in May’s elections.