Rejoining the EU

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

We cannot have this debate without making it explicitly clear that the situation in Scotland is different. Many Members have noted the disagreements in their constituencies, but England and Wales voted to leave while Scotland voted to remain by more than 60%. Given the consequences of what has happened since, that fact cannot be overstated. The context for people in Scotland was that two years earlier we were told by Westminster that, by choosing to remain within the Union, our future within Europe was secure and could be guaranteed. That turned out very much not to be the case. The fundamental promise for Scotland of remaining in the Union changed against our will, despite 60% of people in Scotland having voted to remain in the EU.

It is no wonder that people in Scotland increasingly see their future not only within the EU but within the EU in an independent Scotland. As many have said today, what we have seen since 2016 because of Brexit is our economy suffering, our young people being limited, our agricultural businesses being strangled and our cost of living increasing year on year. That has been a clear consequence of a future that Scotland, unlike many Members’ constituencies, did not vote for.

Scotland did not need to wait and see the consequences that we have discussed today; we knew that this would be a disaster.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Lara Bird]

I will not; sorry.

Now the Prime Minister has acknowledged that economic and social situations have changed. So many of the promises made ahead of the Brexit referendum turned out to be false, aimed at pursuing the agenda of those who did not truly have the interests of the people at heart but were operating in the pursuit of their own objectives. The PM has recently stated that the realities of that decision have not benefited the people who voted for it and that many regretted their decision. That is a feeling that so many in Scotland understand, because the promises that those claims were based on turned out to be based on false realities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I want to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for how he introduced the debate. It is customary for the mover of the motion to present a balanced argument, but in this case it is so difficult to find any benefits of leaving the EU. He had a really difficult job and I am only glad that he did not mention bendy bananas.

This debate is timely because the Prime Minister has just this afternoon outlined his vision for a closer relationship with the EU. The important point to remember in all of this, and absolutely fundamental, is the need to work with other political parties to make that happen, because it is in the national interest and we find ourselves in a difficult time. That requires honesty. If all political parties are going into this debate, they have to be honest about the impact of Brexit. We must also be honest that rejoining the EU is not an easy proposition. I say gently to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that it would take years to re-enter. It is right that we look for benefits in the interim; I would be surprised if there was a referendum on rejoining within a decade.

[Paula Barker in the Chair]

I want to make four or five observations. People in my constituency are finding life difficult now because of five things: the financial crash, Brexit, covid, the Ukraine war and Iran. Some of that damage can be undone if we look again at Brexit. It is right that people have been asking who benefits from Brexit. Certainly, no business in my constituency has said that they have, and no student or academic says that they feel the benefit from Brexit—I cannot even think of a resident who would say that. We have heard that the Russians may have benefited; perhaps politicians who take bribes from Russia have as well, but I think that that person is in jail so we cannot speak to him.

What infuriates me most is how immigration was weaponised by the right during the Brexit debate: they told us that we would get control of immigration again. In fact, we lost control of immigration. Now the same right-wing politicians are back, trying to weaponise immigration when perhaps they should be apologising for what happened. As the world moves towards becoming more isolationist through Trump’s tariffs and the European “Made in Europe” agenda, the UK is exposed more than ever as an island in the middle of the Atlantic without being part of that bigger trade bloc to negotiate with other nations. I say gently to my Scottish nationalist colleagues who talk about the impact of Brexit that it would have been so different if the SNP had not blocked a customs union for the UK when it had the chance. It chose to abstain, and that abstention swung the vote. They should own that and apologise. I have got that off my chest—[Interruption.] Feel free to intervene.

We have to think carefully about what any future realignment might look like. We must acknowledge that the toxicity and fake news during the Brexit referendum mean that many people will feel uncertain about reopening the debate. Many will feel very uncertain about the prospect of a referendum as well, if one is to come. That is why incrementally getting closer to the EU makes sense—we have to win the argument one step at a time. We should start with trade, defence, security and student mobility. But we cannot talk about those as abstract concepts; we need to talk about what they will mean for people in our constituencies, particularly young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend is right. The same polls that show that citizens in France and Germany would support British membership only if it came without those previous opt-outs show that, among British voters, support for rejoining collapses if we do not have those previous opt-outs. If those previous opt-outs and derogations are removed, support again dips to barely 30%.

I wonder how many of the people who signed this petition did so in the eager anticipation of trading His Majesty the King on our banknotes for a fistful of euro cents. Did they sign up to surrender our borders or did they imagine that, if we asked very politely, the European Union would grant us all the privileges of membership while demanding none of the obligations? As the independent economist Julian Jessop recently pointed out, public enthusiasm for rejoining has a funny habit of evaporating the precise moment that voters are confronted with the small print. That is why I am confident that, if the Government were to take up the petitioners’ proposal, and if they had the courage to put that question to the British people, it would be comprehensively rejected.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I have given way three times. I will for a fourth, but this may be the last.

[Dr Arthur]

Some of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have signed this petition. Just to be clear, is he doubting the intelligence and commitment of the people who signed it? He seems to be saying that they have not done their homework.

[Mike Wood]

No, not at all. I am not somebody who questions people’s motives or intelligence just because of the way they have approached the question of Europe; I very much leave that to others. I will say that approaching 70% of my constituents voted to leave in 2016, and if there was a referendum on rejoining, I would expect a larger proportion than that to vote no.

When people realise that an accession bid means ditching our currency, tearing down our independent border controls and signing an annual membership cheque that independent analysts estimate would comfortably clear £25 billion a year, the rosy glow fades fast. We would be asking British taxpayers already feeling the squeeze from this Government’s domestic tax hikes to subsidise regional infrastructure funds across the continent while our own local roads are crying out for repair.

Direction of Government

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have been very clear that I will take a pragmatic approach, and the hon. Gentleman will see that in action soon.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He mentioned the triple-helix model, but what is missing from that model in Scotland is that local authorities are not empowered to play their part. On Friday, Liz McAreavey from the Edinburgh chamber of commerce and the chief executive of the Glasgow chamber of commerce wrote to the Prime Minister asking that he works with the First Minister in Scotland and city region leaders right across the Edinburgh-Glasgow region to forge a devolution deal that enables these cities to meet their full potential. Will he take that offer seriously?

[The Prime Minister]

It is certainly on offer from me to have a devolution deal that does precisely what my hon. Friend says and gets business, academia and local government all pulling together. Obviously it is a matter for the Scottish Government—I am not going to go round their back—but I hope that we can agree something at the National Economic Council next month.

National Security

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is right that these measures have been brought forward, and the Opposition will support them. The powers Parliament created through the National Security Act exist for precisely this purpose. They are there to respond to hostile state activity and those who threaten our national security. It is right that they are now being used. That said, we have consistently argued that these powers should have been deployed sooner, particularly against the IRGC. We made the case repeatedly because the threat was clear. While it is disappointing that it has taken this long, it is nevertheless welcome that action is now being taken against these organisations.

As we heard throughout today’s earlier debate, Iran continues to pose a serious threat to the United Kingdom. It seeks to intimidate, to interfere and to undermine our security, often through the use of proxies and affiliated organisations. That is why it is right that the regulations do not focus solely on the IRGC itself. The Iranian regime does not operate through one organisation alone. It relies on a network of proxies to spread fear, conduct hostile activity and threaten those it regards as opponents. The Minister has already set out clearly why each of these organisations meets the test for designation, so I will not repeat those arguments, but it is important that we recognise the danger they pose.

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

The hon. Gentleman says that he wished the Government had acted sooner. Did the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026 not get Royal Assent a week or two ago? I think our Ministers have acted very quickly indeed.

[Matt Vickers]

We put in place powers that assist in this. The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe, regardless of which party is in office. We introduced the National Security Act 2023. The Minister and I have had many debates on this subject, pushing for action, and we have been clear and consistent that the powers should have been used much more quickly. If the Government are now doing what is necessary to protect the public, they will have our support. National security should not be a political football.

Groups such as the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right demonstrate how quickly new organisations can emerge, targeting people here in the United Kingdom while often acting on behalf of hostile states. We know that their activities have included threats against dissidents and particular hostility towards Britain’s Jewish community.

That brings me to a wider point. The rise in antisemitism we have seen in recent years is deeply disturbing. Jewish people in this country should never have to look over their shoulder because of who they are or what they believe. Equally, those who have come to Britain to escape authoritarian regimes should be able to live here free from intimidation and fear. Protecting those communities is not optional; it is a fundamental responsibility of the state. These organisations, and those who support them, should face the full force of the law. Parliament has provided the powers; now they must be used robustly.

When the 2026 Act was before this House, we spent a great deal of time scrutinising how the powers would work in practice. We asked whether there were gaps in the legislation and whether hostile actors might find ways around them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the operation of these new powers is being kept under close review, their effectiveness is being assessed, and, if weaknesses emerge, the Government will not hesitate to act.

But legislation alone will never be enough. The organisations we are dealing with today are driven by ideologies that reject everything this country stands for. They seek to divide communities, spread hatred and undermine confidence in our democratic way of life. They do not believe in debate; they believe in intimidation. They do not persuade; they threaten. That is why our response has to be broader than enforcement alone. Of course we need strong policing. Of course we need capable intelligence agencies. Of course we need robust legislation. But we also need confidence in who we are as a country. We need to defend the values that unite us: democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those are not abstract ideas. They are the very things these organisations seek to attack.

If we are serious about protecting our national security, we must do both: relentlessly pursue those who threaten us, while strengthening the resilience of the society they seek to undermine. That is why we support the regulations today. They are an important step and they send a clear message that those acting on behalf of hostile states, or supporting those who do, will find no safe haven in the United Kingdom.

National Security

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points, and for his acknowledgment of our intention to introduce legislation that would allow the UK Government to proscribe state-backed entities. He will know that a range of measures have already been leveraged against the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. I think it was back in November last year that I announced a range of measures to defend against the threat that we undoubtedly face from Iran.

The hon. Gentleman’s point about charities is entirely reasonable. We work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Charity Commission, to tackle the kinds of behaviours he describes. He makes a reasonable point; I will take it away, and come back to him with a further update on the work we are doing. Good work is under way. I hope that he gets a sense, not just from the statement but from the various interactions and exchanges we have had over many months, of how seriously we take these issues. If he wants to discuss them with me further, I would be happy to.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and his unequivocal support for the Jewish community. I am proud to have an Iranian community in Edinburgh South West. They are concerned about people in that community who speak out against the Iranian regime, particularly journalists, who they fear may be persecuted in the UK. What are the Minister and the Government doing to protect people who speak out against that awful regime? I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is a fantastic champion for the Jewish community in the UK: if we have any evidence that Iran is behind some of the attacks we have seen on British soil, why do we not simply close its embassy? We do not have to wait for legislation to do that.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and let me reiterate the Government’s position that the targeting, harassment and coercion of anybody here in the United Kingdom, including, of course, the Iranian community and journalists, is completely unacceptable. On what we are doing to counter the threat from Iran, we have now sanctioned more than 550 Iranian individuals and entities and have placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, the IRGC and MOIS—the Ministry of Intelligence and Security—on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Importantly, we have also rolled out new training for all frontline police officers on state threats, so at a localised level—of course, this will be the case in Scotland as well—police forces have the insight and knowledge to identify and investigate the type of activity that he describes. But I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we treat it, and we will stand firmly against the threat from Iran.

Debate on the Address

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey]

Not at the moment.

To be fair to the Government, some of our current economic problems stem from President Trump and his reckless war in Iran. Let us be absolutely clear: Trump’s war is stoking the cost of living crisis to new and alarming levels—fuel prices are up at the pump, food prices are set to go up even more, and people’s holidays are threatened. The Prime Minister’s biggest success was not taking us into Trump’s damaging war with Iran when the Conservatives and Reform were urging him to do so, yet because of the Government’s failure to build new and deeper economic alliances with Europe and the Commonwealth, as we have been urging them to do, this country is set to be hit far harder by the inflation caused by the situation in the strait of Hormuz.

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

We all recognise the impact that Trump’s war is going to have on our economy. The right hon. Gentleman offers membership of the single market and the customs union as a solution to that, but prices in Edinburgh South West are going up right now. How long, in his estimation, would it take to access the single market and become a member of the customs union?

[Ed Davey]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not noticed that we are the only party who have put forward a costed package to reduce the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps—something that could be done immediately. I think he should pay more attention.

Trumpflation is predicted to be worse here because of the failures of this Government, and indeed the last. Cosying up to this White House was never going to work, and it has not. I suspect that history will show that the Prime Minister’s approach to President Trump was one of his worst mistakes.

The sad truth is that President Trump is one of the reasons why so many people in our country feel insecure, anxious and fearful about the future. From trade tariffs to the weakening of NATO, President Trump has broken all the certainties British people and businesses used to rely on, yet this Government have been far too slow to realise that and to respond to this new reality. The Conservatives and Reform may not have woken up, but there is no excuse for the Government. It has therefore been left to us. The country can know that my party will champion the new and changing international alliances that are so vital for the British economy and the defence of the United Kingdom.

Let me try to find an area of agreement. I do welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward an energy independence Bill, although we will scrutinise it line by line and advance our more ambitious ideas. I have long felt that energy independence should be a long-term goal for our country and our allies; even before Trump’s war in Iran, people and businesses were being hit because of our dependence on others for fuel. Energy bills for households are still around a third higher than before Putin’s war in Ukraine. When fossil fuel dictators like Vladimir Putin can hit the pockets of every family and pensioner in our country and tyrannical regimes like Tehran’s can hold our country and the world to ransom, surely it is time to wake up.

Oil and gas prices have a long history of spiking and hurting our economy. Even when North sea oil and gas production was at its height—now almost 30 years ago—the UK could still be hit because we have always been price takers. While I have always been pragmatic about our North sea oil industry for our economy—not least in Scotland—it is simply fantasy and fabrication for some in this House to pretend that there is a solution in the North sea to high energy prices.

The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power. We will therefore push the Government to go further in the energy independence Bill, just as we did on solar power early in this Parliament with the sunshine Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson)—now reflected in law.

The Prime Minister, or whoever replaces him, must take up our plan to protect people from Trumpflation on fuel bills and cut fuel duty, rail fares and bus prices to protect British families and businesses right now.

The Liberal Democrat agenda of greater security for families and businesses begins with greater economic, financial and energy security, but it is also built on greater security for our country. The Government must do far more to bolster our nation’s defences. With Vladimir Putin waging war in Europe and the need to redouble our efforts to support our brave Ukrainian allies to beat Russia, with a wildly unpredictable President sitting in the White House, leading a dangerous and idiotic war in the middle east and undermining NATO at every turn, and with a world order challenged by the rise of China, the case for an urgent and significant rise in defence spending is clearly a strong one.

It is even stronger when one looks at the state of our defence readiness. The Conservatives failed on the No. 1 task of any Government: to defend our country and back our armed forces. They left our Army at its lowest size since the Napoleonic war, and they left our Navy at its lowest size since the English civil war. Yet this Labour Government have moved at a snail’s pace, failing month after month to publish their own defence investment plan. In contrast, we have called for the immediate launch of defence bonds to raise £20 billion over two years, building on successful models used by Poland, and for a commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. We have argued for a new European rearmament bank so that our defence industries will lead the next generation of defence technologies.

If the history of the last century taught us anything, and if the experience of President Trump has taught us anything, it is essential and urgent that we work with our European and Commonwealth allies to secure and defend our country, our values and our way of life.

Central to our British way of life is the NHS, to which I now turn. It is important I do so, because I am likely to be the only Opposition party leader to stand up for healthcare in this debate, as the Conservatives are so embarrassed by their record and Reform’s leader has spent decades saying that he wants to get rid of the NHS entirely. The Government would have us believe that they have turned the NHS around after the mess left by the last Government, but when he is not plotting his next leadership bid against the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State would have Labour Back Benchers believe that he is fixing the NHS. If only.

Now we are told that the Health Secretary is planning to resign tomorrow. This resignation is taking so long that it would give NHS waiting lists a run for their money. Anyone who visits their local hospital knows that the NHS remains in a critical state. Thousands of people are still being treated in hospital corridors every day. We are now even seeing job adverts for people to provide care in corridors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

No. I am going to make progress and close my speech.

Defence is the first duty of government, but under this Labour Government, if we had a significant investment for every blunderbuss piece of hyperbole and rhetoric on defence, we would be in a far better position than we are. The Prime Minister said in his speech earlier that we are negotiating a de-escalation of the war in Iran. He did not tell us which of the three protagonists was listening to the pontifications of the UK Prime Minister—because not one of the three participants in that conflict could care less what the Prime Minister thinks about the war in Iran.

The defence investment plan—the road map for what defence will look like in the United Kingdom for the next decade—is now a year late. I do not know what the Government think they can get away with, but if their signal, apex piece of defence legislation is more than a year late, that tells this Parliament and everyone up and down these islands that they do not have a clue about defence any more than they have a clue about anything else.

[Dr Arthur]

I am genuinely grateful to be here for the hon. Gentleman’s first speech as SNP leader here in Westminster. It is just a shame that only one other of his fellow SNP MPs is here—no doubt they are all on important business. I know that he does champion the defence sector, unlike some of his colleagues in Scotland, but he sits on the Scottish Affairs Committee and he knows the sector’s concerns about skills development and education in Scotland. Does he share those concerns, and what is he doing to influence his colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that the sector is more fully supported?

[Dave Doogan]

The defence sector is a significant part of the Scottish economy, and I just wish that the hon. Gentleman and his Unionist colleagues in the Labour party, and in other lesser parties, would acknowledge the fact that this is a mutual endeavour and that the UK benefits greatly from the skills and expertise that exist in Scotland, as well as from the apprenticeships, training and investment. Let us not forget that everybody who works in the defence sector in Scotland went through a Scottish school, a Scottish apprenticeship, a Scottish college or a Scottish university. There is this idea that everything was fantastic previously and is terrible now. The former is not true, and the latter is not true either. It is a work in progress, and we are investing heavily in Scottish education. That is why such a high percentage of people leaving school in Scotland are going on to a positive destination.

The Prime Minister said that he was going to take steps to bring the United Kingdom into the very heart of Europe. Well, he is not going to do that without rejoining the EU, so this is yet more hyperbole and fantasy. My final word on this is that a Government in this level of disarray—with this level of division and infighting, who have caused so much damage in such a short period of time to people’s livelihoods and to the economy—needed to make an emergency response today, but this King’s Speech was anything but. I look forward to them getting their house in order, but I won’t be holding my breath.

Government Procurement Strategy

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ten-minute rule Bill. He has raised an important issue, one that is obviously incredibly important to his constituency and many others. As I say, we are starting with the four industries I have set out today, but we will look at others going forward, and I would be happy to talk with him and see what more we can do in future.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. It is common sense that we use the Government’s procurement power to support British jobs, but sadly that common sense is lacking in Scotland, where the Scottish Government are buying ferries from Poland, Turkey and China. Yesterday, Unite highlighted that the Scottish Government have given a grant to private bus companies in Scotland to buy 166 buses from China; meanwhile, publicly owned Lothian Buses is using its share of the grant to buy buses from the fantastic Alexander Dennis Ltd. Does the Minister join me in hoping that on 7 May, Scotland will vote Labour to elect a Government who put British jobs first?

I have a Fox’s Burton’s Companies UK biscuit factory in my constituency, which makes a delicacy known as the Jammie Dodger biscuit. Will this change make it more likely that when I next visit the Minister’s Department, Jammie Dodger biscuits will be available to me?

[Chris Ward]

I have to say that of all the questions I was mulling over when I was going through this, the impact on Jammie Dodgers was not top of my list, but maybe it should have been—I will think about that. My hon. Friend makes a good point about how the Scottish Government have not used their procurement powers well enough over the years, and the fiascos he highlighted demonstrate that. It is a shame that no one from the SNP is in the Chamber to hear what he says, but it is good that Labour MPs are present to make the case for doing more to support jobs in Scotland.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of the Five Eyes, with more classified intelligence crossing his desk than crosses the desks of most Cabinet Ministers. It is obviously one of the most important appointments the Prime Minister makes, but it is also one of the most sensitive. A security failure in that post could seriously jeopardise the Five Eyes relationship—the Americans are notoriously twitchy about security—so the appointee’s conduct before the appointment must be beyond reproach and their trustworthiness must be impeccable.

One of our best ambassadors, Karen Pierce, was already in place. She was highly regarded by the State Department and the White House; indeed—contrary to what the Lib Dem leader said—so much so that President Trump called the Prime Minister to urge him to keep Pierce while expressing concern about Mandelson in one of three calls from the White House on her behalf and against him. She was a high-class, high-performance, zero-risk choice. Against that, we had the London establishment’s view that Mandelson’s amoral dark arts would somehow make him a good ambassador—a view typically espoused by people with no idea of what makes a good ambassador.

Among the questions before us in assessing the Prime Minister’s judgment is whether Mandelson was a better appointment than Karen Pierce and, if so, whether the benefit of that appointment was sufficient to outweigh the clear risks. Of course, the answer to both those questions is an emphatic no. It was abundantly clear to anyone taking that decision that he was a significant security risk. He was a man who had twice been forced to resign from Government and who had known links to a paedophile.

Mandelson was also closely associated with the Russian oligarch Deripaska, a man who had been responsible for the deaths of 100 people and was personally responsible for murders and extortion. Mr Mandelson—Lord Mandelson, as he was then—spent weekends with Deripaska in his dacha and in Moscow. He did this at weekends, of course, because the EU does not record where its commissioners are at the weekend. That is the sort of background we are talking about.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the leader of my party, Mandelson was also a non-executive director of Sistema, a Russian arms dealing company led by a Putin ally. When he stood down from his role at Sistema, he took a large shareholding, which he kept for some time. All of this is in the public domain. It was in the public domain before Mandelson was appointed. There were links to China, too. I can list them over and over again: TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese state; and Shein, which is based on Uyghur forced labour. Of course, he also called time and again for closer Anglo-Chinese relationships.

When appointments such as these are made, it is not a judgment beyond reasonable doubt. It is not even a judgment based on the balance of probabilities. It is a judgment on significant risk. Are we going to take a significant risk with the Five Eyes relationship? Of course we are not. It should be clear, on public data alone, that this man is, or was, a significant risk. Indeed, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office flagged to No. 10 most of the issues I have just described before this process started.

Mr Speaker, forgive me for being so direct, but we should remember that Peter Mandelson is a man who has proven that he is greedy for money, greedy for glamour, greedy for status and greedy for power, and that he is willing to break the rules to get them. That is the key point: he is willing to break the rules to get them. Such a man is a classic security risk in the face of Russian or Chinese kompromat, not to mention the risk posed by his known involvement with Epstein.

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

I am not in the Peter Mandelson fan club—I am old enough to remember his first life in government—but this morning we heard that UKVS had judged him to be a borderline risk and that officials thought that that risk could be managed. That is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman is outlining.

[David Davis]

That is the public information. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into the argument between UKVS, which we are now told was saying the risk was marginal, and No. 10, who are saying that the strike-off is a red, he can do that. I am talking about public data, and about what we should know before we start the process—

[Dr Arthur]

rose—

[David Davis]

No, no, the hon. Gentleman has had his go. Sit down.

No. 10 has chosen to ignore these things, and that is critical. We have heard about the pressure that was being put on the Foreign Office over and over again. Forgive me again, Mr Speaker, for this direct quote, because it is obscene. The Select Committee Chairman recounted today how Morgan McSweeney called Sir Olly’s predecessor and told him to, “Just fucking approve it.” Speaking in the Committee, Sir Olly made it clear that he was under “constant pressure” in an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Why? We already know that it was not because Mandelson was a materially better candidate than Karen Pierce, the brilliant, well-established, highly regarded incumbent with excellent connections to the White House. It was because Mandelson was a leading member of the new Labour aristocracy, full stop. It was not talent, but connection. It was not even in the national interest. Plainly it was not even in the Labour interest. It was in the interest of a Labour clique.

Mandelson’s appointment was a decision made with complete disregard for the known risks, which explains the Prime Minister’s lack of curiosity about the vetting. It was not a lack of curiosity; he did not ask because he did not want to know. The former Cabinet Secretary warned the Prime Minister that he should secure Mandelson’s security clearance before any appointment. He was warned on 11 December 2024 by the Cabinet Office about Mandelson’s public past. On 11 September last year, No. 10 was asked by a journalist whether Mandelson had failed developed vetting. No. 10 knew. It is as plain as a pikestaff.

So where do we go from here? We have a Prime Minister and a Government in power who are making decisions in the interests of their own clique within their party, and in doing so they are putting the United Kingdom at explicit risk. The Prime Minister should resign.

Antisemitic Attacks

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is right that we should be—and I think are—very proud of our collective Jewish heritage. I pay tribute to her nan. I hope the hon. Member would acknowledge that the Rycroft review is an important step forward in tackling some of the issues that she raised. I hope she understands how seriously we take the commitments that we have made. As the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has described, we will bring forward amendments as soon as we can.

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

For most of my life, the UK was becoming a more tolerant society, so it really pains me that in recent years we have been going backwards; that is particularly true of the hate and violence faced by the Jewish community. That is why it was right that Kanye West was banned from entering the UK.

Last week, I attended a Yom HaShoah event right next to Parliament, in which the Jewish community came together to mark the end of the Holocaust. They also reflected on the fact that there are still challenges ahead in the UK, which should shame us. The Minister has likened some of the recent violence in the UK to that in the Iranian state. What action will we take if there is found to be any connection between the people arrested and the Iranian state? The previous Government cut off diplomatic relations with Iran and its barbaric regime; will he follow suit?

[Dan Jarvis]

At moments like this, it can be tempting to focus on those who seek to divide our communities, but it is also important to reflect, as I have done, on the extraordinary good work in communities right around our country. On the point that my hon. Friend made at the end of his remarks, the National Security Act 2023 provides us with the legislative framework we need to take action against those who would seek to undermine our national security, and we will do everything we can to keep the public safe.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

A number of changes can be made without legislation, and I will be able to update the House on that in due course. That will of course be quicker to implement as a consequence of its not requiring statute. Where we specifically need statutory changes, which I think at this stage will predominantly relate to the removal of peerages from those who bring the other place into disrepute, we will bring those forward in the coming months.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and also for the tone in which he has brought it here today. It has been quite an open statement in terms of the discussion. As a Government, we are serious about the whole agenda of violence against women and girls, and I just cannot conclude that giving Mandelson £75,000 is compatible with that, so I hope that he repays it. Constituents in Edinburgh South West are really concerned about Epstein’s links into the British establishment, particularly given the allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson himself. I know that a live court case and investigation are under way, but can the Government commit to a public inquiry into Epstein’s links into the British state, once these court cases are over?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in this country and that investigations are happening in the United States, in Congress and elsewhere. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody who had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or any connection to the events or organisations that he hosted should be readily putting themselves forward to answer any questions and trying to help bring justice to the victims, who have been waiting for too long.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for the way in which he introduced the debate. He did forget, though, in his recollections, that we could have had a customs union if he had not abstained on that decision, along with his 35 SNP colleagues. That is a simple fact. Perhaps he can address that in his winding-up speech.

One of the challenges we face as a country is that so many people in the UK feel left behind. They still feel the impacts of the banking crisis and of covid. Both were once in a lifetime but have been exaggerated and amplified by Brexit. The Brexiteers told us that all we needed to do to set our country on a wealthier path was to get rid of the Europeans. I have to say that it is very similar to the argument we hear from Donald Trump about Mexicans and also the argument we hear from the SNP about getting rid of the rest of the UK. All three are wrong for exactly the same reasons.

Now the same Brexiteers tell us that all we have to do to set our country on a wealthier path is to get rid of immigrants—to other them. Again, that is not correct, particularly when we remember that there are about 350,000 immigrants working in our NHS. We all know that the route to prosperity is to work more closely with our biggest trading partners, and for us that is the European Union. I am proud that this Government have taken us in that direction. I do hope that one day we rejoin the EU, but I do recognise that, as others have hinted, that has to come after a manifesto commitment and a referendum. It is not something that any of us want to rush into right now, but I welcome the fact that, day by day, we are getting closer to our European partners.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

There is now a one-minute limit.